User Controls
Posts by Lanny
-
2016-08-05 at 6:31 AM UTC in -FAMOUS CALIFORNIA HELLS ANGEL METH CHEMIST vs CLANDESTINE LSD SPACE COOK-OH MAN, I totally have the context and technical knowledge to understand this!
Hahaha, this is a good thread, lets us rejoice comrade in our mutual understanding of the subjects herein discussed. It sure is great to understand things! -
2016-08-05 at 4:18 AM UTC in Roofing is easy
- roofing is easy when it's your own house and there's no time constraints. try it on a commercial basis in 120-degree heat and see how your view changes.
"I'm on the roof and it's hoooooottttt, whahhhhh, it's so hotttttt", fuck off and man up. Roofers are the niggers of the construction industry you bunch of undereducated bitches. -
2016-08-04 at 11:57 PM UTC in Identity
If we are not authoring our own thoughts than "I think, therefore I am" is about as meaningful as "I see, therefore I am" or the more basic "I am aware, therefore I am". But who says thoughts are an essential part of consciousness anyway? Maybe thoughts are just things we become conscious of, like the sounds we hear and sights we see.
Sure, those are equally valid in the cartesian model. "Thinking" to Descartes doesn't just mean like internal monologue, he means perception and spontaneous cognition, subjective experience. Perception proves the existence of a perceiver even if we have to remain skeptical about the truthfulness of those perceptions, and even if we can't claim ownership over them in some sense. Now if we didn't have reason, say we were rabbits or some sort of less sophisticated animal, we'd have the same facts available to us (awareness, thought in some form or another) but we couldn't apply methodological doubt and come to the conclusion that our awareness implies existence or that we would have reason to doubt any other proposition about the world born of our perceptions. So in some ways a certain level of thought is necessary not because that sort of thought is the only admissible evidence in a cartesian argument but rather the implement by which the argument is made. -
2016-08-04 at 5:25 PM UTC in Identity
That may very well be and I am fine with that, but you must agree that from a certain perspective you are also the same, you are both still Lanny, in the same sense that the two distinct apples are both still apples. What I am more curious about is whether or not you would agree that your simulation is you, and whether or not that even makes any sense.
I agree that I and such a simulation would be related in a very significant way. I would even go so far as to say I would feel compelled to defend its interests as if they were my own (indeed for a time at least it would have more in common with me than the Lannies of the recent past or near future), and depending on how it diverges it might serve as a sufficient stand in for me in a legal or ethical context. But I don't think we strictly need to share a personal identity for any of those things to be true (although perhaps we'd share a legal identity, depending on society and the properties of the simulation). Which doesn't strictly answer the question. I don't think there's a strict interpretation of what it means to say "that thing is me". For example, I don't believe I share a personal identity with past selves, and yet of course I might look at an old picture and say "hey, that's me" casually speaking. I don't think the "that's me" relationship is sufficiently clear cut to make a determination here, but as mentioned I do think a simulation of sufficient fidelity would carry many of the rights and responsibilities conferred by what is colloquially called personal identity.
So that's a general framework for the possibility of distributed rights and responsibilities, issues with strict identity. A further issue with the notion of "distributed identity" which is not fundamental but incidental to the simulation cases: on the common view (as well as my own) the kernel of personhood is the subjective consciousness. Descartes cogito, the thinking thing which is the only thing we may detect directly (well at least that's the way the argument goes). In a simulation scenario it would be impossible to perceive a simulation directly, in the same way we can detect our own consciousness. Indeed we could conceive of a simulation being created without our awareness and such a simulation might exist without knowledge of the consciousness it simulates. Thus there are distinct cogitos, distinct people if you accept personhood is predicated on subjective self-perception. -
2016-08-04 at 6:52 AM UTC in Bill Krozby's trashy summer reading listHey Bill Krozby, did you ever read "the great philosophers"? Which philosophers are considered great?
-
2016-08-03 at 3:55 AM UTC in ATTN: pedos^that's a blatant lie. Just in recent memory sanc was fucked by pedo-hansen and rdfrn was blackmailed out of existence. Neither of these things had even the most tangential relationship to technical feat, they were just people being assholes to eachother on the internet. The vague suggestion that you had anything to do with any of it is laughable, we all know what you're suggesting spectroll, it's just none of us believe it.
-
2016-08-03 at 3:51 AM UTC in Identity
Really… Are you fucking serious right now?… This is such a basic bitch question. I thought you were smarter than this.
Physical shit doesn't make you the person you are.
Experience makes you the person you are.
E.G.
Just because you got plastic surgery to remove a burn scar, doesn't mean it erased the experience of you escaping a burning building.
So it's back to branching and forgetfulness problems. We constantly forget facts about our pasts, hopefully most of them are minor but undeniably we can lose substantive memories, all memories are distorted with time. At what level of memory loss or distortion do we become different people, lose prior identity? Further what is the identity status of a perfect material clone of ourselves, one who has all our memories, skill, experience? Are those sorts of being us? If they are then what does it mean for there to be more than one us, if they aren't then clearly our own identity is not founded purely on experiences or states of matter. Do such beings even have any non-incidental relationship with us?
It's a complex topic, there are a lot cases to consider and so far no one has been able to come up with a coherent formulation that fits perfectly (or even well) with our intuitions. -
2016-08-03 at 12:12 AM UTC in $125 for 100mg. Starting material is sugar.So what is it? Pencil led?
-
2016-08-03 at 12:09 AM UTC in I think I might be trans.
With your permission, I'd like to repost the OP on the somethingawful forums, in the FYAD subforum. I will post replies and results.
It will probably get me banned since everyone there is either trans or wishes they were, but I feel that the results will be worth it.
[greentext]>paying the $10 troll tax[/greentext]
Son I feel bad you haven't moved on to greener pastures. -
2016-08-03 at 12:08 AM UTC in Have you ever brandished a gun at someone?
I brandished an AR-10 on some cocksucker that ripped me off
"Nice airsoft gun you got there," he says when he sees it
I remove the magazine and he suddenly stops talking shit and makes up some story about getting ripped off himself
I didn't end up doing anything to him though, it was only $20
I was homeless and drunk at the time
I feel like you could cover rent for the cost of an AR-10 in whatever shithole corner of the world you hail from. Did the gun carry some kind of sentimental value or do you consider being able to reliably kill people at range worth more than a roof over your head? -
2016-08-02 at 10:37 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first editionI don't know man, that arm swing is pretty intimidating:
American cops are pretty cuntly though if you're under a certain age, look poor, or aren't white. -
2016-08-02 at 10:28 PM UTC in the problem with kids these days
well all i know was I wasn't going around without a job as a kid and asking people for money…
Which we've established implies nothing about what other people should do. Evidently having a job at 16 doesn't promise good life outcomes.funny how you are telling me I wasted my time lecturing some teeny bopper… yet you just wasted your time lecturing an adult.. derpadew!
​I get pleasure out of making fun of you on the internet. Rest assured I do it for my sake rather than yours. -
2016-08-02 at 10:16 PM UTC in Identity
But why not? If I had a magical machine that could create a precise simulation of you, why is the simulation not you? Let's say the machine did not just simulate your essence, but had the power to manipulate matter itself and actually recreate an entire living, breathing simulation of yourself why would the simulation not be you? Why can't the same person exist in two different locations at the same time?
Because strict identity implies, well, identity. Hmm, I guess that's circular if anything ever was. But OK, so let's consider the set of all things that are you or a simulation of you. If this set contains two distinct things then they're not identical: they're distinct. If it only contains one thing, and we accept the premise that you exist in two places at once, then we are committed to affirming both the statement "the single member of this set is a simulation" and the statement "the single member of this set is not a simulation", which is a contradiction. Similarly we can make statements like "this thing is in place X and not in place X". -
2016-08-02 at 6:47 PM UTC in IdentityKind of rehash of an earlier thread but w/e.
So a lot of people argue that the essence of identity is not material but structure and continuity. That gives us a pretty intuitive answer for the classic ship of Theseus scenario but as mentioned before it doesn't seem to give us a satisfactory answer to branching scenarios. Inclusion of continuity (which is the more controversial condition for survivorship) at least gives us an answer to "Theseus builds a new ship out of the pieces he keeps pulling off the earlier one" although it's far from intuitive as in the "grandfather's axe" variation of what is essentially the same problem. Specifically branching rules out the possibility of a true identity relation across time: no two things with disparate physical embodiments may share an identity.
There may be sets of physical entities that we consider sufficiently similar, maybe there exists some formalizable morphism between elements or maybe it's purely a colloquial construction, and this we call identity, but it's not formal identity. Certainly there are things we call "Lannies" and "Sophies" out in the world but we should not confuse a time-frame's (the "Lanny of August 2nd, PST morning" or "my sock from a day ago") membership in such a set as having a true identity relation with all other members of the set. I think a "functional identity" (or more accurately, if less obvious "set inclusion considerability") model is significantly more powerful, in concept, than our traditional notion of identity. It allows us to articulate notions like "distributed identity" as mentioned in another thread (again, not actually identity), regardless of if you think it's a useful idea or not, precisely. It let's us discuss notions of personal responsibility without invoking identity semantics, which as I've argued elsewhere, are non-relevant in, say, ethical contexts. -
2016-08-02 at 2:53 AM UTC in the problem with kids these days
^i fucking care because I didnt ever do shit like that when i was their age. I worked flipping burgers at whataburger to ern my first car, not be a fucking cuck and ask my parents to buy me a car. i rode my bycicle all the way to heb to go bag groceries, while i lived at my gf's moms place, it was a scary time. I didn't just go herp durp guess i need someone to pay my train fair after i bought deisghner jeens!
Why does you having done something mean everyone else has to as well? You got diddled as a kid, does that mean everyone else should too? Why does the way other people get their money bother you? You can literally just ignore panhandlers, instead you wasted your time to try and lecture some teeny bopper because... what, because she spends money differently than you did at 16? -
2016-08-01 at 4:53 PM UTC in the problem with kids these days
dude… I don't know if you have noticed but I've been trying to be less needlessly combative with you and some of the other members here, because that was stupid for me to do.. but why are you coming at me like this now?
I'm not "coming at you", I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about people playing video games or using social media when you're going things that are entirely as non-productive or frequently self-destructive. I'm not particularly bothered by what you do with your life but you seem to have this need to feel superior to someone, anyone, so you draw these arbitrary lines in the sand ("I don't play pokemon go!", "I don't panhandle, I just take money from my parents") and act like your side is some kind of moral high ground. I'm not saying you doing or not doing these things is wrong but it's absurd to collect these wierd little categories post-hoc and wear your inclusion or exclusion from them as some kind of badge of honor.
Why not just let these people do their thing? Why do you care what 16 year old kids are doing with their time? -
2016-08-01 at 4:30 PM UTC in Manlet trump supporter goes off on a black womanWell there was the whole "back in the fields, where they belong" which I think has a pretty obvious interpretation.
-
2016-08-01 at 4:26 PM UTC in the Author of Aurthur says "black people ruin everything""to be honest we do ruin a lot of things"
top lel -
2016-07-31 at 7:17 AM UTC in Being immortal and AI
That would be a convenient answer, but it's not. There are naturally occurring antioxidants in foods such as fruits and vegetables.
An oxidation model of aging hasn't really held up so far but "derp, there's antioxidants in fruits and stuff" isn't even close to being a reasonable argument against it. -
2016-07-31 at 6:24 AM UTC in the problem with kids these days
I live in a major city and get asked for money all day long. You ignore and keep moving if they seem crazy, if they're nice smile and say sorry and don't break stride. Don't ever give them money, you're not helping them if you do.
I've never given a panhandler money when sober but it's mostly because I think there's more effective forms of charity. There's this couple I've passed on the street a few times (or at least I assume they're a couple), they look like they're late 50s, early 60s, something vaguely midwestern about them. I wonder about them sometimes, they don't have any of the usual exterior signs of being addicts or mentally ill. Honestly they kind of remind me of my parents, don't look anything like them but there's just a wierd vibe about them that seems vaguely parental. Kinda want to stop and talk to them some time and see what their deal is but then I always think if they are junkie or whatever they'll just tell me whatever I want to hear so there's really no point. The whole line of thought just makes me kinda sad.And another thing they are always posting on social media, and tweeting and doing other worthless activities like playing pokemon, and dragon ball z video games.
Lol, what do you do that's so great? You've been in and out of work for like months, you're a convicted criminal, and have a bastard. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the image of civic pride or anything but I don't go around calling other people out for doing their thing while producing nothing, doing nothing good for the world.
