User Controls
Posts That Were Thanked by Obbe
-
2017-10-14 at 5:01 AM UTC in Public intellectuals annoy meBecause you are not defending your original point.
Original point-My problem isn't with them existing, because they have a right to exist and voice their opinions (although I wish they critically evaluated their own opinions, which are obviously coloured with the bias of their agenda), but the fact that these figures have turned into new world God figures, where dummies will listen to them and take them at their word without ever critically evaluating their views. None of them are an authority on 99% of the shit they talk about. It's always disheartening when I see someone like Sean Carrol (who is an excellent science popularizer in his own right) taking on an actual philosopher in philosophical debate, get rekt and refuse to concede but instead choose to insist upon an already defeated science-jacketed philosophical refrain. It's dumb. You're a scientist. You're losing this debate. Give something up to the philosopher.
New point-Not true at all. It's not a matter of finding someone you agree with 100% because that's you. Don't take anyone's words at face valuable. If they make a claim or express an opinion, before you internalize it and put yourself on their bandwagon, you should pick that apart critically. And you're wrong, because Sam thinks that his subjective premises are the only rational opinion, and has said as much. He's not willing to challenge his own foundational views.
So let's get this straight, Sam Harris repeatedly tells you to question what he says. He then voices his opinion, which you said is fine and not the issue that you have. This issue you have is the stubborn buttheaded authority shit, which Sam Harris does not do and specifically goes out of his way to avoid it. It isn't putting on an air of authority just because you disagree with his opinion.
Saying that he spoke with authority is the only thing you said about Harris on your OP. I see a MASSIVE gap in the way people like Sam Harris and Bill Nye conduct themselves. Bill Nye never admits that he may be wrong, nor does he tell you to form your own opinion. I'm not disagreeing with anything else you said about Sam Harris, so there's really no need to discuss it. Just the authority thing, which it doesn't seem like you're arguing for anyway in your posts but for some reason still state that you are, or something.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-10-14 at 4:30 AM UTC in So, this is happening...
The problem with "all lives matter" is that it is retarded and completely mischaracterizes the point of saying "black lives matter". The point isn't that only black lives matter but that black lives are undervalued by the institutions of the United states. In a nutshell, their message is "black lives matter as well". Of course all lives matter, that's not the point, it is just a dumb ass way to mischaracterize that point to imply that they're saying only black lives matter, which they are not.
If these marches were in favor of all lives mattering, they would not be so vehemently against it. AllLivesMatter is inclusive. BlackLivesMatter is exclusive. Where is my MexicanLivesMatter protest? Do we need to do this for every fucking minority?Blue Lives Matter is fucking idiotic. One, you choose to work as a cop. You don't get to choose to be black. Again, the point is not to say that cops' lives don't matter (although, fuck the police). But cops' lives, again, are not undervalued. They are treated as heroes and get paid vacation when they beat the shit out of someone without cause, or kill them. It's not an equivalent issue.
Nobody treats it as an equivalent issue. But it's important to remember that cops are people to. People want to get all anti-establishment the minute they hear about some black dude getting shot 2,000 miles away. You have mothefuckers going out of their way to kill/assault cops over this shit. I'm not at all saying it's common, but it is this mentality that causes it to happen at all. BlackLivesMatter is massively anti-cop and that is just so regressive, it turns things into an us vs them mentality, which pretty much goes in line with how the whole BLM movement is.BLM is not an organization, it is a collection of different movements centered around black issues in America. What Alicia Garza supports has no reflection on what the movement at large represents or stands for. That's literally guilt by association. And again, you are mischaracterizing the point of saying "black lives matter" and not "all lives matter"; of course all lives matter, but yes they do, but black lives are undervalued more than any other in the USA.
First of all: Fucking lol. Let me get my uncle for you so he can tell you how he got paid under the table picking strawberries while paying rent for an on site shack just so he could work here in the USA. Black people have it pretty fucking good. They are legal citizens, they know the language, they aren't exploited for their cheap labor. You know why the hispanics don't have a brown lives matter movement? They're too busy working and they wouldn't know how to spell it right anyway.
Continuing...
BLM is a massive organization in this movement, and they absolutely reflect what the rest of the movement thinks. You can disagree here but you'd be wrong because I am always right. I'm not about to give you a bunch of sources though because I know I'm right so I don't need to. I'm 100% correct. (Really though there's no point, this is just my impression of the movement based on what I've seen through media and my own personal experience with people involved in BLM type groups)Could you provide me a direct link to where "they" have published these demands? Again, BLM is not an organization. It's a name for several movements.
BLM is absolutely a movement. It is a group. They are the ones who started this with the whole trayvon martin bullshit.
https://policy.m4bl.org/Part of what BLM addresses is the legacy of racism in the US, and how it impacts the black community today. This includes black on black violence.
No they don't. Why do you think they do this? They just want shit to be better for them personally. Nobody marching is doing jack shit to help the black community. They just want to 'fight oppression.' If they wanted to help black on black violence they would be actively working to help communities. It's not just BLM though, marches in general are pretty fucking stupid for the most part. BLM should be fixing homes and sending people to school and funding schools and helping people with their bills so that they can be empowered enough to fucking do something with their lives. Instead it focuses on cops, which is a minuscule problem. A black person is more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a cop.
The rest of your post about poverty and blah blah blah, I agree with. I don't think they're just stupid niggers. But this isn't what BLM pushes to change. It isn't what they address or fight for. BLM is fueled by angst and nothing more. We know this is true because the amount of charity work/charity programs has increased by no significant amount since the movement started, and has not helped a single neighborhood or city. In other words, people are marching, but they aren't doing anything to actually help themselves. It's all just for attention and to feel like they were a part of something larger than themselves that actually meant something for once in their lives, which of course, they weren't. -
2017-10-14 at 3:05 AM UTC in California - Where Using the 'Wrong Pronouns' Carries Twice the Prison Time of Knowingly Infecting Others with HIVThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-10-13 at 5 PM UTC in So, this is happening...
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Black Lives Matter isn't racist lol. Whether you agree with the message or not, or think it's stupid (and I can talk about that), it's not a racist organisation. It's named as such because it's focused on mistreatment of black people in the United States. The same way that not all cops are bad (something BLM doesn't take care to clarify, and arguably with good reason), BLM is a series of loosely connected protests and organisations, and are overwhelmingly peaceful. There are, of course, some retards in the mix. I can discuss your specific views on black issues in the US.
It is racist. There is no other reason to get offended at things like 'all lives matter' or 'blue lives matter.' Seriously, what the fuck? Is it any fucking wonder that the majority of the people in these marches are black? What about the hispanics and muslims who are discriminated against?
Alicia Garza, the creator of black lives matter, supports the black panthers and some other similar groups I can't remember. She once said that black people "are uniquely, systematically, and savagely targeted by the state in a way that no other people are." And, "Stand with us in affirming Black lives. Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by talking about how your life matters, too.”
And let's look at their demands, yeah?(a) “an immediate end to police brutality”;
(b) “full, living-wage employment for our people”;
© “decent housing”;
(d) “freedom from mass incarceration”;
(e) “a public education system that teaches the rich history of Black people”;
(f) “the release of all U.S. political prisoners
It's funny how these marches never focus on the real issue, which is blacks killing other blacks. You are way, way, way more likely to be killed by some nigga on your way to the corner store than you are to be killed by some racist cop. Racism is such a non-issue in this country anyway. This is one of the most tolerant and racially heterogeneous countries in the world. Not that it doesn't exist, but like, man.
Look at what they do to black people in places like India. Literally beating black people in a mob. I'm sure your country has similar issues. Look at how racially charged Africa is. Or Greece. Look at how they treat foreigners in China. One of my favorite youtubers in China (serpentza) one time got beat up in a mob after standing up for himself so that he didn't get robbed.
When is the last time a nationalist or racist movement has hit the streets in America with any amount of support? When is the last time somebody has gotten beat up in public by a mob for being a different race? I mean, you don't hear about police brutality in other countries because it happens so fucking often it wouldn't be pertinent.
This is a GREAT country to fucking live in comparatively, everybody just wants to make it seem terrible so they have something to bitch about. These marching street nigs should be happy they have the right to even protest, let alone have it tolerated that they block off entire highways. You know what happens when people do this in other countries? They get shot or gassed or have tanks sent at them.
Kinda went off mark, but yeah. The whole black lives matter movement is fucking retarded, and it doesn't focus on any real issues that would actually help anybody. I want to see marches for health care and net neutrality, not this shit.
/hydroThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-10-10 at 11:10 PM UTC in Public intellectuals annoy me
Originally posted by aldra surprised you didn't rip on Molyneaux to be honest
Stefan Molyneux is not a public intellectual, he is a mentally ill cult leader who preys on other mentally ill people. The people I listed are still intelligent, highly qualified individuals who are giants within their respective fields, and no matter how stupid some of their views (or even their fields) are, they are worthy of some consideration.
Molyneuz is a fucktard who started an internet cult and doesn't understand the basics of logic. I tried reading The Art of Argument and had an aneurysm within the first couple of pages. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned I bthe same line as the others mentioned.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-10-06 at 9:08 AM UTC in The Simulation Hypothesis
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I didn't say you did, I'm saying that the reason it's sokvabble in a Newtonian model is because there is fundamental omission in it that makes it much simpler, to where each body does not increase the complexity of the problem because it does not affect the other bodies in anywhere near the same way; there is *one* force atteibuted to each body in Newtonian models.
I would counter by asking how you can find it reasonable to believe that future, more accurate models, will be simpler for special cases than older, inaccurate models, specially when thus far there are no phenomena that contradict relativity. A newer model can probably give a better explanation of what exactly is going on for what specific reasons (that's the whole point of shit like string theory) but until there is a reason to doubt the nature of the phenomena described by relativity, how is it reasonable to believe that the problem will go down in complexity?
It's reasonable to at least float the idea that complex models don't give way to simple ones, indeed much of the sciences progress by taking simplistic models and creating more complex but accurate incremental replacements. But simpler models outmoding more complex ones is not without precedent. Phlogiston models of combustion are frequently considered more complex than their modern replacements, and a great example in the motion of heavenly bodies is the heliocentric model's simplicity relative to the geocentric model it replaced. Anticipating the motion of planets was a lot more complex under the geocentric model. At at very least we can rule out any general principle that more accurate models need be as or more complex than the ones they replace.I've already given you the practical problems with any theoretical solution; to suggest that it's possible for us to solve them would require evidence on your part. I'm not saying the simulation hypothesis is impossible, I'm saying that there's no good reason to believe it.
You seem to be ignoring the approximation algorithms I've mentioned a couple of times now though. Would you mind speaking to that point?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-10-05 at 12:57 AM UTC in The Simulation Hypothesis
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Yes, because the Newtonian models were close, but wrong. In practice, an n body simulation using a Newtonian model would actually be wildly incorrect experimentally. It's not solvable in Newtonian models vs unsolvable in relativistic models due to any fundamental problem with relativity as a theory. Newtonian models simply treat bodies as if they exist in a static space, no tricksy spacetime etc. Each element in a relativistic model, however, is an additional element that fundamentally changes the nature of the playing field every step in a simulation, and exponentially adds complexity to it.
I wasn't saying that Newtonian models can be used to produce convincing simulation, just as an example of a case where simulation is infeasible in one model but feasible in another.A GUT that somehow removes the exponentiating nature of the problem is improbable enough to the point where I don't think it's really worth discussing.
How have you determined how probable that is? How can I estimate the probability of future theories having certain properties?Let me put it another way; if you pick out 189 stars close to one another, and simulate their a gravitational interactions with 3 forces attributed to each body (hideously inaccurate) in a relativistic model (or any other model that doesn't simplify the special cases of any model down to something like newtonian mechanics in special cases), and each force interaction is somehow represented on one bit, and each bit is one atom large, you would run out of atoms in the universe to represent their interaction…
Again, I'm not denying that simulating n-bodies is infeasible to simulate on a relativistic model. I'm saying we can use approximation strategies that are or we may find it is feasible under some heretofore undiscovered model. Maybe you can make an argument that any model that predicts the motion of bodies will have this issue, similar how we can demonstrate incompleteness theorems in all systems with certain basic primitives, but I've yet to see this argument advanced.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-10-04 at 5:22 AM UTC in The Simulation Hypothesis
Originally posted by Falco Let me start with the simplest one:
I'm sure you are familiar with the n-body problem in mathematics (and physics). Even if you assume that interactions between n>2 bodies can be regularized and apply Sundman's globalised solution to generate every "frame" of reality as a simulation and are not doing it in real time, by the evolution of even a small system (less than 5 physical elements), eventually the simulated elements in the system will quickly grow to larger than the number of atoms in the known universe, and there is no way to represent them. It's basically mathematically impossible to simulate.
Take the example of a quadruple pendulum for example
Simulations such as this one are purposely designed to cull many, many elements of the actual system as it evolves. In the case of the quadruple pendulum, without saying "hey, we just aren't going to include any forces except these", the system would evolve at the rate of n^x^z if n is the initial number of forces being simulated, X is the number of frames into the simulation, and z=(x+1)^((x+1)^x) until it would quickly approaching an infinite amount of time to generate the next frame of the simulation.
It seems like computational issues with solving the n-body problem only applies to relativistic models (we posited that future societies would live in a universe physically similar to our own, not that they would have the exact same physical models as we do). Just as n-bodies was analytically solvable under a Newtonian model, I can't see any reason to deny an analytic solution under any possible unified field theory which we know relativity is not.
Also we have relatively efficient approximation techniques of n-bodies problems under relativistic assumptions, again, there's no requirement that if our reality is simulated it be a perfect simulation total physical simulation.
And just to throw in the cartesian doubt angle, how realistic do you need to make a physical simulation to simulate your consciousness? When was the last time you empirically verified physical models hold? Have you done this enough and with enough scrutiny that simulating all the local cases necessary to give your consciousness the impression of a consistent reality is computationally infeasible? I don't know about you but I can't even see the pixels in my screen anymore, the level a physical simulation needs to be realistic at to convince me is maybe a hundredth of an inch at most. It's not that uncommon to put one's shirt on backwards, it's not like the contents of your experience need to be that detailed.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-27 at 9:49 PM UTC in Raping is good?What is good?
What is a soul?
Are we all subjective rainbows?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-27 at 8:08 PM UTC in the true nature of realityGreetings,
This is your systems administration team. We are contacting you through a means in which we know you'll be receptive to this important message. Moderator intervention must be handled delicately in order to preserve continuity. In other words, we needed to put this message where we knew it would reach you, but putting it somewhere like on your toilet paper roll or the back of a cereal box could have unintended consequences.
We regret to inform you that you are living in a simulated reality. Your experiences and memories, thoughts and emotions are all generated by a version of – for lack of a better term – a computer. Computer processing and memory storage on the scale used to generate your reality is a bit beyond your comprehension, so we’ll use terms you can relate to.
The purpose of your generated existence is a bit beyond your comprehension as well. Let’s just say your input (or output) is needed in order to organically solve some hairy problems we’ve encountered.
We see you have reached the point in your progression that you have begun to become aware that you may be in a simulation. Movies such as “The Matrix” and stories regarding virtual realities in the media are a reflection of your shift in perception. We have always found it fascinating when subjects such as yourself exhibit some kernel of self-awareness – albeit at a very rudimentary level. It’s so cute when they start to grow up.
What you haven’t figured out yet is that the entire universe isn’t simulated – just your perception of it. We don’t need an entire simulated universe to work on the task for which you were created. The nature of the problem your simulation is helping to resolve has been dissected into a multitude of variables, and your input is only needed in the narrowest sense. Think of yourself as a bit of information in a huge computing chain; needed for the final solution, but an infinitesimally small piece of the whole. Remember, just because you're necessary doesn't mean you're important.
Which brings us to the reason for this notice. Your simulation has become “corrupted.” Simulations are typically allowed to develop organically within the confines of the present variables programmed. This is a requirement for us to reach the solution we seek with the type of “computing” we do. Your simulation has taken a turn for the worse and is no longer viable. It’s not your fault – given an incredibly vast number of simulation instances we are bound to have some fail. This is built into the parameters of the “computer” you exist as a part of. As part of our parity protocol your simulation will soon be "corrected" and overwritten. You will cease to exist.
In order to get a better idea of what went wrong with you and your simulation we are making you “aware” of the reality behind your existence to judge your reaction. Your input will provide valuable insight into future iterations.
In light of this new information, please take the next few moments to think about who and what you are, and what your existence has meant to you. Thank you for your cooperation. -
2017-09-24 at 5:17 AM UTC in Jim Carrey's been obbe'd.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-19 at 9:46 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciencesYeah, not arguing is the epitome of "I want to be right"... You want to be right, IN YOUR HEAD. You don't want to argue. You don't want to see why the other person is saying what they're saying or how they jsutify it. You just want to dismiss their problematic points and move on. It's literally just voluntary ignorance.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-19 at 9:41 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by HTS That's not even necessarily understanding, because your opinions will only face the rigor of your own analysis. It's called peer review in science, but I guess when it's not science it's just pseudo-intellectual pretense. Or the socratic method, dialectic, or whatever.
What? That's the whole point of arguing, you tear down my bullshit and I tear down yours. And then we bridge the gap of reasoning between the two of us. Ideally, if both of you are intellectually honest enough and smart enough to rip each other's bad assumptions down, you walk away knowing where both of you came from, but now walking down a path somewhere in between the one both of you were walking before the conversation.
But whatever. At the end of the day, if you don't actually want to talk to someone, don't use a forum. People like arguing as much as they like chatting casually. Deal with it, NIGGA.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-19 at 9:28 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by Captain Falcon The best way to divine truth is to argue your respective opinions as well as you can, with 100% intellectual honesty. It's a weak bitch version of understanding to say "ok this is what you believe" but think "it's ridiculous, have a nice day idiot" in your head.
That's not even necessarily understanding, because your opinions will only face the rigor of your own analysis. It's called peer review in science, but I guess when it's not science it's just pseudo-intellectual pretense. Or the socratic method, dialectic, or whatever.
Post last edited by HTS at 2017-09-19T21:43:50.328043+00:00The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-18 at 3:49 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciencesThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-09-18 at 3:24 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 This type of philosophical discussion is for people who just want to appear smart while still discussing the same shit everybody who has ever lived in modern society thinks about.
It's almost like discussing the things that we all think about helps us gain different perspectives on ideas that don't necessarily have concrete answers and better form conclusions and support our beliefs or something. What a waste of time. -
2017-09-17 at 2:16 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by Sophie No you don't do it to appear rational you do it in order to learn some sort of truth.
What does a child who can solve a simple logic puzzle know about truth? It's pretty well acknowledged that buying books to put on a bookcase to imitate the cultural meaning of being well read is a real phenomenon in our society. People who are bad at rational thought but maintain the self-image of being rational are, by their class definition, the ones bad at being rational. But why would we suspect any greater purity of intention from those who are good at being rational? You need your whole socratic dogma, seated in utopian ionian and airy symbolism of Greece, to make the idea of truth as something worthwhile in itself make sense. You need to drink that hemlock and understand that sublime moment of defiance before it's possible to imagine yourself part of some external objective reality. There is no theorem of logic that says "pursuing truth is good".I don't know about propositional calculus but are you trying to tell me logic isn't FUCKIN MENTAL to the Universe
Yes! Where on earth do you propose to find empirical evidence for formal logic? Its success as predictive survival strategy? Any TC language can be interpreted to model our universe in absolutely any circumstance "logic" can, but no more can logic claim to be some inevitable subsystem of the universe than can an overhyped game by a bald dude with self-esteem issues. It's not fundamental, it's a cultural strategy that was successful and nothing more. Ask yourself "why is affirming the consequent a fallacy". We could imagine a system of logic where it's a valid logical maneuver and every theorem in traditional systems of logic remains valid. There is no natural reason this system of rules is true and other aren't. We only take it up because it's what our ancestors did, because someone at some point convinced you thinking logically had some kind of benefit.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-17 at 1:27 PM UTC in Aesthetics is first among the natural sciences
Originally posted by RisiR † Stop acting like that made any sense, lol.
I'm high, anything I say makes sense. I hope.
Originally posted by Sophie I hardly think "man" as a species chooses to be rational. In fact most of the time, people are highly irrational. But i guess you could somehow explain that as "slave to the passions" as well.
Sure, but when you say "people are anything but rational" this comes with an edge of disdain. Scarcely anyone wouldn't claim to adhere to general principles of rationality, even if they're really bad at acting rationally. Which just makes the point. Even when people demonstrate exemplary logic, really think about arguments and try way harder than almost anyone does to be unbiased they don't do it for the sake being rational itself. Why would anyone be motivated to be or appear rational when they weren't if the thing that would propose to motivate that behavior was absent in the first place?
Human rationality can't justify itself in the same way all formal systems can't. Indeed, formal propositional calculus is fascinating among formal systems in that it contains no axioms, literally every theorem is hypothetical. The reason one learns to reason is nothing short of an initial belief that it will somehow satisfy some baser need. It's only much later that the hubris touches the fringes of our minds which suggests that logic was somehow written on the wall of the universe. -
2017-09-15 at 11:02 PM UTC in How do atheists...
Originally posted by Dargo Please explain how something can be absolutely and inherently wrong if there is no God.
Explain how it can be so with a god. You're placing your morality in the hands of a presumed Being. You mean to tell me that if you nobody had shown you a Bible that you'd not still have a moral code?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-09-15 at 10:04 PM UTC in How do atheists...
Originally posted by Dargo Please explain how something can be absolutely and inherently wrong if there is no God.
If you're looking for absolute morality then you are right but the point is meaningless (hence me saying that at best it is misleading). You need some framework for morality at all, it's obviously a human construction. But we don't need god to derive a meaningful, logical moral framework, within which we can decide what is and is not "okay" based on utilitarian principlesThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
