User Controls
Posts by Anal Turing
-
2018-10-26 at 3:24 AM UTC in Guess what the user above you does for moneyAssbaby for rich big dick nigger
-
2018-10-26 at 1:53 AM UTC in Life on other planetsI'm starting by imagining a form of "life" that might grow without reproductive selection. We know there are simple self replicating molecules like some RNAs. What's really interesting me these days is XNA. But that's another tangent.
I imagine that for a non-Darwinian process to be possible, the environment would play a very big role. -
2018-10-25 at 11:58 PM UTC in what the fuck is life
Originally posted by CASPER Life is decades off crushing doubt and struggle and shame interspersed by moments of piercing clarity and life affirming beauty so earthshaking (or elegantly simple) that it makes you think those moments are in the majority. It's like a gambler, who even after pulling the lever a million times and getting nothing, suddenly wins $10 and believes that his luck is changed, that something big is just around the corner. We are dust specks twirling in the cosmic window light.
Do you have any more cheerful pieces? -
2018-10-25 at 11:26 PM UTC in Dumpster fire Sinead O'Connor converts to Islam, wears hijab, changes name to Shuhada’ Davitt
-
2018-10-25 at 11:24 PM UTC in Dumpster fire Sinead O'Connor converts to Islam, wears hijab, changes name to Shuhada’ DavittYes, yes, the whities are coming around.
-
2018-10-25 at 10:38 PM UTC in You know how Kebab has this sand nigger yell ALLAHU AHKBAR when it's time to pray?
-
2018-10-25 at 10:32 PM UTC in Goldmoney is fucking retarded and if you use it, you are a fucking retard.
-
2018-10-25 at 10:24 PM UTC in How do I claw my way our of the epistemological void I find myself in?
Originally posted by Lanny It seems like the issue you're taking here is that you suppose Descartes is committed to a fairly specific conception of "self" or "I" or "himself" while I'm not so sure that he is. Like you take Descartes to be saying there's some kind of self with a wholly independent existence from thoughts and experiences, to which experiences are presented. And to be fair the way he talks about does lend itself to this reading.
But I don't think his argument relies on it, and in light of this objection his position seems salvageable by simply saying the self is an emergent property of thoughts, there is no "double perception" or "experience of experience". The "I" which doubts is simply a consequence of doubt itself, indeed doubt is position with respect to belief, it doesn't really makes sense to talk about belief just exist, belief by nature of the concept has to be relative to some kind of thing which can hold beliefs. We don't need to posit any kind of essential identity to the doubter, we don't need to say the subject which doubts has this "receives perceptions" quality. The "I" is not presupposed, it's necessitated by doubt itself.
I'm glad you said that, because it sets up the problem perfectly; from a pure skepticism perspective, the only thing that you can't doubt is the simple action of doubting (and not it's mechanism). No belief or judgment of truth value is actually needed: all you need is the act of rejection. That's what it boils down to.
The inferences of the mechanism, and thereby the existence of any "I" or subject of doubt follows from that. And that fact, the order, basically deletes the problem.Didn't you just say Descartes' method of doubt doesn't lead to solipsism? How do you reject a distinction between external reality and experience but deny solipsism? Are you arguing for a retreat into total skepticism?
There is no point where the external becomes internal. It's all "external", i.e. phenomena in the world. It is fine to see that action of doubt as the root of our epistemology but in an objective sense, it's just an ontological "peak" that our epistemology trickles down from.I categorically reject local experiences, I don't think it makes sense to talk about them in a strict sense in the same way I don't think it makes sense to ask "where is mathematics?". As they are non-physical, and quite obviously lack many physical properties like mass, I think it doesn't make sense to assign physical coordinates or volume to experience.
If you believe naive realists, then phenomenal experiences (and ultimately even conceptual things, like maths) are simply your acquaintance to the actual, real, accurate properties of the world.
So, as an example, would you consider mass to be nonlocal because it doesn't have any other properties? Or would you consider it a property of the world at the point where it manifests? We can treat phenomenal qualities in the exact same way. -
2018-10-25 at 5:39 PM UTC in Goldmoney is fucking retarded and if you use it, you are a fucking retard.Quantum computing will literally not happen for at least another 200 years, and that's being optimistic. Nations have risen and fallen in that time.
-
2018-10-25 at 3:58 PM UTC in I predicted Malice's death (and others)
-
2018-10-25 at 3:57 PM UTC in I predicted Malice's death (and others)
-
2018-10-25 at 3 PM UTC in Did you ever do a porno? Would you? Would you get with a porno slut?The one where one girl is on all fours on the bed and another one with a backward ballcap and a big dildo in her hand is the worst. Awful line delivery, also I've never ever been attracted to watching girls playing with dildoes, either get fucked or do proper lesbian sex.
-
2018-10-25 at 2:01 PM UTC in Did you ever do a porno? Would you? Would you get with a porno slut?
Originally posted by Jυicebox I don't think I could ever date a pornstar, just because I would never be able to tell if she's faking
Who gives a fuck?If you have to swallow something disgusting, press the tip of your thumb with your index finger as hard as you can. It suppresses your gag reflex.
It sounds stupid, but it actually works
Was your penis the disgusting object of her demonstration? -
2018-10-25 at 1:58 PM UTC in Life on other planets
-
2018-10-25 at 1:52 PM UTC in How do I claw my way our of the epistemological void I find myself in?
Originally posted by Lanny OK, I'm not sure this is really an well agreed upon fact but I would seem to agree. I'm not sure how that leads to:
There will always be crazy guys who believe in hidden spoops in the machine, but contemporary philosophers almost invariably agree on something between functionalism and naïve realism. This also includes people like John Searle, of Chinese Room fame.Why am I not my thoughts? And if I really am not my my thoughts then I can still defend Descartes by saying "well the cogito isn't "me", it's my thoughts".
I think you misread the quote. I would say "I am my thoughts" is a somewhat accurate statement. What I'm objecting to is the idea that you are anything except your thoughts (and what goes into making them), that you are some subject consuming these thoughts rather than just the result of these thoughts "happening".
If Descartes is fine with saying "I am just my thoughts", then there is no more problem left over. His statement is something like "I cannot doubt that I am doubting". Sure "you" can! Descartes's mistake, from which the problem of knowledge emerges, is simply that he stopped one step short: from a perspective of pure doubt, the only
statement you can make is just "there is no doubt that there are doubts", or simply "there are thoughts". If you can just admit that, the problem of knowledge epistemically disappears into just making sure your sensory "thoughts" corroborate one another.
The presupposition of "I" in the foundation is a critical error that creates a space for further doubt.Descartes is an interactionist but his interactionism doesn't really have anything to do with the cogito
Interactionism (or the dualism under it) is a direct and inescapable consequence of the cogito, thus stated.he didn't suppose the mechanism of deception was the presentation of false experience to his soul directly or anything. He's not committed to his soul being him, at least for the purposes of meditations.
He is committed to a "him", and the soul is his model for that, which shows his philosophical commitments. The fact that he recedes to "clearly and distinctly perceiving things because God wouldn't let an evil demon deceive me" to resolve the problem is telling.
His correspondences with Elisabeth are a very worthwhile read (PDF warning).
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/descartes1643_1.pdf
But the point of the discussion isn't Descartes himself, but whether or not his method of doubt produces the outcome of solipsism or the problem of knowledge: it does not, if you just go one step beyond and remove the I from the basis.If a contemporary had made this argument, and he was willing to entertain the thought-without-self idea (still not really clear to me) he could just say "look at that thought, even you agree that thought exists, that's the cogito".
If that were true, he would have no grounding to believe any deception was possible. I am fine with him just arriving to "there are thoughts".Descartes does seem to have believed in an "essential" soul, but again, I'm not seeing how it's critical to cogito ergo sum.
It's not critical to cogito, it just demonstrates what his conception of "I" was, which you have no reason to presuppose the existence of.Descartes wasn't doubting the "validity of your experiences to you", he doubted that they represented some kind of external reality. He'd probably say all our experiences are "valid" to us in that we truly experience them.
The error is "you", and this creates a further error of splitting off external reality from your internal experiences. This is simply not necessary.Well so see above for why I don't think a rejection of personal identity or personal essentialism really poses a problem, but I think this thought experiment fails long before that because even very naive accounts of identity don't rely on names as our essential quality.
The thought experiment isn't meant to show that personal identity fails (although it does), it is simply that he will be left with two sets of epistemically equivalent, irreconcilable doubts simply by any commitment to any "I", which is very simply solved by abandoning anybiota of fundamental idemtity. We can take any property instead of his name, the name is just an easy example.I'd argue experience doesn't really happen anywhere. Like sure, we have a sense of locality, like we experience touch as being local to some region of our model of the world, specifically the part we occupy (usually) and that's super interesting but I'd say you're wrong if you point to a limb and say "look there, an experience!", or if you pointed to a head and said the same thing. Asking "where is this experience happening" is a bit like asking "where is mathematics" or "where is Descartes' Meditations". I could point to a number of books or websites or brains that instantiate those things in some way, but it would be comical to pick up one and be like "look, here, this is mathematics. Mathematics weighs 1.2 lbs and is made mostly out of dead trees".
Is an instance of Descartes's Meditations sitting on your bookshelf? Might you say that an instance of pain is occurring in your hand?Experience very likely relies (supervenes) on material substance which does have a location and volume and other physical properties but that doesn't mean experience itself is local.
If the substrate is local and the content of the experience includes the feeling of being located at the substrate, what might differentiate a nonlocal experience from a local experience?I see what you're saying here, and I'll back away from saying sensory integration counts as evidence of a subject, but I still don't think you have a positive argument for rejection the notion of a self here. So sure, experience is experience, it's not some kind of information that's fed into the subject and mystically integrated there. But I still say look, there's an experience, it's thinking, it's the cogito. Maybe there's some kind of relation between some sequences of experiences that gives rise to an essential self across time or maybe there's not, doesn't matter, there's still something that's thinking, that's thinking about itself, and which is asking "can I doubt my own existence?" and concluding, correctly, "no, I can't".
Well no, this is the same mistake as Descartes: there is no logical reason that "there is doubt" necessarily entails "there is a doubter". All that does is saddle the experience of doubt with the experience of experiencing doubt. -
2018-10-25 at 11:58 AM UTC in Goldmoney is fucking retarded and if you use it, you are a fucking retard.With the growing adoption of cryptocurrency, we will see the rise of the new crypto jedi.
-
2018-10-25 at 11:43 AM UTC in You know how Kebab has this sand nigger yell ALLAHU AHKBAR when it's time to pray?
-
2018-10-25 at 5:08 AM UTC in Goldmoney is fucking retarded and if you use it, you are a fucking retard.This piece of shit service is becoming popular with my friends and it is literally the most retarded shit I have ever seen in my life, imagine a debit card, now imagine that that debit card is tied to some safe in Singapore, it solves no problem whatsoever. It is like bitcoin for faggot republicans.
-
2018-10-25 at 4:56 AM UTC in I won the mega million.More like mega male mutual masturbation where balls touch
-
2018-10-25 at 3:59 AM UTC in Did you ever do a porno? Would you? Would you get with a porno slut?Peta Jensen for sure
