>>52895
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19V6wDujWyQ&list=FLnvLusGXQ1QLFOcOGALN4QQ&index=79&feature=plpp_video

And this, from Gilles Deleuze's wiki article, nicely encapsulates a principle in the metaphysics of much of this stuff:
Deleuze's main philosophical project in the works he wrote prior to his collaborations with Guattari can be briefly summarized as a systematic inversion of the traditional metaphysical relationship between identity and difference. Traditionally, difference is seen as derivative from identity: e.g., to say that "X is different from Y" assumes some X and Y with at least relatively stable identities. To the contrary, Deleuze claims that all identities are effects of difference. Identities are neither logically nor metaphysically prior to difference, Deleuze argues, "given that there exist differences of nature between things of the same genus."That is, not only are no two things ever the same, the categories we use to identify individuals in the first place derive from differences. Apparent identities such as "X" are composed of endless series of differences, where "X" = "the difference between x and x'", and "x" = "the difference between...", and so forth. Difference goes all the way down. To confront reality honestly, Deleuze claims, we must grasp beings exactly as they are, and concepts of identity (forms, categories, resemblances, unities of apperception, predic…

Read more >>

>>52896
Simplified:
Traditional Metaphysics and Logic: Identity produces Differentiation "X=X and Y=Y therefore X=/=Y"
Differential Approach: Differentiation produces Identity(or at least the appearance of identity, or an unfixed and potentially temporary identity at best) "X=/=Y produces X=X and Y=Y"
Deleuze refers to "flows" of differentiation, since the "not equals" between x and y is not a simple binary negation, and with multiple forms of differentiation (a difference of type and a difference of degree both produce the "not equals") one cannot assign fixed identity to the "flows" of differentiation. These flows make up what he called abstract machines, which I'll go over if anyone can tolerate it.

>>52664
For any of the times I've bothered anyone on here I do apologize, my brother is diagnosed with schizophrenia and my mom tells me that bipolarity runs in my fathers side of the family(which explains a lot), I read somewhere "Nothing's a cliche when it's actually happening to you" so if anything I say doesn't make sense, is offensive or is awkward, please know that I don't always intend for it to be. Speaking of which I think I misread some stuff in the posts on this thread already, sorry, as I said I was having an acid flashback last night.

I turned on my computer for the first time in a week, it was stone cold and I still get the same problem.
Is it possible that my problem is due to the battery charger?

Computer runs fine when it is not charging. That is, until the battery is depleted.
http://youtu.be/nM9fhp4ZTJA

http://boards.4chan.org/g/res/24930802#p24931501
>Looks like a graphics adapter problem. I had this happen (to a desktop). It was the GPU heatsync popped up a bit.
I love 4chan.

>>52809


>You do know that you can't prove nonexistence, right?
You cannot prove a negative.
You can disprove a positive claim.
The first is saying x does not exist. The second is saying there is no reason to believe x exists.
Please let this particular "argument" die. Using the word "prove" incorrectly doesn't disprove the rest of his post. He used a term when he shouldn't have. However, everyone including him knows exactly what he meant.

>Yeah, I agree with you about no-name and Logicianonymous.
I don't know who either of those people are, but I don't consider religion worthy of respect. I consider it a waste of my time to discuss. That's a statement of fact.
I don't respect religion. I am polite and try to be fair, but I don't consider it to be deserving any more credence than Creationism, homeopathy, or TimeCube. I have strong reasons for hating it, so I consider this well-founded. I consider religion so self-apparently wrong that I do think less of a person once I learn he believes in God. I do say any scientist who believes in God cannot possibly understand the fundamentals of science perfectly, or even terribly well.…

Read more >>

>>52908

You should double-check those. I can't post any citations currently.

>>52913
Oh well, I picked up another POV. That's what matters. If I cannot look at things from all angles then I would be pretty useless would I not?

>>52887
I agree with all of these, except the first one is just a little weird. You should strive to have the right answer, but if the motive is ego or selfish reasons it becomes wrong. It also becomes a problem when you hold onto a thing that you think is right and do not consider that it is wrong or do not listen to what others have to say. It should also be so that you should strive to give others the right answer, instead of just holding it all to yourself.

>1. Give up your need to always be right
It's a fact that you will not always be right. I also think it's obvious that sometimes, demonstrating that you are right, or correcting someone else, or starting an argument about who is right is not worth it. However, wanting to always be right, or having a strong need to be right in order that you might achieve a goal. These seem like good things to me. The engineer who needs desperately to be right in his calculations studies hard, and double-checks his work, and builds the bridge that doesn't fall down.

>2. Give up your need for control
Again, will you always have control over everything? No. So needing to have control over everything is bound to end in disaster. Does this mean you should literally give up on controlling anything and "allow everything and everyone to be just as they are"? Of course not. If you mislike the way something is, and you have the ability to control it, do so and make it better.

This, along with 14. Give up attachment, are major beliefs I dislike in Eastern philosophy. They don't sound like ideas that will make your life better, they sound like ideas that rich monks living in expensive temples would want the peasantry to believe so that they'll shut up.

>3. Give up on blame
I'm noticing a general theme here of the writer wanting to oversimplify everything. But life is not simple. The best answer to "when should I blame others for my condition" is not going to be "never", that would sacrifice pretty much all of social progress, wouldn't it? Nor is the best answer going to be "always",…

Read more >>

How anybody expects a man to stay in business with every two-bit wowser in the country claiming a veto over what we can say and can't say and what we can show and what we can't show — it's enough to make you throw up. The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.

I know where a few of you are coming from with the belief that rape jokes don't hurt people that've been raped, but trust me, they do. I've known plenty enough individuals that've been unfortunate enough to go through that to know it hurts them. I have my own problems with PTSD, and I do have to worry about triggers. I've had to come to terms with how so many of my problems come from being triggered.

I'm not so sure now that she goes here anymore, but I used to know someone that went here specifically because it wasn't like the rest of the internet. Specifically because she could browse here without much worry about being triggered.

I'm not saying to change your entire attitude about rape jokes, even, I'm just saying not to be so supportive of them in public, or at least here. It's a simple enough and respectful request for common courtesy here, and I know ponychan still has it in itself.

>>52459

I accept your terms and conditions. It's an overused meme anyway

>>52882
Sidewalk

>>52899
Sidewalks are a bit too mainstream for my tastes.

Then again, my tastes tend to be a bit too high-brow for most plebe- I mean people.

Although if I walk on my hands I suppose I could deign to walk on the sidewalk.

We could walk on grass

I am so glad you asked. I have developed a societal form that does not rely on growth

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DS8m0SkZkOeIjCV7GjYMqxnEGSbxO03dShnePFEVtrI/edit

>>52901

>Let us aim for 25% of the world's population.

By that point, you already have world domination. 25% of the world's population working single-mindedly for one goal could take on the other 75% with no further planning.

>>52903
Can I take that to mean that you will support the creation of the new system when the time calls for it?

>>52878
The most important posts are in the Sequences section, which is more-or-less a collection of Eliezer Yudkowsky's writings from a previous blog that was used to start the site. Unfortunately, there is no really good reading plan at the moment, which is why Yudkowsky is currently working on a series of books that will organize the material into a more approachable format.

There are two ways people typically read through the sequences: you can use the wiki's Complete list of blog posts page to read chronologically, or you can use the actual Sequences index off of the main page to read by topic.

Personally, I've read through the lot and I didn't have too much difficulty using the index. If you'd like to do what I did, start with the four sequences given in the Core Sequences section and then just proceed down the page, top to bottom. Within any particular article, if the article says it is a followup to something you haven't yet read, pause within that article and read that other stuff first.

Index: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
Chronological list of posts: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Less_Wrong/All_articles

>>52876
easy there, anon

wasn't addressing you, was addressing a previous anon who obviously isn't you (unless you learned from our discussion awhile back)

>"Guys, he can't list the one random fact I ask! All atheists are like this! This one guy's inability to know the one piece of trivia proves his other points are invalid!"

You're really taking a lot of liberty in interpreting my posts, aren't you? *lol*

Hey if you want me to be the bad guy and it makes you feel smart/good go for it.

>Your comment is the most absurd, uneducated, illogical piece of ad hominem I've ever read.…

Read more >>

>>52855

Sorry. I thought you were The Great and Powerful.

I now see that wouldn't make any sense given that the post was criticizing him. However, if he had made the post you made my criticisms would be an awful lot more valid given the context of him making similar claims all the time.

I got myself confused. Sorry.

Well, first, what kind of genres typically interest you (for movies, TV besides MLP, video games, etcetera)?

start with simple but awesome stuff:
Animal Farm
1984
Brave New World
Fahrenheit 541
and Stephen King's novel (the ones that aren't more than 400 pages long, like Cell and Blaze)

they aren't heavy reading in the slightest, they are very good and they are cheap (brave new world and Fahrenheit 451 can't cost more than 5-8 dollars)

or you could just go to a library and pick up some book that grabs your attention.

>>52889
omg F451 was... just...

I mean it was a good book, and surprisingly thin, but misleadingly long and arduous imo. Never had that much trouble digging through that small a book before.

I think the writing style just didn't appeal or communicate to me very well.

Extraversion
The energy of extraverts is outward, towards people and things. They need a lot of stimulation and often express emotions. They get their motivation from other people.
Their often want to change the world (rather than think about it). Extraverts like variety, action and achievement. They do well at school but may find University more difficult.
Their attitude is often relaxed and confident. They are understandable and accessible. They tend to act first and think later.
At work, they seeks variety and action and like working with other people. They prefer work that has breadth rather than depth.
Introverts may see them as being shallow and pushy.
Introversion
The energy of introverts is inward toward concepts and ideas. They need little external stimulation - and in fact they can easily be over-stimulated. it is possible that they focus more on their inner worlds because they suffer from sensory overload if they spend too much time outside and focusing on other people. They thus bottle up their own emotions, which can explode if pushed too far.
Rather than trying to change the world, they just want to understand it. They think deeply about things and often do better at University than they did at school.
Their attitude is reserved and questioning and they can seem subtle and impenetrable. They tend to think before they act.
At work they like to work alone and often seek quiet for concentration. They tend to prefer work that has depth rather than breadth.
Extraverts may see them as egocentric and passive.…

Read more >>

No, but a lot of shows, especially kids cartoons, propagate the idea that it is. The episode of Teen Titans with Malchior seemed to work from that angle. Everypony should clearly stop shutting themselves, being moody or aloof and MAKE FRIENDS! It's not like some people dislike parties, or that friendship and social interaction are things so complicated you'd need lessons to understand them, right?

*sigh*

I spent a lot of time as a child feeling like I'd done something morally wrong just because I wasn't more outgoing . =/

>>52864
Marxism-Leninism was militantly atheist.

>>52818

I would argue Dawkins uses it as a reclaimed word. It was used to mock him, but he decided he actually wasn't ashamed.

A similar example would be the song Yankee Doodle: it was originally intended to mock the Yankees, but they actually liked it and adopted it as theirs.
An example relevant to the forum are terms like Ponypony or "I watch it for the plot". Both originated as mocking terms, but we claimed them.

So taking that word is an offensive tactic to shame them. It's an insult backfire.

And I stand by the fact that a militant atheist isn't a real thing. All it means is an outspoken atheist. The term is "opinionated", perhaps, but militant?

Richard Dawkins is outspoken. He isn't militant, and if he is I would say that is perfect evidence why militant atheism is fine.

>What are the critiques of religion and militant atheism
Wrote a post on this. Going to put it in the other thread in order to not clutter up this one.

>>52221
>Modern people seem to be very keen to distance themselves from their routes. We are, actually, animals, and genetically men and women are different. Being "Manly" is about fulfilling our genetics.
We're going to have a lot of fun time together.

>Men are genetically designed to be broader, and more muscular. Testosterone is what makes us act in a more "manly" way.
This is due to natural selection, men were less valuable for survival of the species than men, because one men was enough to impregnate many women, but one woman could be impregnated by many men, therefore men took the risqué jobs in order to prevent women from getting killed. When men fulfil their genetics, what they do is actually fulfil how the past has modified us. So testosterone isn't making us act "manly", manly would imply it had some sort of direct connection to being male, but it doesn't, it's just what we have evolved to acquire over many years of survival.

>I get really irritated by people who say "Hey, guys and girls, we're all the same, why do we gotta work so hard to be different?"
>We are different. Genetically. Is it so bad to actually live up to that? Must we deny our own composition, or our evolutionary vocation?
Yes, living by the natural selection standards is looked down upon, we live in a civilised world, the genetic difference between the two sexes is fading and we no longer need to care about the …

Read more >>

>>52677

you've managed to form a rational platform on the issue that is sure to rustle the jimmies of all traditional schools of though and or political ideology.. i am impressed. good job i rarely commend someone but you've earned it

>>52677
>No, it's different, denying manliness is like denying the difference between men and women, this genetic structure is outdated and useless in today's civilization, there is no reason as to why any sex should be expected to be either muscular or slim, it's silly.

Really? This is a bit ridiculous. Men and women are clearly different. This does not mean they have to be unequal in their treatment, but they are different. At the very least in the sense that women give birth, while men do not. This is a pretty major difference. Again, it has nothing to do with equality or inequality; in fact there have been a few societies throughout history that maintained equal rights and even a superior position for women while acknowledging their role as mother. But saying we can deny the different between the sexes is pretty extreme.

>>52806
nope I only came here to post Morgan Freeman and that is what I'll do.

>>52843
Sounds like a plan
(Oh got those teeth.)

>>52845

>>52790
I know. But I see that we do have one.

/phoenix/ changes every so often.

It won't always be a shipping board.

>>52792
I'm learning things. That's good