[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/ef/ - Everfree

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.


Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
Link to another board
Link to a post on another board
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]

This field is for editing and deletions.

File: 1463279460288.jpg (4.27 MB, 2890x1757, 639483.jpg)

/Spacetime/ Time; #48 Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  16600[Last 50 Posts]

(There's really been a lot of these, right?)

The stormy season of April had passed by during the night, and with the rising sun, the day is giving way to the fragrant bloom of May blossoms. Clouds part way for the bright sun to illuminate the paintbrush hues of the landscape, and the warm late-season breeze carries with it all varieties of birdsong, filling the air with the color and chorus of life.

Which is why this was the perfect day to stay indoors to do some inner research. For once, it was better to disregard these byproducts for today, the piercing bore of human progress has finally cracked open the foundations of reality; you had just discovered a time machine.

Well, what else could it be? It even looked like someone had done a spectacularly terrible job of trying to disguise the fact that it could pretty much only be a time machine. It was, in fact the most stereotypically time machine-like time machine anyone could imagine, yet it looks as if someone had sloppily taped cardboard around it in an attempt to make it look like a refrigerator. It was such shoddy work, and you wondered why anyone had even bothered.
MOD EDIT:Original text moved to hide tag
The thing that was definitely a time machine loomed like a statue in the center of the room, wafting out a faint scent of ozone and copper. It must have displaced the matter around it as it arrived, since one of its edges was occupying the space where half of your chair should have been. As you shove the chair aside, it toppled over on its two remaining legs, thumping down on the dusty floor. Looking around, you started reaching for the entrance handle, but thought better of it. Instead, you move over to the small mailbox-shaped bin attached to the side of the machine. There was nothing inside except for a newspaper clipping and an envelope. You take a look at the newspaper, a cutout of the week’s weather, dated three years into the future. It was otherwise unremarkable, so you open up the envelope.

Wow, why would you write something like that? It was disorienting, seeing your own handwriting attached to a message you clearly have never written, and definitely, resolutely, never will. But now, you know you will. The presence of the note, along with the time machine, is undeniable. With the staggering weight of this realization, you reached for a chair, but found only half of one. You plop down on the half-cushion anyway. It’s better than sitting on the floor.

A perfect day, a poorly-disguised time machine, a message from your future self, and half of a chair. These were the facts you were given. What could be made out of them? How do these pieces fall together? You knew that the easiest way to find out lied only beyond the set of golden handles, yet enough experience with science fiction told you that time travel is serious business. Even to the expert authors of those grandiose fables, it’s still a complete mystery. No one knows how to operate a time machine. What if you were sent to a time when earth could no longer support life? What would you do, lost to the depths of spacetime, consigned to a fate worse than death?

But you know that those would not happen. How could you have sent the message to yourself otherwise? You are, for all you know, safe in the gentle and logical flow of the river of causality. There is nothing stopping you from being as reckless as you want. You will never have to bring yourself to write that message, because as long as you don’t, there is nothing that can kill you. There is nothing in the universe that can break the chain of necessity that grant you immortality. After all, the greatest gift is one that you give to yourself.

With your newfound confidence, you climb into the dimly-lit cabin of the time machine. Giving hardly a glance at the deep red sunset over the world outside, you close the door once again. But as the machine began to hum and shake, you suddenly felt just one last figment of doubt. Heedless, it nonetheless vanished with a sudden whisper, leaving behind nothing but a rectangular outline of dust and a lingering smell of ozone and copper.

You had almost realized it just then. You made the mistake of assuming that you knew more about yourself than about time travel.

This post was edited by a moderator on .

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 3f32ca)  16863

File: 1505151001579.png (281.85 KB, 627x408, Sketch98.png)

That depends on which part of the question you're focusing on.
Do all the facts about the present make necessary one unique future? Well, that's the premise of determinism. Will I be able to calculate what happens next? Most likely no, even if determinism were true, depending on how optimistic I am about the theoretical limitations of computation.

I think we've come to the gap between epistemic possibility (that is, things that only seem possible because we don't have enough information to decide), and physical possibility (things that are actually possible). I thought you were talking about physical possibilities when you were describing epistemic possibilities, and my concern was really about whether there actually are any physical possibilities beyond what is necessary. The fact that there are epistemic possibilities seems to be something we take for granted.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of omens, but you seem be an intuitionist.
It's sort of fitting that math types call constructed examples of truths as "witnesses". Like a jury that doesn't believe what the attorney explains unless they see it with their own eyes.

If "if" is ←, and "only if" is →, "if and only if, and only if", and "if, and if and only if" is "if and only if" only if ↔→ is ←↔.

I'm not sure if "most scientists" are too concerned about that sort of thing, actually, even among most physicists.
There's string theory, but it seems like not much of a focus is given to it over other problems. I think the mindset right now is "try to find evidence that the Standard Model is wrong, and we'll go from there".

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  16864

File: 1505857622473.png (189.6 KB, 600x600, 875006__semi-dash-grimdark_art…)



Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: d8e93e)  16865

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  16866

File: 1505865147273.png (119.61 KB, 700x700, 411647__semi-dash-grimdark_art…)

But what about them!?


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: b2b8c0)  16867

File: 1505869244205.png (19.69 KB, 225x225, lurking.png)

Death is overrated.

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  16868

File: 1505873219832.png (192.27 KB, 474x522, 1245309__safe_artist-colon-hio…)

You're overrated

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: b2b8c0)  16869

File: 1505874418327.jpg (94.91 KB, 732x578, as a matter of fact.jpg)

That's because ratings can't reach orbit under their own power.

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  16870

File: 1505874502656.png (282.21 KB, 972x1000, 1447026__safe_artist-colon-gre…)

Considering ratings aren't held by the same power of gravity that affects you or I, well your statement means you're a nerd.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: b2b8c0)  16871

File: 1505875253418.png (150.98 KB, 361x416, taken seriously.png)

I'll have you know that I have written down all the facts about everything, and in particular all the facts about gravity and whether ratings are affected by it.
Written in red ink, mind you. Red ink.
Also, "I" is a subject.

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  16872

File: 1505875708055.png (349.4 KB, 1079x1000, 1447025__safe_artist-colon-gre…)

You're still a nerd

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: fced78)  16873

File: 1505884282212.jpg (63.77 KB, 890x897, fffbbbbtt.png)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16874

File: 1505947820344.jpg (31.78 KB, 640x640, 1505604968598.jpg)

Maybe eventually we'll be able to calculate the future of everything.
And hopefully the person that calculates it omits themselves from it, 'cuz it's pretty hard to predict when someone would die when they know when they're gonna die.

I suppose it'd be tricky for there to not be epistemic possibilities, eh.

It's times like these I remember the wise old words "If you don't understand it, the best course of action is to take it personally."
Because bullshit I'm an intuitionist. Math is like a gift we are granted to be able to understand what it can tell us. It's difficult to make something up that works as well as math does. It's rooted in the universe more firmly than in humans.
Also, "you seem be" lul grammatical error I win conversation

if and only if and only if and only if. It's funny to me.

Did I say most scientists? I didn't mean to say most scientists. I meant there are some scientists likely very intent on finding such a theory. Something that feels more satisfying and all-encompasing.
Watch this video.

Z, my nigga, whaddup son

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16875

File: 1505947875601.jpg (31.1 KB, 227x184, 1451959__safe_screencap_prince…)

My body's still trying to kill me

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16876

File: 1505948017554.png (22.1 KB, 77x125, 86.png)

Everyone's is! But more of it tends to try and keep us alive.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16877

File: 1505948169529.png (1.56 MB, 1920x1080, 1459124__safe_screencap_prince…)

Well my gallbladder tried to kill me twice in the past 2 months.
First time with just getting blocked up and making it so I couldn't eat.
Second time with burning a stone through my gallbladder into my large intestine, almost developing sepsis and pancreatitis.

So for the past month I've been on disability waiting to heal up from being cut open from top to bottom.

How bout you, how's your exploits?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16878

File: 1505948199297.jpg (51.58 KB, 329x454, 207.jpg)

Also, Adl mahboi, I'm afraid these conversations are going to have to go on a possible hiatus.
I've gotten
more intense readings and workload than I could've expected, despite everyone warning me about continental philosophy.
I knew it was bad when I bought a book called "How to Read - Heidegger" and the first chapter was called "How to Read How to Read"
I'll probably reasonably still be coming by occasionally though.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16879

File: 1505948272414.jpg (14.71 KB, 173x226, 11.jpg)

That's nice.
How's other things? How's the rest of life?

Pretty good, managed to bumble into my final year of college. Stumbled into a duel major as well. But I'm still going at it which is something.
Think I'm coming down with a cold but I can't complain.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16880

File: 1505948340027.png (150.57 KB, 1016x720, 1461412__safe_artist-colon-mar…)

Going okay, I think.
Have a job that I'm not fired from.
Have a dog that loves me.
Food, shelter, no love life though.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16881

File: 1505948417294.jpg (8.41 KB, 108x141, 36.jpg)

Aww, shit, you got a DOG??
Fuck I envy that.
What's their name and are they a good boy?

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16882

File: 1505948503788.png (349.4 KB, 1079x1000, 1447025__safe_artist-colon-gre…)

Had it for almost 3 years now.
Border Collie Dalmatian Mix.
She's a good girl.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16883

File: 1505948650496.jpg (4.51 KB, 48x115, 17.jpg)

Three years eh?
How time flies.
I'm pretty sure you didn't have a dog when I left for what I think was the third time.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16884

File: 1505948735649.jpg (111.33 KB, 1366x768, 1500556__safe_screencap_prince…)

I don't even remember time or the timeline really.
All I know is I was 23 when I rescued her.
Now I'm almost 26.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16885

File: 1505948856804.jpg (12.78 KB, 120x143, 19a.jpg)

Dude all you need to know is that you have a dog. That's badass.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16886

File: 1505949129375.png (294.69 KB, 714x513, 1447565__safe_edit_edited+scre…)

Somewhat badass...
Having a Border Collie Dalmatian is high stress as the poor thing needs exercise at least 3 times a week.

In unrelated news, my throwing arm is getting better.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16887

File: 1505949278986.png (26.3 KB, 125x109, 110.png)

Yeah a border collie is just about the highest energy breed of dog.
But it's good to have something that will never stop loving you.
And good!
Walking the dog is good exercise for the both of you.

-Z- (mobile phone) (ID: 1a1e59)  16888

Pfft walk? Nah...
I go outside with her and throw the ball as hard as I can and pray it takes longer then 3 seconds for her to come back with it.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16889

File: 1505949651039.png (21.92 KB, 125x109, 50.png)

Maybe you secretly want her to run away 'cuz you feel like you don't deserve something that loves you.
Maybe I've been watching too much Bojack Horseman.

I am SO fuckin jealous you got a dog.
I want a beagle and name it Bagel.
Or Togo. Togo's a good dog name.
But he'd have a reputation to live up to.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16890

File: 1505950071759.jpg (35.42 KB, 278x306, 21.jpg)

Was that too dark?
I feel bad about that, that was too dark.

-Z- (mobile phone) (ID: 1a1e59)  16891

Oh believe me, I most certainly don't deserve this dog.
But when I went to get one from a shelter, she was deemed not human friendly and timid. Lived the first year of her life in a cage in some basement.

And if I didn't adopt her, who would?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16892

File: 1505950316307.gif (6.1 KB, 118x136, 97.gif)

The dog thinks you're too good for her.
Bless you and your dog, Z.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16893

File: 1505952636231.png (455.06 KB, 4043x3230, 1443333__safe_artist-colon-fro…)

Bless is a load of shithorse.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16894

File: 1505953156896.jpg (26.85 KB, 271x299, 200.jpg)

It's the thought that counts.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16895

File: 1505953211195.jpg (31.1 KB, 227x184, 1451959__safe_screencap_prince…)

Tell that to US Vets coming back from battle and getting fucked over by our VA hospitals.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16896

File: 1505953615537.jpg (12.98 KB, 174x301, 45.jpg)

I'm glad you adopted a dog and your dog's glad you adopted her.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16897

File: 1505953856725.jpg (51.74 KB, 461x371, 500318__safe_princess+luna_bed…)

I'm glad too, I just wish I could do more for her.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16899

File: 1505954511591.png (188.04 KB, 618x673, nicole's hips.png)

You don't always have to do more. You have to start with enough.


Anthony, my man
Have you seen Tamyra's artwork?
You'd like it.
Start at like page 100.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16901

File: 1505954925886.jpg (20.96 KB, 237x278, 9.jpg)

It's so cute.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f26413)  16902

Well, here's the issue with such a calculation.
Suppose you have a machine that you want to use to perform this operation. Presumably, this machine exists inside the universe, since tha lol oooohht seems like a desirable prop
Op lolerty to have. This means that in every state it spopoooopoecifies, it must also speclolkop lol pify its own state.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4cf9c7)  16903

File: 1505956783810.png (101.42 KB, 234x299, 153.png)

Adlbhueh what the fuck?

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16904

File: 1505956807738.png (1.35 MB, 2500x2500, 1225555__safe_artist-colon-str…)

Well... guess I'm fucked then.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e7a95f)  16905

I think I wrote part of the post on my phone and then butt-dialed the rest.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 03c09c)  16906

File: 1505988179025.gif (10.74 KB, 139x163, 22.gif)

Z you and I know damn well that there's nothing you could do for that dog that would ever feel like enough.
You could heap her with toys and treats and take her on five hour hikes every day and you still wouldn't feel like you were doing enough.
Because you love her.

I could not understand what'd happened. I thought you lost your trip and someone drunk was impersonating you. Or that you were drunk.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 03c09c)  16907

File: 1506007608693.gif (13.95 KB, 174x227, 39.gif)

Heidegger said "The Nothing Itself Nothings" and I can't stop thinking of this phrase. I want to write thousands of words explicating it. There's so much you could take out of it.

Moony (ID: 03f837)  16908

File: 1506007897758.png (334.7 KB, 720x720, 1505968312867.png)


If you try to nothing the nothing it's not nothing anymore.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 03c09c)  16909

File: 1506008416430.gif (30.49 KB, 319x310, 12.gif)

But Heidegger says that despite the way we are incredibly reliant on science, it is not concerned with nothing. And given its reliance on the surface understanding of beings, to attain a deeper understanding of beings, we begin by understanding what they are not. And they are not nothing. So we gotta figure out what nothing is. And a good place to start is to figure out what nothing does.
So I think "nothings" is a verb in that case.
Maybe someday nothing will make sense.

-Z- (mobile phone) (ID: 1a1e59)  16910

Yeah... guess I can't change who I am.
Give til it hurts, always believing it's never enough.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6f5573)  16911

File: 1506026351148.png (140.08 KB, 371x363, well....png)

Okay, aside from that little incident.

Suppose you have a machine you want to use to calculate the state of the universe in the future given some known state in the past. Since the machine is also a part of the universe, any state it gives would also involve its own state. I realized in the middle of the last post that I don't know if this really presents a complication for this kind of computation, which is why I put it back in my pocket.
But it's a thought.
Another problem is that if such a machine were to exist, then it could be used to solve the halting problem. But I don't think that's really in the spirit of what we're after.

Does that mean you are an intuitionist, or you're not?
Because intuitionistic maths is mainly what motivates most of the discussion surrounding it. It's just not very popular because it obviously does less stuff.

Well, unification seems to be the way that physics has been progressing through history, if that's even a good motivation.
Dr. King seems to be one of the more sensible science publicists, I think. You know how a lot of physicists adopt a highly instrumentalist view of their work? Like, I don't mean the nice kind of instrumentalism; I mean the kind of aggressive instrumentalism that borders on a psychological phobia of philosophical topics.
It makes me wonder if what we really think we're working on, isn't actually what we're working on.

Best case scenario: I don't really care either way.
Worst case scenario: It's been so long that I forget the reasoning behind why I wrote anything the next time it swings back around.

Is "nothing" an object, or is it just the negation of "something"?
Kind of disappointing that we have to describe it like an object in order to even talk about what it's not.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16912

File: 1506029653864.png (1.56 MB, 1920x1080, 1459124__safe_screencap_prince…)

I always thought that nothing as a concept was similar to the idea that in mathematics they use 0 as a placeholder to represent the null point between negative and positive.

Also... I am way too tired to try sounding smrt.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6f5573)  16913

File: 1506030953307.png (108.63 KB, 378x368, 012001.png)

The difference between the "mathematical" zero and the concept of "nothing-ness" is that in math, zero is an actual object.

There's a sort-of misconception about numbers along the lines of "the natural numbers represent something in real life, so zero is a representation of nothing". I think it comes from the way people learn arithmetic, where you're shown two apples as an example of how 1+1 = 2, and so on. The idea that "if I have N apples, and I take away N, apples, then I have no apples" directly leads to the idea that zero "isn't really a number" or that it's "just a placeholder" or that it's a "representation of nothing". All of these are useful analogies when you're learning basic arithmetic for the first time, but it's not really true.

The truth is that mathematics isn't empirical; the statement that "1+1 = 2" isn't based on the observations that one apple and another apple always makes two apples. Numbers just happen to describe apples really well because we designed them to be that way.
How are numbers designed? Well, you start with an object, and you simply say that this object has some abstract properties that logically leads you to an entire class of other objects. In the particular case of the natural numbers, this object is zero. It's not a "placeholder" for anything. It's not a "representation" of anything. It's just an abstract object with logical properties that we use to construct all the rest of the numbers.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16914

File: 1506031502938.png (294.69 KB, 714x513, 1447565__safe_edit_edited+scre…)

... yeah... waaaayyyy too tired to be thinking in that form...

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 88e8dd)  16915

Hot take:
A sort of "natural mathematics" exists, from which the properties of the universe could be exactly defined, if only we knew said mathematics.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6f5573)  16916

Short version: apple counting doesn't rule mathematics.
It's hard to imagine how such a thing would be different from normal mathematics, if that's the case.
I'm more of the persuasion that physical objects don't tend to perform calculations.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 88e8dd)  16917

This would be inherent to reality, and uninvented.
I would tell you that objects are defined by the relations between more fundamental (mathematical) objects.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16918

File: 1506041373949.png (824.58 KB, 1280x1060, 587640__safe_artist-colon-seco…)

What about sticks and symbols?

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16919

File: 1506045609295.jpg (16.83 KB, 486x366, 1539914__safe_artist-colon-2sn…)

>It's been over 5 years since the /space/ party began

Holy shit... I don't know if I can deal...

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 88e8dd)  16920

oldfag lol

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16921

File: 1506047974809.png (927.07 KB, 2480x3507, 1446763__safe_artist-colon-und…)

I've been here too long.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 88e8dd)  16922

...Is that bad?

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16923

File: 1506048682281.png (263.11 KB, 2000x1600, 1245869__safe_artist-colon-mar…)

Long enough to see everyone else that I used to know disappear and never be heard from again.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6f5573)  16925

File: 1506049456082.png (850.66 KB, 900x892, 1181244.png)

What theory isn't characterized by having objects whose properties are defined by fundamental relations?
If you want to create a mathematical system based on empirical twig-counting, be my guest.
In fact, it's been five years since anything that has happened five years ago.
What are "cowboy nuts"?

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16927

File: 1506050444259.png (390.07 KB, 1000x1000, 284253__safe_artist-colon-pony…)

I will, and I'll call it "base-stick"

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 88e8dd)  16928

Reality itself operates this way.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6f5573)  16929

A better name would be "match-stick".
Well in that case, it sounds like current models correspond pretty tightly on that front.

-Z- (ID: 711afe)  16930

File: 1506053725597.png (1.56 MB, 1920x1080, 1459124__safe_screencap_prince…)

Oh shit, that name be fire yo

-Z- (ID: adc128)  16931

File: 1506307598925.png (263.11 KB, 2000x1600, 1245869__safe_artist-colon-mar…)

Holy fuck this place be dead

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 70d26f)  16932

File: 1506308136502.png (102.77 KB, 368x384, 012044.png)

Well, do you have anything interesting to say?

-Z- (ID: adc128)  16933

File: 1506308180888.png (150.57 KB, 1016x720, 1461412__safe_artist-colon-mar…)

Nope, since at my core I am uninteresting.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 70d26f)  16934

File: 1506308626347.png (164.06 KB, 435x428, c1.png)

It's useless to say anything if you have nothing to say, whereas not saying anything is a message in its own right.
Also, essentialism is out of style by now, I think.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9327dc)  16935

File: 1506363983194.jpg (8.9 KB, 103x138, 37-.jpg)

Did you know that well over a trillion dollars is traded in the foreign currency exchange market every fucking day?

!RISkQqf4EM (ID: 14b7c5)  16936

File: 1506372836989.jpg (14.64 KB, 351x351, 141175900182.jpg)

over a trillion dollars invested in a game where people try to get richer but the money just moves around in circles and doesn't ever go anywhere else

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: d19717)  16937

File: 1506374707391.png (122.95 KB, 296x315, stark raving mad.png)

All numbers start looking the same after a couple million or so.
Funny story: a number is considered "big" if you can add a small number to it without changing the number.
A number is "really big" when you can multiply it by a large number without changing it.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16938

File: 1506382306762.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

But man, that trillion-plus dollars is just money traded for another country's currency. That's not even the actual investments. That's people trading money to make the investments.
But yeah that's pretty much exactly what the money does. Moves in a pretty frikken complicated circle from what I'm learning.

Pls give example.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: d19717)  16939

Big number: a million.
1 million + 1 is still 1 million.
Really big number: 10^million.
10^million * 1 million is still 10^million.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16940

File: 1506382773066.jpg (434.24 KB, 945x1442, 177.jpeg)

I don't think I'm an intuitionist. But I'm pretty much the worst judge of myself so how would I even know. I feel like that's kind of relevant to the machine calculating the state of the universe, actually. Being a poor judge of oneself.
Man doing less stuff huh.
Apparently analytical philosophy is extremely restrictive. But fuck I'm having a bit of trouble with the continental side.

We'll get by it sounds like.
You'll miss me if I go.
That's what I tell myself.

I'll let you know more about nothing when I learn more..
I seriously might write my term paper on that sentence.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16941

File: 1506382809811.jpg (18.2 KB, 216x231, 41.jpg)

Holy shit, 10^million is a really big number.
I guess that helps put it in perspective.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16942

File: 1506382877754.png (43.02 KB, 122x180, 53.png)

B-b-b-b-bored to the bone.

Nothing's as interesting as comments on lack of interest.
And I mean that in the most literal way.

-Z- (ID: 475b81)  16943

File: 1506383034042.png (1.35 MB, 2500x2500, 1225555__safe_artist-colon-str…)

What can I say, I get so bored so quickly since I've been out of work on disability since the beginning of the month and I'm starting to go stir crazy.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16944

File: 1506383179486.jpg (14.29 KB, 161x225, 98.jpg)

If you're going stir crazy, then to answer your question of "What can I say" a good place to start would be "anything of substance."

-Z- (ID: 475b81)  16945

File: 1506383229199.png (54.13 KB, 680x386, 1245830__safe_solo_princess+lu…)

I have no substance, so I guess I'll just stop then.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16946

File: 1506383415230.png (75.75 KB, 234x193, 168.png)

Come to think of it, unrelatedly, self-pity's worse than nothing, because when you're talking about nothing the conversation can go somewhere else.

You are never not allowed to talk, as long as you talk.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16947

File: 1506384038018.jpg (64.98 KB, 452x300, 226.jpg)

I am glad to hear you're at least recovering. That makes me happy to know.
You're always free to talk and vent.

Still, I'm going to bed now.
Gnight all.

This song cover is pretty.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 68dfcb)  16948

File: 1506398045001.png (258.66 KB, 589x476, what am I looking at.png)

Well, maybe there's a clever way to determine what it is.
Like a sort of substitution, but fancier.

Well, analytics are boring. You should be glad.
It's like how "definitions" are boring. You try not to think about them, but they're there.

It's not like we're not both used to it by now.

You've already told me exactly nothing about nothing, so I guess that term paper really writes itself.

I feel like you're not really getting the "feel" for a number if all you're doing is just looking at how many zeros there are in it.
In another life, I would have been an ultrafinitist.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 3f8c56)  16949

File: 1506733559464.png (48.87 KB, 213x121, 167.png)

Developed a small crush on a shy girl in a dating sim. Classic mistake.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 08f716)  16950

File: 1506733919368.gif (406.17 KB, 376x357, berry scrunch.gif)

You'd think avoiding this sort of pitfall would become fairly obvious from the beginning.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 3f8c56)  16951

File: 1506734015036.jpg (35.42 KB, 278x306, 21.jpg)

It's them being flustered and blushing that makes me wanna nuzzle against them and cuddle.
I miss my girlfriend.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 3f8c56)  16952

File: 1506735322403.jpg (992.78 KB, 604x1273, cosplay.jpg)

Like if I'd describe my own qualities onto someone else? Or got someone else to exhibit my own qualities?
Well I feel like i seek out and notice the qualities I recognize in myself in others most easily.
Projection! That's fancier than substitution right.

Heidegger wrote 500 goddamn pages explaining the question "What is being" and talking about how the problem with the question is "is" is used in the question. Like using a word in it's own definition.

I'm still not used to leaving here. As may be very clear.
I'm glad I have a place to dump contents of my brain though.

I don't know anything about nothing yet but I'll keep you updated as I slog through these readings.

Oh go on. Indefinitely.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 08f716)  16953

File: 1506737753384.png (203.65 KB, 490x512, colgate 865121.png)

You make it sound way too easy.
I don't really know how well anything like that would work.
It just seems sketchy to me, since lot of horrible stuff comes out of self-reference. It seems like anything having any kind of orderly structure tends to work much better if things weren't allowed to talk about themselves.

I take solace in the idea that all definitions have to either be circular or regress infinitely. This sort of stuff was bound to happen.
And, well, isn't this where a lot of skepticism originates? I don't know if anyone is a realist about the "meaning of statements", but statements are nonetheless how we come to understand everything, regardless of whether they're real or not.

More like slowly drip the contents of your brain, right?

So here's a "neat proof" of some math formula:
We want to find the sum of the first N terms of a geometric sequence, given by A(n) = Ar^n.
I know what the sum is. It's called "S".
S = A + Ar + Ar^2 + ... + Ar^(N - 1)
rS = Ar + Ar^2 + Ar^3 + ... + Ar^N
S - rS = S(1 - r) = A - Ar^N = A(1 - r^N)
S = A(1 - r^N)/(1 - r).

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 63a480)  16954

File: 1507047316234.gif (8.91 KB, 138x133, 80.gif)

Do I?

Oh I agree with you there. But it's hard to look at things objectively. It's hard to not have an ego barrier. Self-reference becomes a necessity because it's difficult to refer in another context.

Well I guess if you're using a dictionary to learn things, and you need to look up every single word, you're not gonna learn anything without some foundation in language to begin with.
Are you in the tabula rasa line of thought?

That's actually pretty good.
I unno we get caught in conversations after I lose interest sometimes but I still crank out replies.
It's cool though.

I don't get it!

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: ffb1fe)  16955

File: 1507097406047.png (159.98 KB, 425x417, uhm.png)

I read that book by Douglas Hofstadter, and while I think it was sort of all over the place in terms of explanation, it has the same sort of theme.

Do you mean with regard to language, or to everything?
I haven't really thought about it much. I think it would be hard to defend the claim that literally everything is acquired rather than innate, since you would presumably need some level of cognition to begin with in order to ever be able to learn anything.
Beyond that, though, I find it favorable. I think the issue is how we decide what counts as a relevant sort of question for this. Even if you never learn any language, couldn't there still be statements or propositions happening in your head? Supposing that a newborn manages to learn anything at all, isn't there still a piece of knowledge that exists without any way to express it?
Speaking of expression, I think it may also be possible that the ideas in our heads are completely well-formed and not tautological at all, but they become constrained by language whenever we try to express them.

It's a sort of elementary demonstration of a formula to add a particular kind of numerical sequence, for example 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... or 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...
I've always found it neat, because the process involves a step that incorporates the result of the proof into the proof itself. Namely, we pretend as if we already have the sum of the entire series, and through a manipulation of that value, we arrive at the actual sum. This proof would have been impossible if we couldn't just assign a value S to the entire sum.
That's the sort of idea of what I meant by "making a substitution". It seems like, sometimes, you don't have to compute the solution directly; it just precipitates out of the system if you say the magic word.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: ce867a)  16956

File: 1507183394550.png (315.49 KB, 569x536, hmmm.png)

Imagine if Earth was the only planet in the solar system. How long would it have taken for people to adopt heliocentrism?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16957

File: 1507400229245.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

So how 'bout that analytic/continental divide?

That's actually a really interesting question.
How do you think we could've worked it out?
There must be something we could've done with the moon to help on that front.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  16958

File: 1507406468374.png (83.05 KB, 349x305, b1.png)

All I know is analytics tend to make boring reading material.
But it is necessary, I think. And I tend to understand it better anyway.

I think people have known about the orbital precession of the moon for quite a bit of time, even though that may still be relatively easily accounted for within a geocentric model.
My impression is that even though it was found that the sun and the moon did not move in a perfectly circular orbit, they weren't really huge problems with the geocentric view, since you could replicate them with a clever addition of some epicycles.
One thing that could be significant is if stellar parallax had been observed definitely. But even this is not something that can't be corrected with epicycles (in fact, there is nothing that can't be corrected with epicycles).
Seeing as one of the major roadblocks for Copernicus was that he didn't really have an explanation for the movement of the earth, I think Newtonian physics would have to have supplanted Aristotelian physics before a heliocentric revolution could occur. After all, the idea that the sun gets flung around the sky with such vast speed doesn't really make sense under a Newtonian picture.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 859557)  16959

Ban continental tbh.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 80a436)  16960

File: 1507430646492.jpg (42.7 KB, 199x185, 100.jpg)

I disagree.
Bertrand Russell is a great read by any standard. And Kripke is an analytical genius. You should read him. You'll love him. Might've mentioned him before.

Goddamn that's crazy.
Every time I think about it it scares me a little how close everything was to being completely different.
Not that I'd notice if everything were always completely different.
But credits to the human race for lasting so far.


Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 859557)  16961

Philosophy should be coherent and objective, not just jazzy.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  16962

File: 1507438120780.png (221.01 KB, 576x494, 012022.png)

See, I'd also say that sometimes continentals can be unilluminating in ways, but these are only vague considerations.
I read an article once that argues that the so-called "divide" is more a sociological separation rather than a philosophical one. Presumably there are stylistic differences between these two cultures, which lends to such a kind of judgment as I gave just now. So what do I really mean when I say things about analytic or continental philosophy in a broad sense? Is the character of formalizing arguments in a strict manner that seems (to me) more intelligible but less interesting to study recreationally a one reserved by analytic philosophers? Or, is the opposite character always the case for continentals?
I think they're more like personal evaluations of an unspecific idea about what analytics or continentals ought to look like.

The great thing is that you'd consider them to be the same even if everything were different.
The lesson here, I think, is that we shouldn't always conflate scientific instrumentation with reality.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16963

File: 1507459558483.jpg (434.24 KB, 945x1442, 177.jpeg)

A friend of mine said "Analytic gets you answer. Continental gets you laid."
Seriously though.
I think the distinction is more about what people think on each side can be or is worth accomplishing through an analytic framework.
For instance, "What is being" is very difficult to interpret through a logical formulation because it presupposes the definition of "is."
Also it's thought that it's not worth discussing what nothing is, because its thought to be whatever is isn't, in a way.
Continental philosophy is a way to understand concepts that can't be discussed in the analytic framework.
I don't see why both can't be celebrated. There shouldn't be this divide.

And hang on, why should philosophy be any one thing? Why should what philosophy is be set in stone? There's more than one way to skin a cat. And I should know.

The sociological distinction is an interesting point. I'd like to hear more about that.
It's commonly accepted that for most people analytic is easier to read.
But are you saying to characterize the divide first, we need to characterize analytic and continental? 'cuz that makes sense
but it does mean we're discussing the question in terms of analytic philosophy
Funnily enough, the term "continental" didn't come from continental philosophers, it came from analytic philosophers who found a term to describe what they were not.
Personal evaluations of the distinction hits the nail on the head. I gotta figure out mine though.
I got an essay to write for next Friday. The prompt is "What is the best way of characterizing the analytic/continental distinction?"
So I'll be talking about this a lot in the next two weeks I'm afraid.
I've been thinking of reviewing two philosophers that write on both sides about the distinction, and comparing their writing style and content to characterize it. I think I'll be doing Russell or Frege against Hegel or Heidegger. Haven't decided. Gettin worried.

Not that I'd notice if everything were always completely different. How would I. Some parallel universe could look at me now and say "what the fuck he's only got two nostrils?"
we shouldn't always but it's fun to sometimes

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 12958b)  16964

File: 1507514904704.png (122.95 KB, 296x315, stark raving mad.png)

Maybe you've read this before. I think it's interesting.
That may be what I am saying. On the other hand, I may also be saying that the difference in style or content of the two traditions isn't really that important, or even what we want to focus on.
It's certainly when I think of first when someone mentions the "analytic-continental divide", so that difference in style may really be the best way to talk about it. But it may not be the case that what I imagine to be different between the two is actually the most philosophically relevant feature, if there even is one. There is the danger that we actually are just talking about a stereotype of analytic or continental philosophy, entangled by the fact that these labels are often just bins you can mindlessly shove philosophers into, rather than descriptions of any particular feature of their work.

Are you living in an alternate reality? Simply follow this flowchart.
(1) Do you feel like you're living in an alternate reality?
-> Yes: Go to (2)
-> No: Go to (2)
(2) Yes.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9600da)  16965

File: 1507671919540.jpg (23.45 KB, 253x328, 66.jpg)

Still kinda miss the rest of my Nemi pics.
Hey, what made you choose your avatar?

I absolutely agree. I'm almost certainly going to mention in my essay that there's no good way to characterize the divide, as it'd be better off without. In a less cheesy way of course.
It's possible to discuss common characterizations of a group without resorting to stereotypes. Right? But hell I'll take stereotyping for the time being. I need a firmer understanding of each group.
Did I mention that the term "continental" originated from analytic philosophers, used to distinguish what they aren't?
Man sometimes I wanna get away from the us v. them mentality but it is unbelievably ingrained in human psyche.

Oh that's a fun question. Do you think a person is their work? Do you think features of a person's philosophy can extend to features of oneself?
Personally, no. You're not your work and you should absolutely not think you are.


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7ceae0)  16966

File: 1507774821027.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

Which one? This one?
Maybe there's some kind of psychological thing about it, I don't know.
I could probably make up some kind of analytic explanation, but in these cases the amount of contrivance I'd need grows proportionally with how satisfying it would end up.

I think a good place to start with a somewhat philosophical explanation is to think about what prevents "analytic-style" arguments from being attractive to continentals, and vice versa.
It is true that both styles use "logic", but a good part of philosophy is about clarifying what we mean by certain statements within an argument, rather than merely about making arguments themselves. If so, is there a kind of unstated assumption about the nature of the statements being made, which might lead continentals and analytics to conclude that they each are talking about different things?
For example, in the above discussion about whether robots can be morally culpable, there was on one side an implicit understanding that we are looking to characterize the nature of moral judgment that humans tend to use, and on the other, one that wanted to synthesize a theory of moral judgment from first principles. Could there be something like this underlying the arguments of one or both of the two "kinds" of arguments? Or at least, one of their motivations?

Seeing as one's philosophy comes from oneself, I think it's unavoidable that features of one's philosophy reflect features of oneself.
You wouldn't postulate something philosophically if you didn't actually believe that it was true. Or at least, if you did, it would have to be very contrived.
So I'd say that a person is reflected in their works. But conversely, I wouldn't say that a person's work is necessarily reflected in that person.

!gEapIYWEa2 (ID: 5234d7)  16967

File: 1507778839682.png (243.09 KB, 1500x800, 1507521064648.png)

I'm not my work. My essays can't write essays, only I can. My stories can't imagine. They can't even think. They're just html-ish documents. If I was my work, I'd be unable to type this, because I'd have no fingers.

It might be more productive to ask if a person's work is part of them, or separate from them? I would argue the latter, but the former is also pretty compelling, since you can't create something separate from yourself, without picturing it in your head, and that head-picture is part of you, even if the physical painting is (sadly) isolated from you.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7ceae0)  16968

The intended meaning was never about whether a person is literally their work, so yes.

!gEapIYWEa2 (ID: 5234d7)  16969

File: 1507780828448.png (70.19 KB, 750x750, uh.png)


Forgive me for being literal, but I think that it's a significant claim. There's lots of parts of me that I had nothing to do with. My impeccable spelling for instance is the work of my 7th grade English teacher may she rot in Tartarus. And in fact, my entire philosophy is the product of dozens of stupid teachers, ruining my childhood. So... no. My philosophy is their fault. My work is something different.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7ceae0)  16970

I'm not exactly clear on what you're really responding to. You sort of wrote three paragraphs about four mutually unrelated topics.
The fact that a person is not literally equivalent to their work goes without saying, so I consider it unimportant that products of labor can't produce labor themselves.
If by "part of them" you mean whether we can evaluate a person via their work or vice versa, well, I think this was the sense in which the original question was being asked.
If you mean whether a person's work is mereologically a portion of the whole that is "the person", there is a separate discussion to be had about that.
As for the origin of a person's attributes, I don't really see how that has to do with the way other people find out about these attributes. And I don't think possession of an attribute, however that goes, can really be said to function the same way as evaluating a work.

This is all just to say that, from the context of the rest of the discussion, I interpreted the sentence of the question to be about "whether attributes derived from an evaluation of a person's work can also be attributed to the person themselves".
These other topics do seem to be tangentially related, though. And they're interesting, but well, I'm on a bit of a focused mindset.

!gEapIYWEa2 (ID: 5234d7)  16971

File: 1507785045744.png (416.34 KB, 768x1024, in my dreams I am still right …)

> You sort of wrote three paragraphs about four mutually unrelated topics.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a space case.

> products of labor can't produce labor themselves.

You could argue that products of labor cannot produce themselves, no more than an author could write about having an adventure while having an adventure. But you can't dismiss what is pretty much the dictionary definition of reproduction. We're all products of labor, and we can produce products like us by having children. a text file can't do that, but something with a uterus can.

> whether we can evaluate a person via their work or vice versa, well, I think this was the sense in which the original question was being asked.

Then why did they say "you should absolutely not think you are?" I thought they were talking about associating yourself with your works, not using someone's works to judge them. IDK I'm not Pwnies.

But they're not responding, so let's talk about what you're interested in, instead.

> "whether attributes derived from an evaluation of a person's work can also be attributed to the person themselves".

I think they can, but it's not obvious exactly what connections can be made. If someone writes slasher novels, they're probably not a slasher, but it is probable that they have issues about women. (Because it's always ugly males slashing young women.) If someone writes about how terrible it is to change into a pony, that means the author does want to be a pony, even though they're writing about people who do not.

Edgar Allen Poe wasn't bricking people into walls, but boy oh boy was he an alcoholic, and considering what he wrote about I can't blame the man.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f2bdc1)  16972

File: 1507786338927.png (286.04 KB, 524x504, Sketch100.png)

We typically don't consider children to be a part of the corpus of one's "work", by which we mean literary or artistic compositions.
Which is presumably why you previously specified that you wouldn't be able to type things if you were literally equivalent to your work.

"You" is often used to refer to an unspecified person in general.

I was careful to say only that it is most likely possible to make such a connection, but not how they ought to be made or on what basis. The ambiguity of interpretation is also why I remarked that it is possible to projects attributes of a person onto their work, but it is often not possible to project attributes of a work onto the person who created it.

!gEapIYWEa2 (ID: 5234d7)  16973

File: 1507787166787.png (155.25 KB, 1278x1691, hmph.png)


I got a few farmers and machinists who might object at being told only artistic and literary achievments count as "work." And I think every mother ever would resent being told that how her child was raised isn't part of the "corpus" of her work.

Also, I don't care how you were carefully defining whatever or whatever. If you disagree with me, go ahead and disagree, but it's really not helpful to explain nothing other than how I read your words wrong. You didn't explain how they ought to be made, great. But what do you explain?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f2bdc1)  16974

File: 1507788299491.png (278.16 KB, 761x553, c3.png)

You yourself excluded children from the description to begin with, so I'm rightly only shouldering half of that resentment.
If we were to use "work" in the colloquial sense (which I didn't think we were doing because this was a discussion about philosophers and not about farmers or machinists or mothers) we would need to ask a different question, and I would probably have a different answer.
So, if that is the case, ask away.

That's the thing. I didn't disagree.
My primary concern was with answering the question: yes, it is possible, or no, it is not possible. Both my answer and yours seem to be "yes, conditionally". I felt the clarification was needed because the distinction between projecting attributes of works onto a person and projecting attributes of a person onto their works may not have been obvious. I didn't specify how such characterizations "ought" to be made, because I honestly don't know, and even if I did, it probably wouldn't be uniformly applicable to every work of a person's corpus anyway. Additionally, you might not find this lack of detail very worrisome if you didn't actually find some part of my answer objectionable, which is why my actual interest in the question lies in how the two sides of the distinction I mentioned have anything to do with each other.
At this point, I usually close my computer and wait until the next day to check for a reply, because this is a slow thread and I rather like ruminating on a topic for a while before revisiting it.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f2bdc1)  16975

If you had an idea of how evaluations of a person through their work "ought" to be made, I'd be interested to hear it.

!gEapIYWEa2 (ID: 5234d7)  16976

File: 1507790092494.png (162.25 KB, 673x800, huhhhh.png)


Sorry, I meant to exclude children from my own, personal works, since I'm ...never gonna get laid.

I think philosophers can talk about physical products of others. I define "works" as the things you do or make that stick around when you're not there to maintain it. Stories, buildings, massaged muscles, a good impression, whatever lasts a while on its own.

And... I guess we're agreed, that yeah, conditionally. So... great. Good talk.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: d727a0)  16977

File: 1507791467054.png (364.07 KB, 538x535, vandalism is fun.png)

It is more interesting to discuss whatever applied to people in general rather than any specific person in particular.
At least, in this context.

If we adopt this meaning of "work", what questions may we ask about it?
Does the same sentence as was asked previously function in nearly the same way? Is it possible to find a condition under which properties of a person are reflected in their work simultaneously for all the different things that "work" may represent?

You don't have anything else to say?
You don't have a problem with, say, the idea of literary attributes being the same as personal attributes?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: be35f9)  16978

File: 1507813374844.jpg (12.98 KB, 174x301, 45.jpg)

Yea that one.
For me I like Nemi 'cuz she's extremely expressive. Other characters I've tried ain't got the same level. Also I'm just used to it at this point. When I post with my trip I feel weird about not posting it with a picture. I guess I think it feels rude.

I can think of one or two features unattractive to each other.
And on your front, the analytic philosophers are much clearer about what they say, while the continental philosophers... hmm.
I guess I'll have to explain this at some point, so.
Continental philosophers write poorly. Or at least, they write contentedly. I'm talking about Hegel and Heidegger here but both are madness. They don't structure their arguments. They stream instead of flow. They take some terms to have implicit definitions that are not laid clear.
There's confusion about exactly what terms mean for sure. But I don't know if the conclusions are where the split really is. It's more about the questions tackled and the methodology used to get there.
You know what, i actually think that's a pretty good point. The continental side definitely takes more to be implicit, or is less concerned with making things explicit, whereas analytic philosophers firmly establish the definition of terms so that their argument attacks or defends the specifically defined perspective.
That's not to say continentalists do not attack or defend specific perspectives, but they are less troubled about making it explicit.
I think I've almost settled on how I'm going to argue this. The split originates in a difference of literary style, which encompasses methodology, argument structure, and specific topics deemed worth discussing.

I getcha there.
When I said you are not your work, what came to mind is that criticism leveled at your work should not be taken as criticism about yourself.
Still, in terms of philosophy, the work you create is at least some kind of form of your beliefs. I can agree with that.
There's also the point that when you're an amateur writer, your writing is not at its full potential. I think it'd make sense that, as your writing improves, it becomes a better reflection of your own features.
If your writing style is heavily critiqued, then you shouldn't take that personally. That'd be silly.

Y'all should come back, I wanna talk about some random topic with you.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 570ea3)  16979

If it isn't structured in a straight-forward manner with well-defined terms, it's masturbation.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: d727a0)  16980

File: 1507867582082.png (12.72 KB, 211x211, oooooh.PNG)

Facial features covey a sort of undertone that simply isn't possible using only words. It's a substitute for speaking "face-to-face", but with a high level of control for what we choose to express.
Which is strange, because I seem to gravitate towards those pictures which have the least amount of color and the most neutral expression. I have a great deal of more expressive ones, but they don't tend to be used very often.
Makes you wonder what that says.

I think the "difficulty" comes mostly from the way that different traditions interact with the literature. The language of formal logic is I think more easily accessible for the majority of people simply because we tend to have more exposure to it than the works of philosophers themselves. I don't think the explicitness (or lack thereof) of a writing style is something that is attached to analytic or continentals specifically. It's not like people go "I'm a continental philosopher now, which means I must write in this sort of way". Rather, I think a better evaluation would look at what sort of topics make this style favorable.
Of course, the sociological factors also probably play a large part in this. Someone who has been trained exclusively in analytic literature would justifiably find it's style more comfortable to write in.
Also see below.

Well, I might say that criticisms about your work could also be interpreted as criticisms about the parts of yourself that compelled you to creat it. Otherwise we wouldn't really have much of a reason to refine our beliefs upon receiving them.
Well, we would have to distinguish between writing style and the contents of your writing. If you're an amateur writer, it's probable that the words you put down on the paper is not necessarily 100% aligned with what you actually think, but if a critic does manage to pick up the right idea, isn't it still a criticism of these features of yourself rather than one about your writing?
Maybe it's too presumptuous to say that one's ideas are part of oneself. Although I realize that by "taking it personally" you probably mean "being offended by something", rather than taking it to be about oneself in this sense.

I've seen this same complaint about a number of different things, from sociology to physics to philosophy as a practice in general. Whereas there is an expectation from an idealized view of practice that writers should make their ideas as accessible as possible, it is also unfavorable to sacrifice depth in order to suit people who have no background knowledge in the subject. How are you going to read Sartre without some knowledge of Heidegger? How can you understand quantum mechanics without the language of linear algebra? Especially seeing as much of philosophy involves reacting to and engaging with various historical points of view rather than attempting to produce a theory from basic principles, it is doubly necessary to have the appropriate background.
Perhaps there are some writings that are genuinely opaque even for people who do have a reasonable amount of knowledge in the subject, but this is not the same as simply being difficult to comprehend for me in particular. After all, we are often not the "target audience" for these sort of works. I wouldn't expect to pick up a journal of microbiology and be able to read it immediately.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 94b040)  16981

>much of philosophy involves reacting to and engaging with various historical points of view rather than attempting to produce a theory from basic principles

And so we don't have actual knowledge, but theatrics.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7c5d90)  16982

File: 1507906651620.jpg (14.53 KB, 277x183, 14.jpg)

>Aristotle is masturbation

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7c5d90)  16983

I'll get to this, don't worry

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 94b040)  16984

Pre-scientific and in an age of rhetoric.
What's our excuse?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 634732)  16985

Interesting that you took everything I wrote about background knowledge in specialized fields and concluded that engagement with historical literature means there's no "actual knowledge".

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7c5d90)  16986

File: 1507911843142.jpg (14.29 KB, 161x225, 98.jpg)

Interesting insight. Makes me wonder why you use pics at all then.
Maybe you don't want a different tone associated with those pictures, ya want the neurtal look of analysis.
I like woona a lot though.

Clarity is a characteristic firmly applied to analytic, though. At least that's what I've been taught. But I have a really hard time believing Heidegger or Hegel could actually be easy reading if I was trained in continental philosophy. But yeah it's not a matter of putting the horse before the cart. People write in the style they're comfortable writing in. The writing style chooses the school for the most part, or at the very least when people write for themselves. Kant wrote in his way and is considered the foundation of continental writing. He didn't expect that when he wrote it. Come to think of it, it's not really like novels, how the story you create is set out to be placed in a genre for the most part. It's more binary than that. The words you use select the school purely through writing style and topics discussed.
Seems like what makes continental favorable is that there's topics that just aren't able to be aptly approached in an analytic argument.
0h wait, did you mean what topics are better discussed in one style than another?

It depends on if the criticism is leveled at the argumental content or the style it's presented in. If it's the style then you don't really need to refine your beliefs, as opposed to an attack on the content where you either need to revise or defend. But hey it might help you understand why you believe what you believe if you express it better. Maybe that's how it'd refine beliefs.
Heh, I wrote the above before I read your next line. I was gonna say the same thing.
If you inject your thoughts into your work and express it poorly, but a critic still picks up the point and attacks the point itself instead of the medium it was conveyed, then I don't think that's a very good critic. Seems like it'd be putting down the work based on personal beliefs rather than putting down the work for the poor presentation.
I actually did mean for it to be about oneself. Point is to take constructive criticism to better yourself and distinguish that from insults.
I do believe that you are not your work. Your work is at most an extension of yourself, an extension that can be improved, developed, and worked on intrapersonally. Or by yourself, to put it non-pretentiously.

People have their own things that they prefer, things that their mind is better composed to absorb and comprised to produce. I've heard of a philosopher telling his philosopher friend that he had no trouble with Heidegger but could not for the life of him understand Kripke. The minds of men are so varied.

William Blake said "That which can me made clear to the idiot is of no interest to me." Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I said the latter in response to the former in an English class once. I cringe at that memory a little bit sometimes. I was arrogant.

My writing is a fucking mess in these posts.

I said in my first year that all philosophy is, is two and a half millennia of people arguing. Now I think it's two and a half millennia of people arguing about how to make peace with the human condition, how to be happy, how to make the world better for more people. Some people have found a means by which they are content. If it works then it works. Nothing in philosophy is a law rooted in its foundation. There's no law of physics or theorem of mathematics. Some random Ed named Gettier can bring into question theories of justified true belief that has been taken as true since Plato. Everything is up for dispute. I love that.

Hell, maybe our excuse is that we don't need to adhere to such structures anymore. We don't need to adhere to a scientific or rhetoric kind of methodology.
Okay so Aristotle, who does not structure his works in a straightforward manner and does not have well-defined terms, is still not masturbation, correct?
And it just seems like an un-be-lievably pure form of what isn't self-aggrandizing twaddle. Is Descartes? Is Hume? Is Nietzsche? Where do you draw the line?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 94b040)  16987

What kind of engagement? Arguing based on personal emotions and cultural inventions? Or on potentially universal axioms and observations of reality?

Everything is up for dispute, but not everyone can all be right in the same sense at the same time, otherwise we have no means to make meaningful statements, only wild artistry which can be discarded just as well.

We need to have a coherent and universal foundation for all claims and relations, or else eschew any claims to truth or approximation thereof.
Philosophy based on mythology and rhetoric may have been close to where we began, but it teaches us only the extent of our imagination and morals, and little on the extant of reality or ethics.
Where factual matters and the strategies for happiness end, is where the bullshit that has kept philosophy pegged as completely useless begins.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 4f3bf8)  16988

File: 1507936309887.png (135.07 KB, 666x519, shrug2.png)

Maybe so. Honestly, who could say? We are never rational judges of ourselves, after all.
And, I gues there's the anticipation of lacking any tone of voice when communicating. An internet "horror vacui".
The artist of Moonstuck and I seem to share some of the same kind of humor.

What I mean is that there doesn't seem to be anything about the topics that prevents a writer from explicitly listing out definitions and so on. There may be something about the topics that push a writer towards a particular style, in general, though. So, yes. Some topics might be better discussed analytically, and others not.
Some writers are genuinely difficult to comprehend, but it stumps me how some people think "logic" as in the kind of regimented logic that analytic philosophers use is intrinsically natural to understand. Especially seeing as a lot of people seemed to have trouble with discrete math, and even you've expressed before how formal logic was not all that clear to you.
And, I don't think there are many people who write independently nowadays, though, are there?

It's definitely true that sometimes our beliefs or motivations aren't completely clear even to ourselves until someone else comes along to shake things up. But I don't really think beliefs that we've refined after the fact were really ones that we actually had all along. If you didn't know something, then that's all there is. You can be your own critic, after all.
I mean, literary critics would be more likely to talk about the presentation over the real content, but I think it's more important for philosophers to take the most charitable interpretation of a work. For the purpose of self-development I think it's often better to critique the idea rather than the presentation. Unless the presentation actually manages to obscure the idea it contains, of course.
If the point is to take constructive criticism to heart, shouldn't the advice be to "actually do take it personally"?
If the work itself is not part of yourself, then is the idea that motivated the work at least part of yourself?

Reminds me of the joke about mathematicians, how something is deep and exciting when it's still a conjecture, but it's trivial once it's been proved.
Einstein was sort of right in a way. Almost no one writes both accessibly and accurately about stuff like "wave-function collapse" because we don't understand it well enough.

It's not clear to me that any philosopher, continentals nonetheless, argues "based on personal emotions". Can you name an example of a significant philosopher using appeals to emotion as a central component of their argument?
I don't think it's correct that the formation of theories is what people actually do in philosophy. And, to be clear, this isn't a criticism of continentals specifically anymore: all philosophers engage with historical literature. Trying to push your own ideas about what facts people should agree on without listening to what others in the same field have said is simply bad philosophy, unless you want to become the next Ayn Rand or something. It's also not clear to me how "historical engagement" is even related to the style of one's argument in the first place. Does "arguing based on personal emotions" inherently cause someone to talk about past literature more than others?
What does it mean to argue "based on cultural inventions"? Philosophers often study cultural inventions, because of course people are often the subjects of philosophical study. Do philosophers of culture take their own cultural customs for granted as fact? I don't think so. If anything, continentals seem to be more critical of our numerous socio-cultural base assumptions, simply because they tend to study human society more than analytics do.
Is it clear that "observations of reality" are what philosophers should base their arguments on? It seems to be a given that observations can be wrong, and indeed the degree to which observations are wrong is an area of philosophical study. Should all philosophers of epistemology become empiricists? Should all philosophers who don't study epistemology become empiricists? As for "axioms", which ones do you think philosophers ignore? My understanding is that no philosopher, continental or analytic, disregard the principles of logic. Or are you speaking of uncontroversial statements like "murder is bad"? As good an assumption as this is, isn't it also a product of society, which you want philosophers to not take for granted? Given that we ourselves grow up inside of society and our observations about humans are entangled with the society in which they live, what is your criterion for distinguishing between uncontroversial "axioms" and "cultural inventions"?
These are all rhetorical questions, but seeing as we're now apparently talking about the content of one's work rather than the clarity of one's argument to outsiders, I wouldn't mind if you answered them anyway.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 5dcaa0)  16989

File: 1508190376930.png (328.4 KB, 594x554, look a distraction.png)

This was an enlightening piece of information about modality:

Consider the two statements:

α: Diane planted only six rosebushes.
β: Diane planted fewer than eight rosebushes.

Now consider the sentences:
(1) It is impossible for α to be true and β to be false.
(2) If α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false.

"But – and this is the crucial point – the propositions expressed by [(1)] are not equivalent to the propositions expressed by sentences [(2)]. The former set, that is [(1)], are all true. The latter, [(2)] are false and commit the modal fallacy. The fallacy occurs in its assigning the modality of impossibility, not to the relationship between the truth of α and falsity of β as is done in [(1)], but to the falsity of β alone. Ordinary grammar beguiles us and misleads us. It makes us believe that if α is true, then it is impossible for β to be false. But it is possible for β to be false. β is a contingent proposition. Recall the principle of the fixity of modal status. Even if the falsity of β is guaranteed by the truth of some other proposition [in this case α], β does not 'become' impossible: it 'remains' contingent, and thereby possible.

Whatever impossibility there is lies in jointly asserting α and denying β. (See [(1)] above.) The proposition "it is false that β" does not 'become' impossible if one asserts α."

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 582fa8)  16990

This is one of those things where you read it and think "well, that was pretty obvious if you thought about it" but you didn't think about it.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: f08699)  16991

T-3 days till essay due
sry adl will try and respond soon but don't hold your breath
i'll send ya my essay at some point if you're interested

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0967b2)  16992

File: 1508308937861.png (28.61 KB, 251x230, that's great.png)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 48727d)  16993

File: 1508446942304.gif (6.67 KB, 106x102, 76.gif)

What is the best way of characterizing the analytic/continental distinction?

Writing is an attempt by the author to express their thoughts on paper as purely as they are expressed in the mind, and minds express these thoughts in a multitude of different ways. In this essay, I will discuss the analytic/continental divide, arguing that the best way to characterize the distinction is through the differences each tradition has in terms of literary style.
Before getting into the heart of the essay, I will briefly explain some characteristics of the analytic and continental tradition, particularly corresponding methodology. I will then begin, establishing two established ways of characterizing the divide, the first being the geographic distinction, the second being clarity. I will indicate the imperfections in these methods, and will present my own way of characterizing the divide that addresses these flaws, the way being through literary style. I will discuss two definable and recognizable terms of said literary style, and discuss the terms applied to each tradition, as well as the differences therein.
As there is an abundance of ways to characterize this divide, I can only focus on those most significant to my purposes. Nevertheless, through flaws of others, I will build the literary style distinction, and aim to prove it as the best and most useful means of making the distinction clear and characterizable.

1. Analytic/Continental Background
What needs to be done in this section, is the methodology of each needs to be explained.
The Continental tradition finds its origins in the works of Kant, and was firmly established through the writings of Hegel. Among its fundamental principles include a desire to find and answer philosophical questions unapproachable within a scientific framework, and possibly most notably a lack of concern as to the fluidity and ease-of-comprehension of the writing. In his Logic, Hegel wrote,
“...to want the nature of cognition clarified prior to the science is to demand that it be considered outside the science; outside the science this cannot be accomplished, at least not in a scientific manner and such a manner is alone here in place [44 words]” (Logic, pg 173).
The sentiment expressed of cognition extends to time, and the whole of metaphysics, and has remained near the heart of continental philosophy. Heidegger expressed a similar sentiment on being, and what this sentiment essentially is, is that in order to understand abstract concepts, such as cognition and being, such concepts that precede any sort of scientific structure or methodology, such understanding can only be accomplished “outside the science.”

The Analytic tradition has its roots firmly attributed to the philosopher Frege, a mathematician first and philosopher second. Frege’s works and, importantly, his approach in the philosophy of language and logic established the structure for modern logic, enabling arguments and deductions to be expressed clearly and succinctly in unheard of ways. Influenced by such work in their early careers, Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, parallel with logical positivists in the Vienna Circle, promoted a focus on philosophy more stringent on rigour and clarity.. This accelerated the development of a extremely strong analytic framework for deduction and inference. Through Russell, the work enabled logic to be used for basic empiricism. The founders of analytic philosophy, in attempting to find a way to better express logical empiricism, believed that the convolution of continental philosophy and difficulty to scrutinize rendered the tradition extremely lacking.
I’m worried this counts as plagiarism. But once you tighten up the analytical paragraph it’s golden.
It should now be clear that there are two differences between these groups. First, there is a disparity as to how clear philosophical writing should be in establishing and exploring a point. In other words, the clarity. Secondly, there is a difference in the topics that are thought worthy of pursuit, and a disagreement as to the best method of pursuit. It is thus in the methodology; where the distinction is, and is commonly thought to be, most clear.
If only it were so simple. If the distinction is clearest in the methodology, where in the methodology is the best place to characterize the distinction? I feel it is not enough to give such divisive traditions such a broad distinction. To establish the need for and the usefulness of a more specific means of characterization, I will now discuss the geographic means of distinction, whose lack of specificity creates a distinction in the wrong terms.

2.Geographic Distinction
The geographical distinction characterizes the analytic/continental difference of traditions via differences in landmass. Analytic philosophers coined the term “continental” in the 1970s with this distinction in mind, for the purpose of define what analytic was not. The reasoning was founded in how the continentalist tradition’s origins of methodology and approach could be comfortably traced to philosophers in the European continent, such as Hegel and Heidegger. Thus, continentalists were labeled as separate from the analytic framework first and foremost based on location. This distinction creates a very simple means at separating the analytics from the continentalists, and there may lie the appeal, but this view has little reasonable defense as an ultimate distinction.
The fatal flaw is how this particular distinguishment characterizes the distinction along not ideology, methodology, or aims, but along lines drawn in the physical world. It is strange to characterise such permeable lines as containing one exclusive tradition. If a continental philosopher emigrated to America, they would not automatically become analytic. Furthermore, the distinction includes analytic philosophers. The analytic tradition arguably arose in Europe, at the very least from European philosophers such as Frege and Carnap, and despite mass emigration from Nazi-occupied Europe, every last analytic philosopher did not leave the continent. To define what one is not, through a method that defines oneself as what oneself is not, is inherently unsatisfactory. The geographic distinction is the most preliminary distinction that must be built upon to hold, useful only in providing a widespread label for analytic’s opposition.
It is fortunate, then, that this means was never meant to be a comprehensive distinction, but a starting point. Russell used it as such, discussing a difference between the Continental and British schools of philosophy, then elaborated on their differences in methodology and approaches to metaphysics and logic (Russell, pg 619). And so it is not enough to say “they are not us as they are over there” and it is not enough to say “they are over there and think differently, and that is the distinction,” because it does not specify, in any quantifiable terms, why or how they think differently.
And so what deems one separate? The issues in the geographic distinction should bring to light most of all the need for a specific, characterizable means of distinction, contained in the ideals of the writing itself. In the next section, I will discuss a more common and viable distinction, that of clarity. A far more specific means, one which more adequately, but not comprehensively, defines the divide.

More to come tomorrow.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 94ae00)  16994

File: 1508462678679.png (187.32 KB, 387x426, shocked.png)

Are those someone else's comments, or an actual part of your essay?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  16995

File: 1508490169839.jpg (23.33 KB, 226x303, 96.jpg)

Oh this is my actual essay.

I forgot to get rid of that bit after point 1, and there's still some notes for myself.
It's not a final draft yet.
I'll have a final draft done by midnight tonight, god willing.
The bits I've posted are the parts that I've reviewed once. It'll almost certainly change up a bit more.
I'll revise the rest and post it once I'm happier with it.

I'm ready to be done with this one

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  16996

File: 1508521195011.jpg (10.04 KB, 110x149, 7.jpg)


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: bb169e)  16997

File: 1508527414539.png (39.48 KB, 264x228, aha.png)

Well, I found it well-written. Though you still should post the rest of it.
Other than a few pieces of awkward phrasing, like clarifying that you mean "clarity" when you've already described it as "how clear" the writing ought to be, and other stuff.
But you've probably got those already.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  16998

File: 1508529112298.jpg (18.2 KB, 216x231, 41.jpg)

Man I hope so.
Here's what may well be the final draft of what I posted.

Writing is an attempt by the author to express their thoughts on paper as purely as they are expressed in the mind; minds, however, express these thoughts in a multitude of different ways. In this essay, I will discuss the analytic/continental divide, arguing that the best way to characterize the distinction is through the differences each tradition has in terms of literary style.
To start, I will briefly explain some characteristics of the analytic and continental tradition, particularly corresponding methodology. I will then begin by covering two established ways of characterizing the divide, the first being the geographic distinction, the second being clarity. I will indicate the imperfections in these methods, and will present my own way of characterizing the divide that addresses these flaws, the way being through literary style. I will discuss two definable and recognizable aspects of said literary style, and discuss the terms as applied to each tradition, as well as the differences therein.
As there is an abundance of ways to characterize this divide, I can only focus on those most significant to my purposes. Nevertheless, through flaws of others, I will build the literary style distinction, and aim to prove it as the best and most useful means of making the distinction clear and characterizable.

1. Analytic/Continental Background
The Continental tradition finds its origins in the works of Kant, and was firmly established through the writings of Hegel. Among its fundamental principles include a desire to find and answer philosophical questions unapproachable within a scientific framework. In his Logic, Hegel wrote,
“...to want the nature of cognition clarified prior to the science is to demand that it be considered outside the science; outside the science this cannot be accomplished, at least not in a scientific manner and such a manner is alone here in place”
-(Hegel, pg 173).
The sentiment expressed of cognition extends to time, being, and the whole of metaphysics, and has remained near the heart of continental philosophy. What this sentiment essentially is, is in order to understand abstract concepts, such as cognition and being, such concepts inherently precede any sort of scientific structure, thus understanding can only be accomplished with methodology “outside the science”. As will be explained in detail, from this notion arose an avoidance of the scientific rigor, resulting in the lack of concern of the writing’s comprehensibility, savoring instead unrestricted philosophical exploration.
The Analytic tradition has its roots firmly attributed to the philosopher Frege, a mathematician first and philosopher second. Frege’s works and, importantly, his approach in the philosophy of language and logic established the structure for modern logic, enabling arguments and deductions to be expressed very clearly and succinctly. Influenced by such work in their early careers, Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore, parallel with logical positivists in the Vienna Circle, promoted a focus on philosophy more stringent on rigor of concepts and clarity of language, in philosophy and writing. The founders of analytic philosophy believed that the convolution of continental philosophy and lack of formal logical structure produced only conclusions based on nothing substantial. Analytical philosophy rose in opposition, which approached philosophical inquiry through clearly structured scientific methodology and a movement away from metaphysical questions, with Russell going so far as to describe metaphysics as an obscuring fog, which prevented many questions from being answered with precision (Jones, pg7).
It should now be clear that there are two differences between these groups. First, there is a disparity as to how clear philosophical writing should be in establishing and exploring a point. In other words, the clarity. Secondly, there is a disagreement as to the best method to pursue preferred topics. It is thus in the methodology where the distinction is, and is commonly thought to be, most distinct, as it encompasses methods of philosophical inquiry and the topics inquired thereof.
But where in the methodology is the best place to characterize the distinction? It is not enough to give such divisive traditions such a broad distinction. To establish the need for and the usefulness of a more specific means of characterization, I discuss the geographic means of distinction, whose lack of specificity creates a distinction in unhelpful terms.

2.Geographic Distinction
The geographical distinction characterizes the analytic/continental difference of traditions via differences in landmass. Analytic philosophers coined the term “continental” in the 1970s with this distinction in mind, to define what analytic was not. The reasoning was founded in how the continentalist tradition’s origins could be comfortably traced to philosophers in the European continent, such as Hegel and Heidegger. Thus, the geographic distinction labels continentalists as separate from the analytic framework based on location. Perhaps it is the simplicity of this distinction which holds appeal, but this view has little reasonable defense as an ultimate distinction.
The fatal flaw lies in the distinction characterizes along not ideology, methodology, or aims, but lines drawn in the physical world. It is strange to characterize such permeable lines as containing one exclusive tradition. If a continental philosopher emigrated to America, they would not automatically become analytic. Furthermore, this definition of continental includes analytic philosophers. The analytic tradition arguably arose in Europe, at the very least from European philosophers. To define what one is not, through a method that defines oneself as what oneself is not, is inherently unsatisfactory. The geographic distinction is a preliminary distinction that must be built upon to hold, useful only in providing an accepted label for analytic’s opposition.
It is fortunate, then, that this means was never meant to be a comprehensive distinction, but a starting point. Russell used it as such, discussing a difference between the Continental and British schools of philosophy, then elaborated on their differences in methodology and approaches to metaphysics and logic (Russell, pg 619). It is then obviously not enough to say “they are not us, as they are over there,” but it is not enough to say “they are not us, as they are over there and think differently,” because it does not specify, in any characterizable terms, why or how they think differently.
Then what deems these separate? The issues in the geographic distinction brings to light the need for a specific, characterizable means of distinction, contained not in members of the traditions, but in their philosophies and writings. In the next section, I will discuss the more common and viable distinction of clarity, A far more specific means which more adequately, but not comprehensively, defines the divide.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  16999

File: 1508531294332.jpg (23.42 KB, 165x216, 60.jpg)


3.Clarity Distinction
Clarity refers to the clearness of thought or style; it defines the readability and ease with which one can understand a work. The focus and motivations behind clarity for each tradition is of such magnitude that the divide is almost characterizable through clarity alone.
To begin, the analytic tradition holds clarity in the utmost esteem; there is something of a reductionist mindset, where a question should be breakable down to definable, logical parts, benefiting the understanding of how such parts form together. Combined with the use of logical and scientific procedure for philosophical inquiry, there arises a structure focused less on the inexplicable and indecipherable, and more on what is essential and comprehensible. It is like a direct path built on logical inquiry and propositions, beginning on unchallengeable premises, ending at a clever conclusion, and the journey in between is well-structured, understandable, and not longer than it needs to be. The scientific approach to philosophical inquiry thus naturally directed focus on clarity for analytics.
The analytic method originated as a response to the manifestation of the continentalist methodology in writing. Continentalists are less agreeable to the logical reductionist approach. The tradition generally holds that to solve a problem, it must first be understood, not dissolved. Furthermore, the methods of natural sciences used to answer the questions continentalists are interested in, such as “what is being,” are extremely insubstantial. The question of being, answered in a theoretical scientific framework, which by the definition of “theoretical” is a framework not grounded in being, can only provide unsatisfactory answers. Thus, the continental approach to the questions that interest it require unconventional and less structured methods, resulting in more abstract writing with less focus on being understood than on exploration and fully understanding abstract concepts.
To help clarify, compare extremely simplified aspects of Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Wittgenstein believed that problems are created when stepping beyond the limit of language (Jones, 2009), while Heidegger believed that beyond the limit of language is where the most interesting philosophical problems are because they are beyond the limit of language. In this respect, Wittgenstein is analytic, while Heidegger is continental.
And so the clarity of writing results from fundamental differences in what philosophical questions are pursued, and the means through which the pursuit is done. Clarity is then undeniably useful for distinction, in terms of why disagreements in topics and methodology manifest themselves in writing as the opposites of “clear and straightforward” and “complex and longwinded”.
There are two problems that hold clarity back from being the gold standard. The first is an issue of subjectivity. What is clear for some is not clear for others. Some minds are inclined to prefer one tradition over another, owing to any number of factors, such as prior training in one tradition (Wheeler, 2000). It is not enough to simply call analytic clear and continental not and use this as the best distinction, if there is striking variance of clarity from personal interpretation. From this extends the second issue, the issue of the arbitrariness; there is not yet an objective, quantifiable way to indicate clarity of writing.
Such a way is uncoverable in how these two traditions convey their methodology. Through literary style, the distinction of the clarity of each tradition’s methodology becomes most characterizable. The geographic distinction has shown the need to approach the writing for distinction, and the distinction through clarity is lacking in specificity. Literary style provides a specific distinction within the writing. An analysis of the specific style of writing through vocabulary and sentence arrangement enables a clearer way to understand what tradition is represented in a given writing, beyond previous distinctions. I will explain and demonstrate how in the next section.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  17000

File: 1508532559275.gif (13.53 KB, 142x189, 71.gif)

4.Distinction through Literary Style (1/2)
Literary style is the way a writer uses words (Defining Style,2003), as opposed to the meaning the writing conveys. The aspects of literary style I will focus on are vocabulary and sentence arrangement, as these aspects of literary style are simple and recognizable. Vocabulary refers to the specific words the writer selects. Sentence arrangement refers to two particulars: the arrangement of the words in a sentence, and the arrangement of the sentences themselves. The ideas and themes of a work, conveyed through literary substance, are framed by the literary style. In a sense, this characterization breaks down the structure of the writings and methodologies to its most basic pieces, and analyses the differences therein. Such analysis can provide answers towards how the language used serves the purposes of the writer.
This means of characterizing the distinction will work as follows: through comparing vocabulary used and sentence arrangement, I will outline the specific ways analytic writings use simpler language with a more straightforward structure, compared to the continental tradition with more complex, abstract, and ambiguous language. I will explain how the literary styles are demonstrably characteristic of different traditions, starting with vocabulary.
By adhering to the logical structure so integral in the analytic tradition, there is care taken in ensuring the comprehensibility of language. The analytical philosopher has a tendency to use simple vocabulary, distancing away from ambiguous words, and works to maintain the pureness of the argument, using only what is essential.
The continentalist, however, has no fear of using complex language and presenting ambiguous terms as-is. This extends to terms of their own creation. For instance, in Introduction to Metaphysics, Heidegger uses the term “doxa,” using it to name no less than four separate and important meanings (Heidegger,pg.112). An analytic philosopher would use different terms for each meaning, to avoid confusion. Heidegger uses this term in such a fashion to maintain the high level of understanding the concepts reside on, and avoid lowering them to the comprehensibility of scientific framework. If he felt such terms could have been expressed in a logical and scientific language, he would have done so.
This difference in the preference of the complexity of language used extends to the complexity of how the words or terms are introduced and characterized. as seen in the presentation of invented words or new terms. Generally, the analytic philosopher introduces a new term alongside its definition and use. Take the following passage from Ayer’s The Problem of Knowledge:
"Though what is remembered is past, the remembering takes place in the present. It is therefore assumed that there must be some present content which gives, as it were, its flavor to a memory-experience” (Ayer, pg.149).
Ayer then goes on to explain how “present content” is useful in the context of his argument, its relation to previous terms like sense-data, and an in-depth description of the term in the same paragraph. For Heidegger, terms such as “doxa” and Dasein are too broad, built upon too much, to be given a simple definition and succinctly placed within the context of the argument. A difference in vocabulary is quantifiable, and a useful aspect of literary style for characterizing the divide. It exemplifies the clarity of a work’s word choice, given a difference of the complexity of language used and the style used to ensure understanding.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  17001

File: 1508533827179.gif (8.91 KB, 138x133, 80.gif)

4.Distinction through Literary Style (2/2)
The second useful way of making the distinction between analytic/continental clearer quantifiable through literary style is by analyzing each tradition’s sentence arrangement. Sentence arrangement refers to two things: first, how sentences are structured, meaning how words are structured into sentences, and second, how the sentences themselves are arranged into paragraphs and beyond. This has multiple uses towards characterizing the distinction, but my focus is on length and formality of sentences, and differences in the utilization of sentences to structure arguments.
In the first case, there what could be called extreme formality in continental works, relating to the avoidance of casual word choice and manifesting as long-windedness, more of a flow of speech and thought than the generally clear and, at the very least, more concise step-by-step style of the analytics. For example, there is a paper by the continentalist Stanley Cavell, where the opening sentence went on for over a page. This is something that simply does not happen in analytic works. A sentence of this length in an analytic paper would not pass editing, as format alone would cause unwanted distraction from the paper’s purpose and argument, but additionally confuses and loses the reader. This trait involves the flow within sentences themselves, while the next involves the flow of sentences combined.
This arrangement of sentences directly relates to how the work is structured. For the analytic philosopher, the structure tends to be more direct, with only the necessary points developed. The rigor of science eliminates all but what was necessary to bring one’s point across, while what the continentalist uses metaphor and elaborate language, going beyond sufficient. Furthermore, analytic philosophers once again use logical structure in the ordering of sentences, at the very least with far greater regularity than the continentalists. The if-then statements specifically, a staple of logical deduction, can be found with distinct frequency within analytical works, and while it is not untouched by continentalists, it is used far less in continental works. On the continental side, there is no blatant structure, but a topic continually explored, and when compared to the rigidity and intense structure of the analytic argument, the sentence arrangement seems less focused on proving a point. It is then through analysis of sentence arrangement that the structure of the paper is lain, and built upon this is the composition of the methodology of the different groups.
In short, the combination of vocabulary and sentence arrangement is a way of characterizing the methodology in clear terms that makes the difference of traditions explicit. If one picks up a book, with no knowledge as to which tradition the writer belongs to, by skimming the text and finding unique terms elaborated on through pages, lengthy sentences, and flowery language, through objective analysis of the manifestation of literary style the work can be understood as continental.
An analysis of literary style comprises the structure and clarity of the work, and as structure and clarity convey methodology, the differences found in literary style adds up to the overall notable differences in the analytic/continental traditions. Through the aspects discussed, one builds a picture of their differences from the ground up, and thus from the most basic differences in the most basic aspects of these writings, literary style best characterizes the traditions, making them the most distinct.

Just gotta edit the conclusion after this.
Only like 10 words over the word limit.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: bc7625)  17002

File: 1508537157586.jpg (26.85 KB, 271x299, 200.jpg)

I have established literary style as better than comparable means of characterizing the distinction, owing to fundamental differences of the traditions originating from the split, and boiled it down to its most comparable forms. As the issues with the geographic distinction convey need for focus on writings themselves and clarity lacks properly definable, recognizable, and quantifiable terms usable for distinction, literary style provides focus and specificity while avoiding subjectivity, thus best characterize the analytic/continental divide.
Sadly, even though it is the best means, it is not necessarily good. Truthfully, there is no ultimate way of drawing the distinction. Any single best way of characterizing the distinction would become more specific and accurate if paired with another means. Beyond this, no characterizable distinction is exclusive to one side. As long as minds convey their thoughts onto paper in multitudes of ways, then any means of distinction will eventually, inevitably, overlap, blur the analytical/continental divide.
But I see no reason overlap should be counted as negative. It is difficult for me to accept that there are challenges of philosophy the analytical tradition refuses to face, or that the continental tradition is harmed at all by its opposing side. As far as I can tell, the amount of philosophical inquiry and progress that has come out of this distinction is an overwhelming positive. Perhaps eventually a happy union between these two traditions will be realized. But until then, it does not hurt to better understand our distinctions.

I'm done, shitfucks.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: bb169e)  17003

> and will present my own way of characterizing the divide that addresses these flaws, the way being through literary style
The adjective clause "that addresses these flaws" probably refers to "way", not "divide", so this sentence seems awkward. Also, "the way being..." right after the "way" used as the direct object of the previous clause seems repetitive.
I would instead opt for something like "After indicating the imperfections in these methods, I will address these flaws by characterizing the divide through literary style.

> What this sentiment essentially is, is in order to understand abstract concepts, such as cognition and being, such concepts inherently precede any sort of scientific structure, thus understanding can only be accomplished with methodology “outside the science”.

The clause beginning with "such concepts inherently precede..." is supposed to finish the sentence begun by "in order to understand abstract concepts". The reader is left with a feeling that you were about to talk about something that people do to understand abstract concepts, and is confused when you switch to a different subject in the middle of the sentence.
I would remove the first clause and just begin with "This sentiment posits that concepts such as cognition and being inherently precede..."

> lack of concern of the writing’s comprehensibility

Maybe this description could be tightened up a bit. At the least, instead of a "concern of" comprehensibility, it's a "concern about" it.

> a disparity as to how clear philosophical writing should be

It might just be me, but the first time I read this, I interpreted "clear philosophical writing" as one subject, and had to go back to read it again when the sentence didn't make sense.
Perhaps since "clear" is also describing "establishment" and "exploration", you can change it to "how clearly philosophical writing should establish and explore a point". You also get rid of a passive "be" this way.

> there is a disagreement as to the best method to pursue preferred topics

Is there a disagreement about the best method, or is there a disagreement about what method is the best?

> It is thus in the methodology where the distinction is, and is commonly thought to be, most distinct

I think this is supposed to say that the distinction is in the methodology, and that people think the distinction is in the methodology. If so, the clause beginning with "and" sort of interrupts the flow of this idea in an awkward way. Maybe you can simply say that people "rightly/justifiably/correctly think that the distinction is in the methodology", and do away with separating the clauses.

> The fatal flaw lies in the distinction characterizes along not ideology

Should be either "the fatal flaw lies in the fact that..." or "the fatal flaw is that..." or "... in the distinction that characterizes...". "Distinction" shouldn't switch from an object to a subject in the same sentence.
Also, it may be smoother to go for "not ideology, methodology, nor aims" or "not along ideology..." instead.

> Furthermore, this definition of continental includes analytic philosophers. The analytic tradition arguably arose in Europe, at the very least from European philosophers.

Since these are related ideas, you might consider putting a semicolon instead of a period in between the two.

> the continental approach to the questions that interest it require
"The continental approach... requires"

> with less focus on being understood than on exploration and fully understanding abstract concepts

It's clear that you use the second instance of "understand" to mean something different from the first instance, as in "being understood by the reader", but the positioning of these two words seems paradoxical at the first glance. "How can you fully understand abstract concepts? You just said that continentals de-emphasize understanding just a few words ago!"

> while Heidegger believed that beyond the limit of language is where the most interesting philosophical problems are because they are beyond the limit of language

Sort of awkward construction here. I think it could be tightened up into something like "Heidegger believed that philosophical problems beyond the limits of language are the most interesting, simply by virtue of their inaccessibility", but you make your own call on this one.

> the issue of the arbitrariness; there is not yet an objective, quantifiable way to indicate clarity of writing

If "the issue of the arbitrariness" is equivalent to "there is not yet objective... (etc)", then this should be a colon, not a semicolon.

> the distinction of the clarity

"The distinction in the clarity", perhaps.

> I will explain and demonstrate how in the next section.

Is this sentence necessary? It seems obvious from the previous two that you're about to start talking about literary style. Maybe make it more clear that you're broaching a different topic by adding "On the other hand, literary style provides..." or another transition like that.

> the complexity of language used and the style used
Maybe "language and style used" would less repetitive.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: bb169e)  17004

> making the distinction between analytic/continental clearer quantifiable through literary style
"Making the distinction between analytic and continental more clearly quantifiable".

> Sentence arrangement refers to two things

You already introduced this term in the previous paragraphs, but didn't touch upon it until now. Maybe remove the reference to this term in the previous section, or at least dispense with defining it until you actually get to use it.
If the definition of the term is crucial to your point about how ideas and themes are conveyed through literary substance and style, then you may put it in the beginning but don't need to define it again here. However, in this case you should also structure your points to remind the reader of the "two things" that this term refers to, by explicitly mentioning sentence structure before giving your example about Cavell.

> there what could be called

"There is what could be called"

> For example, there is a paper by the continentalist Stanley Cavell

Okay, but if this isn't a famous example, you're just asking the reader to take your word for it that such a paper exists. You might at least mention the name of the paper, or what the page-long sentence was talking about to warrant that kind of heft. I don't know who Stanley Cavell is, so I might end up with the impression that he's simply a bad writer rather than this being characteristic of continental philosophy. Though this is still rather a "worst-case" reaction that depends on the audience.

> This trait involves the flow within sentences themselves, while the next involves the flow of sentences combined.

> This arrangement of sentences directly relates to how the work is structured. For the analytic philosopher...
I think this would work better as a transition if you put the topic about "flow within sentences" at the beginning of the example rather than at the end, to help with the "reminder" that I mentioned earlier. If you do this, the transition could instead go something like "Additionally, the arrangement of sentences with respect to each other directly relates to how the work is structured" just as one sentence at the beginning of the paragraph. It seems awkward to signal "the next idea is this" right at the end when the reader can just look at the next sentence to see what it's about.

> with only the necessary points developed

"With only the necessary points being developed" or "developing only the necessary points".

> all but what was necessary

There's no clear reason why this should be in the past tense, especially seeing as your previous sentence was in the present tense.

> while what the continentalist uses metaphor and elaborate language, going beyond sufficient

This doesn't seem like a complete sentence.
Maybe remove "what" and elaborate on "sufficient". The second clause needs a direct object, and "sufficient" is not a noun.

> the sentence arrangement seems less focused on proving a point

This is the sentence arrangement of "a topic continually explored", so either use "its sentence arrangement" or specify somehow else that you're talking about the continental side.
Also these sections are direly good places to drop an example or two. You don't need to quote from things from literature or anything, but it would be nice to mention the difference in style between, say, Principia Mathematica and The Myth of Sisyphus or something else you've read.

> and clarity lacks
Surely you don't mean that clarity itself lacks anything, but that the clarity distinction lacks those things.

> thus best characterize


> no characterizable distinction is exclusive to one side

Surely a distinction is a property of both sides, so it goes without saying that distinctions are not exclusive to one side. You probably mean that no distinguishing characteristic is exclusive to one side.

> will eventually, inevitably, overlap, blur the analytical/continental divide

"overlap, and blur"

> I see no reason overlap should be counted as negative

"I see no reason why this overlap..."
Also, "counted as negative" seems puerile. Maybe "viewed negatively" is a better description.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: bb169e)  17005

File: 1508539006600.jpg (20.43 KB, 330x330, book2.jpg)

Yeah, I liked it overall.
I feel like it could have been more in-depth though, but alas, the tyranny of the word limit.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 867a0b)  17006

File: 1508542044154.jpg (46.6 KB, 363x457, 1.jpg)

Yeah I'm alright with how I did.

Also a couple of these things I talked with bout my tutor. Like the Cavell paper he told me about at office hours today.

So it wasn't perfect.
But I'm proud of the work I did on it.

fuckin word limit amirite

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: a8e9c4)  17007

File: 1508557337565.gif (71.37 KB, 216x195, chew.gif)

In any case there's a degree to which you learn something by teaching other people about it.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 892c6b)  17008

File: 1508608980522.gif (12.97 KB, 184x237, Pwnies meets Niddig.gif)

I learned a lot from this essay.
One of the most intensive essays I've done so far.
Did so much reading man.

I'm happy to have accomplished this.
I hope I get a good grade.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 892c6b)  17009

File: 1508618835282.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

Overall there weren't issues with the point I made and it was well established, right

I just wanna make sure of this 'cuz I didn't edit it after I saw your post
And for a second i considered taking the late penalty to edit it but i just had half an aneurysm at the prospect of working on that essay more

Also I wanted to say it's cute you posted more expressive pictures after we talked about it

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 590b5a)  17010

File: 1508627897618.png (150.98 KB, 361x416, taken seriously.png)

I guess if I had a complaint about the content, it would be that you make it seem pretty important that the geographical and clarity distinctions are flawed and it's better to view the distinction through literary style, but at the end it turns out that this isn't all that great either and you actually do need to consider all three.
Perhaps my biggest complaint, then, was that this essay is dressed up like it's trying to say that literary style is better than the other two distinctions, but the majority of it is actually just about three different ways to characterize the analytic/continental divide.
The structure of your essay became much more clear on the second reading, once I already knew what each section was going to be about. So it's not that contrasts are not drawn between the stylistic distinction and the other two, but that these seemed like asides to your main effort of describing what these distinctions are in the first place. One particular part that suffered from this was the section about literary style, when at times it seemed like the points about "complexity of language" could just as well have overlapped with the clarity distinction. I think this could have been resolved with some better choice of examples, or perhaps explaining in a short sentence or two about how even though the continental literary style may contribute to a lack of clarity, it is a category of distinction in its own right due to it being a quality of the work rather than of the reader.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 590b5a)  17011

File: 1508628391318.webm (137.58 KB, 800x450, daybreaker reviews your oc.web…)

Although it's not really a huge issue. I think you still manage to get the point across, and it still all gets tied together by the time you get to the conclusion.

I hadn't noticed.
Well, it would have felt disingenuous to keep doing it once I already knew about it. Like breathing manually, or something.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 892c6b)  17012

File: 1508629352429.jpg (13.72 KB, 210x181, 209.jpg)

I think that's perfectly fair and valid criticism.
I definitely could've tightened up the focus if I had written more in the hours and days before the deadline.
I'm glad that it was more understandable on the second reading, which at least tells me that everything that makes it clear is there, even if it takes some digging to get to.
Man am I feeling mentally drained.

I swear I better get at least an 11/20 for all this
Ideally a 15/20, 'cuz that would make all effort feel justified.

However you post is fine by me.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 8fb186)  17013

File: 1508796242480.png (121.96 KB, 540x473, totally sick yo.png)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9c7bc5)  17014

File: 1508847339625.jpg (14.71 KB, 173x226, 11.jpg)

Sup bro.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0f1a4f)  17015

File: 1508863063114.png (122.95 KB, 296x315, stark raving mad.png)

I'm bored.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1b3c7c)  17016

File: 1508882297740.jpg (19.29 KB, 150x231, 10.jpg)


Heh, I remember I once Oreo said he was bored, and I told him that only boring people are bored. Then Oreo made some point that like it's alright to be bored or something.
And whatever the point was, I thought it was reasonable.
Few years later I said I was bored.
Snootie said only boring people are bored.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0f1a4f)  17017

File: 15088854931000.png (93.16 KB, 313x353, 012032.png)

It's just a feeling I have.
I'm supposed to be doing things, but well. I'm not feeling up to it.

One of my fears is becoming boring as I get older, like people tend to do.
I really like learning about stuff. It takes you in the hand like a nice adventure story. So I guess, I'm afraid of growing unable to do that.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1b3c7c)  17018

File: 1508885639583.jpg (21.25 KB, 103x145, 81.jpg)

Adl I swear, if you do nothing with your mind then I wn't be just disappointed in you but humanity will miss out.

Nah you wont get boring as long as you tell stories of science and math to the right people.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0f1a4f)  17019

File: 1508887109903.png (120.99 KB, 434x312, oh wow.png)

Have you ever considered that I might not really be as smart as I make it seem?

They're just stories that can read about online. I just find them neat enough to share.
It would be fun to teach people who are interested in that sort of thing, but it's rare that I can find people like you to hang out with.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1b3c7c)  17020

File: 1508887337077.jpg (24.47 KB, 265x294, 38.jpg)

Yes. Many, many times.
But at least you like learning and you're good at conveying ideas and things you enjoy.
You don't need to change the world for humanity to benefit humanity.

How often do you meet people?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0f1a4f)  17021

File: 1508888512447.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

Well, good. I didn't want to do that anyway.

Well, I met someone last week, but it doesn't count.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1b3c7c)  17022

File: 1508892749997.jpg (8.9 KB, 103x138, 37-.jpg)

Do what makes you happy and don't waste everything.
You know the odds of being alive ain't great.

There's enough people out there that if you met enough you'd find one you like talking to this about. Yeah I know now that I've said it you can do it it's definitely that easy.
Except you gotta look in the right place.
Proooooooobably not parties.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0f1a4f)  17023

File: 1508899237019.png (113.99 KB, 277x278, waiting.png)

Seeing as I'm alive right now, it looks like the odds of me being alive is actually pretty good, right?

In any case, I'm not too bothered about that aspect. The conversations happen when they happen. It would get too tiresome otherwise.
It's just the space in between.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8b9975)  17024

File: 1508932273897.gif (13.95 KB, 174x227, 39.gif)

Only in the 20/20 clearness of hindsight.
If I were to bet on the probability of your existence i'd bet against it

>it's just the space in between

That's what it all boils down to huh
What we're like when there's nothin else

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 3d9d5d)  17025

I will now take every opportunity I find to exercise the modal fallacy.
Actually, just because A doesn't necessitate B doesn't mean A isn't evidence of something else that necessitates B, does it?

I should get a better hobby or something.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9f2084)  17026

File: 1508955298339.jpg (23.45 KB, 253x328, 66.jpg)

You're not wrong there mate.
But the odds of you being alive are basically zero.
I saw something online that said your odds of being alive are one in 400 trillion, but I don't believe that because it's got to be way less likely than that.

That's a good idea.
Should create something.
I do really like the things you write at the start of the threads.
You could write some stuff.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9f2084)  17027

File: 1508972650526.png (75.75 KB, 234x193, 168.png)

i wanna go back to /space/

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 8987ce)  17028

File: 1508973740807.png (258.66 KB, 589x476, what am I looking at.png)

I wouldn't know how you'd calculate such a number. Regardless, everything looks the same after a couple million or so. It's difficult to imagine how much "more likely" one in a trillion is compared one in some even bigger number.

I'm not starting a new thread, so I'm not going to write another one of those.
Maybe something else, though. Whatever I think of.


Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9f2084)  17029

File: 1508980835426.png (200.64 KB, 470x306, baww.png)

I unno how it's calculated either. But it's way less likely than that.

We could just make a new thread, huh. Nothing's stoppin us

'cuz it was comfier and it was our /space/

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7923a1)  17030

File: 1509052278755.png (628.06 KB, 890x619, what's going on in here.png)

How do you figure that?
It just seems unlikely to be a matter of intuition at that point.

Nothing's going to stop us, but right now we're still stopping ourselves.
Let's see.

Seeing as I almost never venture outside this thread, it doesn't seem all that different.
One of the two has fruit juice and the other doesn't, though.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 62b925)  17031

File: 1509059657532.jpg (12.78 KB, 120x143, 19a.jpg)

Basically I think it's because the likelihood of that specific sperm containing your genetic code inseminating that specific egg is basically zero.
Apparently there's around 30 million to 45 million sperm cells in any ejaculation.
I found varying sources for this, but that's what wikipedia says.
So at the start, if there's one egg and a guarantee of insemination, your odds of being born when your parents fucked are 1 in 15 million at best.
This is assuming that your consciousness would only form if your form was in one unique specific sperm.
I've heard arguments that whatever kid came out your mom would be you, no matter which sperm made it into the egg.
So saying that this second case is fact, and all that is needed for you to be born is your mom getting pregnant, we could stop there and it'd be pretty unlikely still.
Your parents could just decide to not have kids, or stop at one kid if you're a second child, etc.
But I can't stop there, I promised way more than 1 in 400 trillion.
It gets unlikely when every single birth in your genetic line has the same probability of your own.
So it's exponentially factored.
Back when there were only 10,000 humans left on the planet, odds that two of them would have a kid, and that kid would meet another kid and then they'd have a kid, and so on until your birth.
There is what I consider a fucking incomprehensibly massive number of events that had to go right for you to be born.
If your (great)^100-great grandfather hadn't managed to find and kill a boar or something to feed his near starved family, you wouldn't have been born. If your (great)^150-great grandmother hadn't given her life to save her child from a fire or something and the child died in the fire, that child being your (great)^149-great grandmother or grandfather, then you wouldn't have been born.
I sometimes tell my friend that his ancestors died so he could do this. I told him that it's reasonable that at some point in his genetic line, one ancestor of his died protecting his family, or died rescuing her child, or defended their family from attackers or wild animals or natural events. They died to protect their offspring's future. They died so the line could live on.
And this extends to the pre homo sapien era.
The entirety of the line of animals leading to humans had to survive and outwit and manage to reproduce and evolve.
If any one of your pre-human ancestors died, you wouldn't be here. Humans might be, but you wouldn't.
And this extends to the circumstances around which mammals needed to survive and evolve.
If the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out, if mammals hadn't then been given the chance to survive the extreme weathers and eventually develop tools to survive into the modern day, humans and by extension you would not have been born.
So not only did the line of humans have to survive, the evolutionary line of humans have to survive, and the circumstances of the environment had to be right to enable the human line to survive and evolve into the summation of evolution that is YOU...
There also had to be the beginning of life on Earth itself.
Whatever caused life, whatever process of abiogenesis synthesised the first cell happened, had to happen, and is factored into the probability of your birth. The Earth has to be in the habitual zone of the sun. The Earth needed to be able to support life.
And beyond that, the universe needed to exist.
I don't know the odds for that last one thought, but I'd imagine it ain't great.

We simply should not exist.
But I suppose in hindsight it couldn't have happened any other way or something.

We don't need a new thread though.

I suppose it was just our board and that was neat.
Our stuff's a little wrapped up between politics, and I'm tired of thinking about politics.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 62b925)  17032

File: 1509060229110.jpg (6.62 KB, 69x136, 32.jpg)

Bleh, I might be some kind of post puritist.
I don't like editing my posts. It feels wrong.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7923a1)  17033

File: 1509062889847.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

I find that kind of evolutionary probability to be pretty insignificant on the practical perspective. You might as well say that the chance of getting involved in a drunk driving accident is so that you don't need to bother wearing a seatbelt after hammering it down all night.
Besides, I wager you could use a kind of anthropic argument against this as well. If you rolled 10 dice, would you be surprised if the sequence you got was 5632144621? Even though the probability of getting this particular sequence was something like one in 100 million, there's nothing really noteworthy about getting this particular one, since it's just as likely as any other sequence. It's only when we already have a sequence in mind, and are looking for a particular one to appear, that this would become surprising. So really, hindsight doesn't make these things seem more likely; rather, it does the opposite.
If you had rolled a sequence different from that one, it would seem equally likely or unlikely. It's not the pure probability of an event that makes it seem special, but rather its probability compared to other events under the same class of consideration.

We didn't need one last time, either.

Everything is inherently political, and so on.
Reminds me of that talk about whether space is an infinite container or just the relation between objects.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 2d4016)  17034

I'll be getting to your post today m8
Got two tests and a presentation next week
Then two projects soon after that

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17035

File: 1509500469789.jpg (23.42 KB, 165x216, 60.jpg)

I don't really understand your first point there.
But on the second one, I remember reading a similar thing in that book, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. Like 500 billion people flip a coin 250 billion times or something, one of 'em gets all heads. Course they'd feel special, but all the other people didn't.
And that relates to life ending up on earth, compared to it not ending up on all the other planets.
To me I see it as the one dice roll we got ended up with this world. Ended up with my consciousness actually being in a body.
I guess it's my belief and nothing more that this dice roll and very few others out of the other possible dice rolls would've resulted in my consciousness in a body at all, let alone this one, and this one I like.
I don't think it's about the probability itself, it's about the probability that things would work out as they did to lead to today.
And for that, well... it might not be right to say things shouldn't have been like this. But basically the odds of tomorrow occurring as it will occur is near zero.

Who knows, it could happen.

How'd that relate to politics, then?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c18d9e)  17036

File: 1509582498600.png (628.06 KB, 890x619, what's going on in here.png)

I think the biggest issue in thinking about this is in presupposing that you are looking for the probability of things working out "as it looks like right now". In fact, what things look like right now is just one particular product of probability in the first place. However, it doesn't really say that "this" result is unique; maybe I wouldn't be alive if something had gone a different way in the past. But it is not unlikely that someone else would still be here asking the same question. To say the likelihood of the present state of things is so small as to be miraculous implicitly attaches a value to all the unfulfilled possibilities that could have been true as well. Turning this concern around, who's to say that the current world is actually disappointing because it led to pretty much the same thing as all of the other trillions of possibilities, when we could have had something better in its place? If it is to say that the rarity of my particular outcome attracts a certain kind of value, then all of the other possible but not actual outcomes have a value as well, and those could indeed be much greater than the one you might assign to this one.

Certainly the correspondence between Newton and Leibniz had political components.
Anyway, I meant it more as a cheesy way to say that you shouldn't just be looking for one "thing" when you're looking for /space.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 812afe)  17037

Do yinz have advice on writing papers and essays?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 6b8ddd)  17038

File: 1509833764851.gif (6.1 KB, 118x136, 97.gif)

I think I've been working too hard. I'm very tired.

I get that this isn't the only possible outcome where we exist. This isn't the only universe where we are who we are. Someone could've flipped a coin a hundred years ago and gotten soup instead of salad, as opposed to them having had salad in our current past, and we still would've existed. But I still hold that those scenarios where we do exist are few, compared to the scenarios where we could not have existed. And yeah, I am saying two days ago the outcome of yesterday had a few possibilities as to how it could've turned out. There's a value to the possibilities that could have occurred, a value of probability to each. The ones that did occur resulted in today being what it is. Might not have been all that different, but certain outcomes had to occur. I hold the same thing that there were possibilities of humanity not evolving to it's current state if things had been different, and back prior to humanity, there was a chance things might've been different.

I'm not saying the world couldn't be better, either, I'm saying the world where my consciousness is in a body, and a good one at that, is miraculous 'cuz the odds that it is in another body or not in a body at all is at the very least more probable. I assign value to this outcome because it is the outcome I exist in. I hold the outcome where I exist as containing greater value than the outcomes where I don't exist. The payoff here is one, the payoff of any outcome where I don't exist is zero.

One of my thoughts about that whole multiverse theorem is how, if every decision causes a split in the universe, so like if i came to a fork in the road there would result two universes out of the choice i made, one where i went left and the other where I went right, then there exists a universe where every decision was the right one and every decision was the wrong one.
Most of the universes, however, would be indistinguishable. Tiny differences.
I don't know if multiverse theory exists at all, and I don't believe at all that it'd depend on our decisions. But it's neat to think about.

Depends on what kind of paper or essay.
A report on scientific findings in essay format would get a poor grade as a philosophical persuasive essay.
You talkin persuasive then you're talking my language.
I can also do book reports.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 0614e1)  17039

>You talkin persuasive then you're talking my language.

What do you know?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 6b8ddd)  17040

File: 1509894029231.gif (7.08 KB, 122x183, 91.gif)

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: bfbc92)  17041

File: 1509914077402.png (150.98 KB, 361x416, taken seriously.png)

Proofread a lot.
Are you bored?

I don't know.
I don't really care whether the probability of me existing is in fact small or not. The point was, even if it were incredibly tiny, that doesn't mean it's noteworthy or significant. Every roll of a dice generates an unlikely outcome, which is to say that unlikely and even near-impossible outcomes are actually quite common. Their significance, however, comes from how we decide to attach our expectations to it after the fact. This is only marginally related to the actual probability of an event.
To illustrate again, consider if you buy a lottery ticket where you scratch off seven digits or something. It's not really a fair assessment to say that the winner is really lucky because her result was one in ten million, since in fact every result is one in ten million. Rather, it is significant because we are looking for a particular set of numbers, decided by the lottery officiators after the fact, to match to someone's circumstance. There's no point if all you are doing is evaluating the probability of getting your own result.
So against what criterion do we check our lottery pickings? There is no universal "officiator" deeming our results as wins or losses. In the outcomes where there is a symmetry of consequence, say if someone else came to ponder this question instead of you, there is nothing surprising about it being unlikely. On the other hand, in the ones where there isn't, for example if there are no humans at all, I don't really find an argument from probability very interesting. Firstly because it's no longer about me, the individual in particular, and secondly because it wouldn't be of any detriment to me if I simply didn't exist in some hypothetical world. The probability of my future survival matters, of course, because here I become the officiator and value-setter to my own lottery. I shouldn't worry about whether hypothetical-me lives until the next morning in a world where I don't exist, and presumably hypothetical-me doesn't care about myself either.

Multiverse theories just don't excite me like it feels like it's supposed to. They seem like a cheap trick to avoid answering some of these questions we discussed. I can only bring myself to be an instrumentalist about it.
There are apparently some sorts of models about how much we're supposed to care about people in other universes. Maybe that's interesting. I haven't read about it in any case.
Certainly multiverse theories exist, but the real question is whether multiverses exist.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17042

File: 1510087415179.gif (4.93 KB, 69x124, 74.gif)

Kinda bored but more tired.
ON THE PLUS SIDE I finished two tests and actually did well on one of 'em.
Only got a presentation on Friday and then I get some time off.

Yes, one specific outcome occurring out of trillions is unlikely. And I understand that given independent variables every outcome is equally unlikely, meaning that it shouldn't be a shock to come across an absurdly unlikely scenario, since all scenarios are absurdly unlikely.
But maybe this just stems from our fundamental differences of thought.
The world were I do not exist or where humans do not exist doesn't matter to me as I am now because it is a world that I won't live in. I'm also aware that I would not be there in that world to consider how unlikely my existence was if there weren't humans. That doesn't take a leap of logic.
I guess it's from my current state that I see nonexistence as an infinite loss. Of course if I never existed, nonexistence wouldn't be a loss, and existence wouldn't be an infinite gain.
So maybe it's not a worthwhile line of thought to pursue. After all I was nanometers away from not being born. But I am born so what do the alternatives matter.
It's still neat to me how close it was to not happening.

Really I don't think multiverses exist. It brings up a lot of unanswerable problems. Like if multiverse exists, does God exist in one? Does God not exist in one? Would this God be able to exist in all multiverses?
Multiverse is fun to think about sometimes but p unproductive.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: fa5bf3)  17043

File: 1510090147097.png (172.07 KB, 476x411, 012021.png)

I just want something neat to think about.

It's like that sort of trap where the consequences only matter as a result of having made the wrong choice, isn't it.
The likelihood of your existence being a worthwhile thing to think about is predicated upon you existing to think about it in the first place.
Sort awkward thing to put your brain around.

I read somewhere that a "multiverse" theory is the only way to make sense of stuff like counterfactual truths.
At least, if not the only way it does seem like a decently natural explanation. I'm fully on board with it being an instrumentation if that's what it takes, but I doubt such a thing is actually true in reality.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17044

File: 1510091589792.jpg (7.23 KB, 112x147, 25.jpg)

Aaaaaaany suggestions?

It's kinda like how I try to think outside of the context of the universe. It doesn't work. I get a neat sensation when I try and comprehend the scale of it all tho.

What's the next theory.

Anonymous (ID: 0d0ef6)  17045

File: 1510191870509.png (101.42 KB, 234x299, 153.png)

Hey, Adl. How do you reach fulfillment?
>what is fulfillment
Well I mean like
what criteria do you need to fulfill to make yourself feel like you've accomplished something, like you're content with your life and where you are, I suppose.

I remember touching upon just life goals or some shit in the old philosophy thread but I didn't really explain it well at all.
But I do still believe there's a difference between happiness and fulfillment. Fulfillment is what makes you sleep well at night and wake up happy.
Happiness fades in the morning or at 2 in the morning when you're trying to sleep.

Basically I'm wondering what exactly would make you, personally, or the general sense of you, fulfilled and content.

I know Aristotle had his concept of eudamonia, which was like to live a virtuous life for it's own sake is how you reach the highest state of being. That is not easy.
But I guess if it were easy there'd be more happy people and fewer antidepressant prescriptions.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 3b293e)  17046

File: 1510203696687.png (120.99 KB, 434x312, oh wow.png)

What is the best thing you've read non-seriously?

I'm glad you asked in the subjunctive mood, since I don't seriously know. On the other hand, it also feels like you're asking for three separate but not necessarily disjoint things. Do I need to feel like I've accomplished anything to feel content, or would these things make me sleep well?

Let's say, hypothetically, that it would make me happy to just read stuff and talk philosophy with people on the internet all day. I'd probably be psychologically satisfied by this arrangement, but unfortunately I still need to eat food and sleep and shelter myself as a biological necessity. As a human who lives in society, I'm also socially obligated to do certain things in order to provide for my biology and enable me to do these things. Would it be ultimately fulfilling for me to do these things, and spend the few hours I'm allotted each day doing things that I actually like? I suspect that most people are doing this already, yet not most people would say they are satisfied with their life.

Okay, so I work really hard or win the lottery or something and reach the point where I don't have to worry about these things. Does that change the context of the question at all? It seems cheap that my answer depends on these things anyway.

Anyway, maybe I'm missing the point, but also I think my understanding of the question is inextricably tied to to my material situation as it is, so it's not exactly a non-answer.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 6b0de2)  17047

File: 1510672761443.png (25.13 KB, 187x182, 138.png)

Do you know anything about econometrics.
Will you do my project for me.

Depends on what kind of non-seriously I suppose.
I read like over a dozen books over the summer but that was for a thing.
Best books I've read lately are The Cold War Swap, American Gods, and I'm still working my way through the positively excellent I, Claudius.
In terms of non-serious philosophical works, though, the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus was a fun read, even if it was barely comprehendible. I think it's best to read it non-seriously, really.
And also Bertrand Russel's A History of Western Philosophy is a great book, and ideal to skim through and skip to a chapter at a time.

I feel like if you're content you'd still sleep well. Like sleeping well in that sense comes from contentness. You wouldn't be content 'cuz you slept well though, unless the absolute only thing you want out of life is to sleep well.

I suppose I'm taking creature comforts as a given. You'll need to eat and sleep and drink to survive, and love and sex can be what makes a person content with their life.
I'd be surprised of anyone could indefinitely live contentedly by just fulfilling their minimum biological needs though. Habituation is a bitch and also one of the most fascinating and malleable psychological concepts.
So then I suppose what would make you lie on your death bed and be happy about what you've done. Or what would make you not want more, if you attain this goal. Come to think of it, though, if it makes you not want more and you are content with such a state of being, it'd have to be some self-perpetuating virtue, a joy that is consistent and a repeatable achievement. Maybe it's more like eudaimonia than I'd first thought.

I think that what makes a person content/fulfilled/able to sleep easy, any of that is subjective from person to person. I don't know if the glowing state of permanent virtue would make everybody on the earth happy if they achieved it. Some people just wanna be bad.
But yeah if you reached that point where you didn't have to worry about those things, I'd say that'd mean you're fulfilled if your goal in life was to just not worry about those things. But then there'd have to be something beyond the accomplishment that makes you happy, since not having to worry about such things in itself doesn't result in the happiness. You would've wanted to not worry about such things so you could do other stuff. Like not needing to worry about earning money means you can play video games the rest of your life, and maybe playing video games the rest of your life is what brings you fulfillment.

Some fulfillment goes beyond materials though.
I've always been a little drawn to the Buddhist way of zen a little bit. It's neat to just be happy with simplicity.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 6b0de2)  17048

File: 1510678807301.jpg (14.29 KB, 161x225, 98.jpg)

I also wanted your thoughts on this.
This seems like the kind of thing you'd be excited about, and I'd quite like to understand it better.


Essie (ID: 6c5ea8)  17049

space is the place

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17050

File: 1510700322538.jpg (28.38 KB, 285x323, 246.jpeg)

Hullo there how are you who are you what's on your mind

Essie (ID: 6c5ea8)  17051


hii am okay my name is Essie also formerly known as I Eat Shirts I am doing FINE and it is my intention to post and I will be writing soon how are you doing

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17052

File: 1510701176590.jpg (6.84 KB, 79x232, 46.jpg)

Why'd you stop eating shirts?

Essie (ID: 6c5ea8)  17053


hiatal hernia

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17054

File: 1510701294370.png (101.42 KB, 234x299, 153.png)

any interesting thoughts on your mind?

Essie (ID: 6c5ea8)  17055


no not at this moment i'm sorry :(

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17056

File: 1510701963014.png (24.18 KB, 63x150, 99.png)

's alright you can read through the thread for inspiration if you want but you don't need to

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17058

File: 1510705078289.gif (12.97 KB, 184x237, Pwnies meets Niddig.gif)

Hi thorny
How's today treating you

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 21dad9)  17059

How would you compare/contrast things?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: cdc518)  17060

File: 1510712627152.jpg (20.43 KB, 330x330, book2.jpg)

Anything having to do with economics is probably near the bottom of my list of "things I bother with".
What's the project?

I mean like, reading something as if you're not actually intending to read it.
You just pick it up for whatever reason, and if you feel like you're actually trying to comprehend what's written then you're now reading it seriously.
Sort of like skimming, but you're still reading everything and there's no attempt to discern the overall "summary" of the piece. Although you might still come to some kind of comprehension anyway.
I know for a fact that I've done this with at least one book, a few online articles, T-shirts, etc. But I don't recall any of them.
Actually, I might have posted some of them a while back. It's a very loose concept of "reading", though.

I've heard the mantra that you're not unhappy because you lack the things you want, but rather that you're unhappy because you want things you don't have.
I guess it's fine to an extent, but there ought to be certain things a person can't not want. And every so often, some of those are things we want exactly because we don't have them. I don't think not having to worry about anything, or even things I don't want to worry about, would make me happy either. I'd be content, surely, but maybe it's not an exact substitute.
It's difficult to counterfactually assess the contents of your brain when your brain as it is in fact is the one doing the assessment.

I don't know about the problems of astronomy, but I can tell you a bit about the problems of physics.
I think the most interesting thing about all this gravitational wave stuff doesn't have anything to do with any new physics. Surely, it has the potential for discovering new physics since these neutron star and black hole collisions involve some intersections between relativity and QM. But a lot of the stuff are just confirmations of things we already know.
I think the most interesting part of all this is the instrumentation. It's interesting because the underlying principle behind the detectors is actually very elementary, and you can totally build a desk-sized mini-LIGO for about $100 or so. But the coolest thing about it is the kind of techniques used to get the detector sensitivity up to what they need.
This stuff I learned about from a LIGO colloquium by one of their project managers that I went to about a year ago. Apparently quantum noise starts to become a significant problem at the levels of precision they require. Mechanical issues like a truck driving by outside or someone sneezing in the next room can be dampened relatively easily, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a lot more fundamental. A lot of the research around it involves finding out ways to push the noise into something that doesn't affect the measurement.
They also apparently have a big problem with leaks, which I guess is obvious in hindsight since it's the sort of problem you'd expect to arise if you want to maintain a 4km long vacuum tube, but the idea of it is just funny to me.

Hello and hi.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 4266dd)  17061

File: 1510794500677.jpg (10.79 KB, 124x142, 54.jpg)

Compare the differences that stem from the broad similarities.

Linear regression. Gotta use a stats program to explain which variables that interest me explain the crime rate in North Carolina in 1985. It's not... interesting. But the stats program is like programming, which I'm actually enjoying.

Oh then definitely Bertrand Russel's western philosophy history. It's better for skimming. I did intense reading on his Hegel chapter but was comfortable flipping through his Aristotle and Kant chapters casually.
Also this book called The League of Regrettable Superheroes which is fun and the best coffee table book I've bought recently, and happens to be the only coffee table book i've bought recently so

I looked it up and it was apparently Thoreau that said "Happiness is like a butterfly. The more you chase it, the more it eludes you. But if you turn your attention to other things, It comes and sits softly on your shoulder." Which is nice.
Not having to worry about anything would probably put you in a state where you didn't care about anything. And that's a symptom of depression. That's a leap on my part but I do think you need to care, which means you'd need to worry. Hmm.
There's a psychologist I forget who believed that stasis is not the point of contentedness for humans. We need a drive, and once the drive is sated, we would not be content until we find another drive. Basically humans crave a kind of movement.
the brain named itself how fucked up is that
Seriously though, I don't know what'd make me happy or content. I dunno if I have it or not. If I do then that seems worrisome. I wanna go home.

How would you even begin to dampen interference on a quantum scale?
observation affects it and
you can't know position and speed
but i don't know this stuff all that well
You push interference from the opposite side to cancel out the natural interference! Like stopping a hurtling train by stopping it with another hurtling train.
holy shit 4km
Feel free to talk as much about this as you'd like by the way I don't understand most of it, the implications behind it, or the process for it, but I like learning bit by bit.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 367dbf)  17062

File: 1510874141772.png (39.64 KB, 254x387, my cheeks are so fluffy.png)

So like, finding correlations?
Finding trends from a socioeconomic data set?
I understand that these things are not usually in the form of a simple direct correspondence.

Oh, good I can find it in PDF form online.
There was an argument I've heard about how the history of western philosophy is exceptional in the way that it ties to the emergence of science as a formal discipline. It all started with the Greeks, apparently.
I didn't really find it all that convincing.

I guess form a point, the mantra is exactly reversed: you are happy precisely because there is something you want, but don't have.
It may be bold of me to say that I find a distinctive historical shift in the idea of "fulfillment" away from an excising what makes us unhappy, into seeking happiness from discontent.

I don't know about the specific details, but the summary is this.
You can find an uncertainty relation for any pair of operators that satisfy a certain property. The standard pair is momentum and position, but for photons you instead have an uncertainty relation between the number of photons and the phase of the electromagnetic oscillation (this is due to the fact that we treat photons by quantum field theory rather than quantum mechanics). Basically, it just looks like [uncertainty in number] * [uncertainty in phase] >= 1.
Note that this is different from the idea that you necessarily have to mess things up in order to measure them. That is actually a different issue. The observer effect is related to the sensitivity of the instrument you're using to measure something with, but the uncertainty relations here is an intrinsic property of the thing.
So typically the uncertainties in number and phase are roughly equal. However, you can also make one of the uncertainties arbitrarily small by allowing the other one to get really big. If you plot the number and phase of a measurement on a two-axis graph, you can imagine that multiple measurements of the same thing are going to scatter points on the graph in the shape of a circle. However, you can also make it so that the "distribution" of your measurements becomes squeezed into a long ellipse, which is really big in one coordinate and really small in the other. Since the displacements at LIGO are measured using the interference pattern generated by the off-sync phases of the light beams, they would need to squeeze the down the phase of the lasers (I assume), so that there is a huge uncertainty in the number of photons there are.
I don't really understand yet how they generate that kind of light, but apparently there's a bunch of nonlinear optics involved. I found a neat intuitive explanation for how a number-localized light beam can be generated, but not for a phase-localized one. Presumably it would work the same way, but backwards.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 14e417)  17063

File: 1511464243544.jpg (13.34 KB, 124x201, 43.jpg)

jesus fuckin christ assessment is done at last

Macaroni (Outside) !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e08f96)  17064

What assessment?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 14e417)  17065

File: 1511465852305.jpg (11.93 KB, 132x143, 20.jpg)

Basically all the work I've had to do this semester 'till exams.
It all started with a test on Nov. 6th I studied a week for and culminated with the project I finished today.

I finally, finally get a break.

Macaroni (Outside) !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e08f96)  17066

Well, you've earned your debauchery then.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: e94664)  17067

File: 1511916878455.jpg (6.84 KB, 79x232, 46.jpg)


Basically what I did in that project was find a correlation between police population and the crime rate in different locations in North Carolina. Funnily enough, there's a significant positive correlation. This is probably due to how if the crime rate increases, THEN more police are sent to deal with it, rather than the intuition that another police in an area results in more crime. That's something I talked about.
I had to build a model, like crimerate = ß0 + ß1x1 + ui and then improve it
it was a fuckin bullshit terribly run assignment and my future economic focus is gonna be on finance I can tell you that much.
But yeah mostly regression and correlation work.

If Aristotle wasn't the father of science as a formal discipline, then he was at least the sperm donor. Seriously, the man did more for establishing science as a serious study in the early days than any of his peers. This is at least for the time. He also loved marine biology. He was a cool dude and I'm glad he happened.
Honestly one of the things I'm kind of disappointed about in my philosophy courses is that it's really western philosophy or nothing. Haven't had a single reading on eastern philosophy. So I'll just be doing that on my own.

Where do you see this shift first occurring? Is it societal or from a way of thinking?

Everything is so complicated. I don't know how people get a grip on anything. I gotta devote myself to a field but dammit I wanna learn more.
What are some good science books you recommend reading? Like what books you like to read for a better understanding of a subject you're interested in.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6224b8)  17068

File: 1511943706692.png (258.66 KB, 589x476, what am I looking at.png)

One may also get the impression from that result that increased policing is not really effective at curtailing crime, since you'd expect crime rates to be inversely proportional to police population in that case.
Did you know that any relationship can be approximated to an arbitrary degree of acuraccy by a polynomial of some order? They're like epicycles; convenient, but often tend to obscure the true picture.
I actually wouldn't have expected such a thing to have a linear relationship. Though I haven't seen the data, so I don't know.

There was a stronger claim in there about how "science" isn't a spontaneous thing that just occurrs in every culture, but that a few specific things about Greek society in particular at the time were necessary for the development of science.
Which, I've always thought of science as just a natural development of how people thought about stuff. If not Aristotle, then someone else, and so on.

I dunno.
At least from this western-centric view, if the modern industrial age was all about the material world, with its supposed potential to fulfill every human need, then somewhere during the transition to a post-industrial society we realized that the conditions of society informs what we want. It's not so much that a sufficiently advanced industry can meet everyone's desires. The values of society project themselves onto its people. It tells us what we should be happy about.

Depends on what you mean by "better undestanding". They say that the language of physics is math, and that's certainly accurate when it comes down to this sort of stuff on the side of theory. Which is to say that you could probably get a handle on the qualitative results in the way of what we tend to observe, but it would be difficult to understand why those results happen unless you can follow the math. So reading recommendations on quantum really diverge based on whether you want to do math or not.
If you do, I think Griffiths's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics is alright as a preface. It's pretty much a standard text, though not really a great textbook for physics students, since it sort of just glosses over the important formalism, but at this it might actually be an advantage since a good qualitative picture is probably the only thing you want. It still requires some background in calculus and stuff, though. I have a PDF of it if you want.
The Feynman lectures are pretty comprehensive, and I think at least in the beginning chapters of each topic they tend not to be too math-heavy at all. I get the impression that they're pretty self-contained as well. You start reading from a very qualitative text gradually into more involved mathematics. He also throws in some philosophical remarks here and there that I'm not sure are completely sound, but are still interesting to look at. This might be the best option, actually.
As for even easier stuff, I don't know. I browsed around on Amazon to see if there was anything I recognized. Shankar's Principles of QM I also have a PDF of, but it's more of a "serious" text. Greene's Elegant Universe is a pretty accessible "pop-sci" picture of string theory, and Hawking's Brief History of Time I've read long enough ago that I don't remember anything about it other than the fact that it was enjoyable (and highly appropriate for the mathematically uninclined). I tend to be wary of the stuff that go for the "astonishment" factor more than actually attempting to teach you something, and I assume you're not looking for that sort of thing either.
Oh, and Seife's Sun in a Bottle, while not strictly related to physics, is always my recommendation for interesting science books. It's about the history of nuclear fusion, and good to read for fun. I think I actually learned a lot from it as well.
Apart from books, it's actually pretty good to just search up articles about things on the Internet. Click around on Wikipedia, that sort of thing. It's got some problems with the aptitude of the topics it covers on a single page, but it's useful as a launching point on what specifics you need to look up.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7bc829)  17069

File: 1512221349804.jpg (34.99 KB, 323x296, 48.jpg)

I'm growing old. I ain't got the energy for these text walls like I used to.

That's true! And makes sense! I wanted to run a regression that could display the percentage of the police population that was effective but there wasn't enough relevant data, and also I didn't know how to.
That's pretty interesting though. I'd imagine they'd have to get pretty complicated. Shit, maybe that was the point of the assignment. I couldn't think of any reason to square some of the variables though.
I wouldn't trust the results of this project. There's a thousand variables unaccounted for in the error term, and exogeneity was violated.
It was not a good assignment.

Oh man, could you imagine if that were true. That the only way science could've ever arisen was if the Greeks were around.
I don't agree with that strong claim. It seems a bit too strong.
Yeah science would definitely come round eventually. Aristotle played a not-insignificant role in its beginnings. Same with Socrates and Plato.
Did you know Socrates taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle?
I always thought that was neat.
Also, there's only two things we know for sure about Socrates, basically. First, he was very intelligent. And second, he was ugly.

I just had a thought that's probably a bit extreme. But society seems modified in a way where our wants are designated or influenced in a way that our fulfillment of them results in a benefit for someone. Like advertising and marketing does that. Pretty exclusively, really.
It's pretty arrogant for any age or field to boast that it is at least in some way capable of fulfilling all needs. Except for economics that's just what we do. Seriously, though. We'd need to figure out exactly what all our needs are and what satisfies them. That's... that's the most basic thing humans work on, on some level. Everyone's got a way that they think satisfies most of their wants. Religion, business, family and friends. Depending on how you are who you are, I guess that'd make you gravitate to one or the other, if it'd make you happiest in whatever way you think makes you happiest. That's weird, man.
Economics at its most basic is defined as the study of how to distribute limited resources to sate unlimited wants.

By better understanding, I just mean what do you read to be better informed on topics you're completely uninformed about. Where do you start.
My first calculus class was two years ago. I only sort of understand integration, or at least how to do it. I'm confident about differentiation, but I did just have to look up its name.
I'd always take a PDF of a book, just in case.
And I've heard of Feynman before. Only from xkcd but it's something. I'll write that one down.
>11 hours of Feynman lectures on youtube
oh sweet daddy yes
I'll be getting into that this break I can tell you that much.
I was gonna suggest Brief History of Time, only because I've seen it on my dad's bookshelf and can get easy access to it.
>tend to be wary of the stuff that go for the "astonishment" factor
You're damn right I'm wary of it too. If it's taught well I'll get that wow factor anyway just because the subject is amazing. But i'll look into the Greene thing.
Wikipedia is genuinely one of the best things that's happened in the 21st century.
Thaaaaaaaank you for all the recommendations. I dunno how I would've come across some of these otherwise.

Have you read Star Maker, by the way? I heard about it and wanna read it.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: eb8358)  17070

File: 1512257058672.png (134.48 KB, 333x384, 012033.png)

You'd probably need some kind of timing data for that sort of thing. Like, for example, see when the police population was increased, and whether that occurred before or after the crime rate increased or decreased. That should give you quite a bit more information.
In any case, statistics is often deeply complicated.

The third being that he asked a lot of questions, probably.
I had a discussion with some of the other /space people, about whether the study of "magic" in a fictional fantasy world could be considered science on its own. It seems to me that the "scientific method" would not have necessarily developed into something like it is today, but the method is dictated by the reality of the world. If magic were real or something, maybe stuff like alchemy could be considered scientific to the extent that there is a methodology for studying it.

I don't think it should be controversial that our desires don't arise out of nothing. Rather, many of them (beyond merely what is biologically necessary) are taught to us by society, by our parents, etc. This has been true throughout all of history, but I think it's "more" true in today's post-industrial era.

QM is also heavy on linear algebra, but Griffiths fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) doesn't go very deep into that. Here's a pretty nice summary if you need a reference. You'll probably only need the first chapter of it at most, if even that. Griffiths will review it in Chapter 3, but I don't think it's enough for a good understanding of notation outside of the book.
Griffiths: https://file.io/hRg0ge
Shankar: https://file.io/aHucpQ
They also have the full text version of the Feynman lectures on the Caltech website if you'd rather read than watch something.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 790f2b)  17071

File: 1512353465170.jpg (6.3 KB, 66x132, 8.jpg)

I think the ideal data set would've been panel data, while we got cross-sectional data only.
I reaaaally would've liked to compare stats about tax rates (an increase in the tax rate is assumed to mean that residents are okay paying higher tax rates to get more police), increased police population, and if the above leads to less crime rate overall
But I couldn't.
I hope I did okay.
I like probability statistics a lot, come to think of it. Bayes' theorem is something I'm happy to have learned. And I've gotten better at calculating fractions in my head.
Statistics is weird. But it and probability are interesting as heck.

Probably! Gotta take Plato's word for it.
Magic, to hold up in a fantasy setting, would have to have rules. That's a criteria imposed by the author. If the rules are not obeyed, then anything can happen in the story, like random cop-outs where the protagonist can suddenly, like, resurrect the dead.
So magic would need rules. The rules would need to be uncovered. Those would be uncovered though experimentation of what magic could or could not do.
But I don't know if it'd be considered it's own science, like how physics and chemistry are both considered science, or if it'd be completely distinct from science and studied as another field, like science and history or something.
There'd have to be methodology to it, sure, to figure shit out at all. Alchemy was pseudo chemistry, but that's an insult to chemistry.
BASICALLY I think there'd have to be like three fields, magic, science, and their interaction. 'Cuz a lot of weird shit would need to be understood, and people would absolutely try to understand magic, like how an object is made to float, and what properties in the area are changed that cause that.

You ain't one of them there "tabula rasa"ers. I agree. I definitely think nature shapes us. Nurture influences us, sure, but nature induces some core aspects of us.
In terms of desires, I guess there'd be more social influence these days because of the internet and the ready supply of authorities on any subject, ranging from experts to people who know nothing but act like they do. And our desires can be influenced by like any source to some degree. With the internet we got every source. It's not exactly a good thing, but it's not a bad thing.

Thanks mate.
It's revision week starting tomorrow, so I'll really only be getting to those in break, probably.
December 20th is when my last exam is. That feels like a long long way away, and also way too close.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 790f2b)  17072

File: 1512353508092.jpg (24.47 KB, 265x294, 38.jpg)

Those links led to 404s, by the way.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: a7104f)  17073

File: 1512355209015.png (305.88 KB, 681x599, skepticism.png)

That API does not work as expected.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 790f2b)  17074

File: 1512356806325.jpg (12.98 KB, 174x301, 45.jpg)

Posting without a pic is blasphemy.

I do appreciate your effort here.
I got 'em both now.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: a7104f)  17075

File: 1512359501108.png (144.41 KB, 425x397, 112014.png)

Probability is interesting, since there's sometimes a pathological dependence on knowledge. The popular example is the Monty Hall problem, for example. And there's also the one about two kids with one being born on a Wednesday, or something. The first is pretty easy to visualize, the second is borderline miraculous.

If scientific methodology survives being developed in a magical fantasy setting, I don't really see why hypothetical magical phenomena would be treated differently from physical ones.
At least, to the extent that we usually assume things that we only know about things that have physical consequences.
Anyway, I feel like characterizing it as "finding out the rules to something" sort of misrepresents it. This was also something we mentioned on. Even if your phenomenon seems completely arbitrary, you wouldn't necessarily treat it as unphysical. Rather, the way science is carried out seems more like a matter of creating rules to explain certain things, rather than supposing that the patterns we uncover are the actual way the world works. The development of physics from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein is a good example of this. There's good reason to treat scientific theories as being mostly instrumental in nature; no physicist today is a Newtonian realist.

Whenever "nature" is brought up it's not clear to me what sort of things are "natural" to humans in general. There are things which we obviously have as part of our biological nature, like breathing or some aspect of our psychology to an extent, but I think the idea refers to there being something beyond biology. Or maybe it still manages to be biologically determined. Are desires for abstract concepts part of our "nature"? I don't think, for example, that being attracted to certain personalities is uncontroversially intrinsic. Nor are stuff like "greed" or "altruism".
I guess my point is, with regard to the question "which of our desires are socially influenced", my insistence is "always more than you think".

Every day is shorter in the winter, both literally and metaphorically. Or perhaps it's true metaphorically because it's true literally.
Just two days ago it was October, seems like.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: d5eed4)  17076

File: 1512607870743.png (41.2 KB, 168x293, 105.png)

I know the first, and it's how we were introduced to Bayes'. I think we could've been eased into it a bit easier, really.
i don't know the one about two kids and Wednesday.

I guess magic to me is almost defined to be precisely not science. Anything explainable by science is not magic. So like Harry Potter, right, they still didn't understand want lore, because it just wasn't explainable in the methods they had and also because J. K. Rowling didn't wanna get into that shit.
I wonder how a feather floats. I suppose in that world they'd eventually develop serious magical theory trying to fully explain why the feather floats, and they might even reach something, like the weight of the feather is decreased 'till it can sit on air, and they can explain what changes in the composition of the feather to accomplish that. But then once it's all explained... eh.
Maybe that's it, to me when something's fully explained and understood, the magic's gone. It's put into comprehensible terms and that devalues the magical aspect of it to the point where it's taken as science.
For me that's only true of actual magic. Science is magic on its own, but we can explain chunks.
Heh, what if reality conformed to match the scientific laws we made. How would that even work.

I never really thought of nature as anything deeper than the psychological aspect of our human composition. I thought of it as referring to the parts of our psyche that are ingrained in us from birth, that can be swayed by nurturing but parts are still there.
I also think that this nature aspect changes from person to person. I don't know if there's some consistent factor implicit in all humans, and I wouldn't say there is. Like I wouldn't say all humans implicitly want to do good, or all humans implicitly want to do evil until they're nurtured away from it.
The phrase "desire for abstract concepts" needs more to it, I think. I just don't know what it means.
Everything's influenced. We're influenced in a thousand ways everyday by things we don't have control over. It's kinda why I think we don't really have free will.

I'm back to doing a lot a lot a lot of work a day again.
I won't have a day to myself till...
Damn, like the 22nd or something.
Time just moves too fast and too slow in the wrong ways.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: dd8b81)  17077

File: 1512790336797.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

A man says to you "I have two children, and one of them is a son who was born on a Wednesday". What is the probability that his second child is a daughter?
The trick is that, exactly in the same way as the Monty Hall problem, the way in which this information is obtained introduces some kind of selection bias.

I can understand thinking that magic ought to be fictional by definition, but in practice we are usually even meant to believe in these lies in order to process fictional works. As in, if we're reading Harry Potter or something, we should react to the story "as if" we live in such a world where wizards exist and all the magical stuff happen according to what the author says. So if we're presented with an instance of, say, a huge room that fits inside a tiny tent, we treat it as new information about the world rather than as an outright lie. Even with completely mundane things, like articles of clothing, for example. A "hat" in the story isn't a real hat, since it's incomplete. The author might describe its overall appearance, but any other details about it that can be attributed to real hats, like how much it weighs or where it was made, do not properly exist. The reader fills all that information in as needed to maintain an idea of it, but it is never "fully understood". And this is a completely mundane thing for anyone, but stuff like magic work exactly the same way. We tend to implicitly assume that there's some kind of inner working behind how wizards conjure up matter out of nowhere and so on (why else would there be a "school" for people to learn magic), but that doesn't mean it's a unique attribute of purely fictional things. The ability for us to "fill in the gaps" is exactly how real things can coherently exist inside a fictional world in the first place.
Anyway, for me, we don't necessarily believe in fictional works, but we nonetheless act that way. So even if we know that something is fictional, there's a part of our brain that operates on the condition that it is real.

I feel like it's just a easy and popular thing to say that "humans are naturally X" as some kind of essentialist slogan. I don't know what sort of things are actually part of "nature", but for lack of imagination I just like to treat people as "reasoning beings". Which I guess is its own kind of essentialism.

Times like these I kind of wish I wasn't the one forcing myself to do stuff. If someone else told me to do so and so I wouldn't complain, but the moment it's my own voice saying the same thing it becomes really grating.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: e015d1)  17078

File: 1513117034197.gif (13.95 KB, 174x227, 39.gif)

Haven't forgotten you.
Exam thursday.
Essay friday.
Exam tuesday.
Pls forgive my lack of spare mental energy.

Will reply.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 653a65)  17080

File: 1513461867208.jpg (83.41 KB, 672x248, ahh.jpg)

This helps.

I want to fucking kill myself!

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 653a65)  17081

File: 1513475093030.gif (4.99 KB, 80x118, 16.gif)

Last essay of the semester done.
This semester sucks.
I'll post it for you if you're interested adl but i warn ya, it's bad.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 96047e)  17082

You know, I've always wondered if schools giving out exams for all their classes all at once is really the best strategy.
I guess if everyone starts at the same time they'd also end at around the same time.
What's it about?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 653a65)  17083

File: 1513646521546.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

I can confirm it is not a good way to learn, at the very least.
It just preps you to cram a bunch of stuff in your head. It doesn't help you keep it .
The best way of doing that is to have multiple lower-intensity cumulative tests throughout the semester.
I'd support that.

BASICALLY what it was about was Heidegger's Dasein and how there's a paradox found in trying to find Dasein's wholeness.
The thing about Dasein is that it projects possibilities into the future, through the entity it manifests as. Dasein, to put it very simply, the being of an entity that can take a step back from its existence, notice that it is in being, and ask what the meaning of its being is.
Dasein needs an entity to exist. If an entity dies, due to the forward projection of Dasein, Dasein does not reach completion. And while Dasein is in existence, it still projects into the future. And without having the entirety of what Dasein is (or will be), we can't call it whole.

So my essay was about discussing why the paradox of death necessarily arose from Heidegger's characterization of Dasein, and I tried to resolve it, sort of.
I kind of argued that if one perfectly lives as though each instant is the last one they will ever live, then Dasein is as close to being whole as it could be, while it exists in this world.
I don't think I did very well.
But hell, for all I know I could've knocked it out of the park.

I studied finance for eight hours today.
I'm actually kind of enjoying it.
I wanna learn code and write some kind of investment program. Seems like it'd pay for itself if I got it right. It's the getting it right that's tricky.

Only one more exam on the 20th! Then I get to come home!

I'll have to read about that. I mean to me and I'm sure many others, there shouldn't be any difference in the probability.
I'll add that to the ol' reading list.
I've been adding more philosophy and economic reading to my ever-growing book list.

I can abide by it in book, because in that world it's not a lie, it's a reality. Like whatever the fuck goes on in that world, in that world it's the reality. In the world, there should be rules and limits to what magic can accomplish. For instance, at the very least, they can't reanimate the dead.
So there's a part of our brain that tries to explain this world as it would be in reality?
Or there's a part of our brain that tries to explain this world and make it make sense as our own world does to us?

Humans are naturally humans. We're naturally something.
Humans are a bipedal animal without feathers. That's a fact.
There is something that make us ourselves, and not something else. I don't know what it is, but it's implicit.

Self-motivating is a habit, I guess. Maybe self-respect is too. I probably would listen to myself more if I respected myself more.
I know there's things I should do.
I don't know why it's difficult to make myself do them.
There's probably a reason to it. I'm implicitly lazy, but there's a greater driving force making me work as hard as I am to not fail these exams.
I won't by the way. I refuse to.
Man, I need to look for a job soon too.
I should have already been doing so.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  17084

File: 1513744616914.png (203.78 KB, 449x419, imminent danger.png)

I'm imagining a situation where classes have their exams in different prime-numbered intervals of days so that they have the minimum opportunity to overlap with each other.
Like cicadas.

I don't know about the "paradox of death". So it is that Dasein projects into the future at every point in time during which it exists?

The difference is subtle, but actually kind of simple. If you pick a random man on the street and he happens to have one son born on a Wednesday, the probability of the other child being a daughter is indeed 50%. But here is a situation where his first child cannot possibly have been anything else: we're effectively choosing among all combinations of children and birthdays only the ones with at least one son born on a Wednesday. So the space of possibilities changes.

More the latter.
If you see a pair of legs in a bathroom stall, you're going to assume that there's an entire person in there. This is the same way that we understand fiction. It might be an abstract person that we have inside our heads, but it's still real. It doesn't matter that there is actually nothing but the pair of feet behind wall if we are incapable of flipping open the door to see inside.
So my point is that not being able to fully see or explain something isn't a feature that's unique to fiction. As long as we suppress the feeling of incompatibility with facts about the real world, fiction works pretty much the same way as reality.

I guess that's true, but it also seems insufficient and not very exciting.
Humans are like manifolds. You'll recognize it when you see one.

There was a trick I used to do where whenever I had to write about myself I'd do it in third person to trick myself into thinking I'm talking about someone else.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 653a65)  17085

File: 1513834438452.jpg (19.2 KB, 89x138, 107.jpg)

I wanna be home. I wanna be home and I don't want to travel for 20+ hours to get there.
Goddamn goddamn.

i'll reply eventually
and i owe you an old one
Maybe before Christmas, hopefully
Can't guarantee.

I'm tired, Adl.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  17087

File: 1514004491942.png (816.3 KB, 1095x730, space.png)

It's become gangrenous. We'll have to amputate.

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  17088

When the fuck did you come back?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 332986)  17089

File: 1514097241618.jpg (14.71 KB, 173x226, 11.jpg)

Wait, i thought there was a post of yours I forgot to reply to. Was there a post of yours I forgot to reply to?

What would the benefit of that be?
Like heck could just make it so classes wouldn't overlap.
I suppose it's good to have an algorithm for it, but I mean... just pick the best days for it.

The algorithm of death is like...
Dasein is what defines, specifically, a human being as a human being. Not through physical characteristics, but prior to a human being coming into existence, there is something that indicates what the structure will be. There is something that defines what a human being is, before the human being itself comes into existence. That is the being of an entity, what an entity is on a deeper level than as it is, in the world.
Dasein is a quality of human beings that is able to ask the question "what is the meaning of being." An entity that is able to take a step back from its existence and ask this question is labled Dasein. This comes from its awareness of itself as something that exists.
Okay, so given this, once an entity becomes Dasein, it has options for how it can act, given its awareness of itself as something that exists.
Dasein manifests itself into the real world through this entity, and through the entities actions. This manifestation of Dasein, meaning the way that Dasein influences the world around it as Dasein and not as the entity that comports itself from Dasein, is through this projection.
Dasein projects itself into the world through the entity it manifests through.
So given this projection, Dasein also has possibilities for projection. There are different ways Dasein can act given different scenarios. Like, if I am aware of myself as something that exists, and I'm walking down the street and decide to buy ice cream, Dasein can decide which possibility to project as, be it a projection where I decide to get chocolate, or a projection where I decide to get ice cream.
So these projections are essential to Dasein's being.
So there's projections into the future, a sort of outstanding characteristic of Dasein coined as its "not-yet."
It does project into the future. But when the entity Dasein projects through dies, Dasein itself does not die, the entity does.
The paradox of death, in short, formulates that before Dasein dies, it is not complete, given its not-yet. And when Dasein dies, it no longer exists, as it has lost its ability to project, and as it does not exist, there is nothing to become whole.
That's the paradox of death. Wholeness of Dasein is not realized when Dasein is, nor is it realized when Dasein is not.

I like stats, but sometimes. Econometrics was not fun, but I like the practicality and simple aspects of it, like all the stuff I learned about regression and how correlation can be picked up from data.
It's really neat how much some words can change the application of basic principles.
Also it made me better at doing fractions in my head. I probably already mentioned that.

I don't think I understand your point here.
Things that happen in fiction can't happen in our form of reality. It's kind of hard to supress that incompatibility feeling. But I guess that's exactly what suspension of disbelief is all about.
I think this is the phenomenological fallacy, how something you think of in your head is mistakenly thought to actually be in existence, in your head. Like if you think of a pen, the pen does not physically exist in your head. Then where does it exist?

Humans are like pickles. They come from somewhere, generally you don't think about where they've come from or what they are before they've gotten to the state they are now, and you define them not from where they come from, but as they are before you. Also they're crunchy.

Did it work?


What's making you tired today?

I'm home though and it's nice.
I'm desperately short on sleep though. But I'm over jetlag. Not sure how much sleep I've actually been getting, but if I'm sure of anything, I'm sure it's not enough.

Merry Christmas Eve everyone, by the way.

When the fuck have I ever actually left?

Also, fun question for discussion:
What is, objectively, the best fetish?
And by this I mean one that grants the most pleasure, and is actually realizable in reality. Like can be experienced firsthand.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 332986)  17090

File: 1514097275356.jpg (28.51 KB, 250x314, i read it for the expressions.…)

>The algorithm of death is like...
Eh, paradox, you know what I mean.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  17091

File: 1514148099382.gif (628.52 KB, 238x238, 71.gif)

Probably. I don't know. It would have to have been a while back, though.

It was mostly just an absurd extension of the things we were thinking of.
Or more like an "un"-extension, in this case.

If I understand, Dasein is a special kind of thing particular to humans that's characterized by the ability to access some kind of ontological characteristic of other things.
So in what sense might "completion" be attributed to Dasein? Is it completed upon the closure of all the possibilities projected by it? And how is it that Dasein persists even after the entity dies? I imagine that someone would no longer be a thing capable of evaluating the meaning of being if they die.

Sometimes a problem can be properly ambiguous even when it seems like all the relevant information has been given.

I mean, whether purely fictional things are phenomenologically similar to things in real life that we consider to be scientific was the whole point.
The way you distinguish fact from fiction (ideally) is by comparing it with your knowledge acquired from looking at the real world. If you were trapped in a cave your entire life being unable to do anything but read a book of history and a book of fantasy, you wouldn't have such a reference for deciding between fact and fiction.
We also understand fiction as coherent stories by suppressing this background knowledge, effectively putting ourselves back inside the cave. Scientific consideration of fictional worlds becomes possible, since our interpretation of fiction is phenomenologically the same as our interpretation of the real world. You might have that background knowledge, but it's not part of your consideration.

They're also better inside a jar than outside of one.

Right until you ruin it for yourself by thinking about how well it's working.

I'm sure the best one is one where you don't have to think too hard about whether it's actually the best.

-Z- (ID: dc6eae)  17092

File: 1514148337246.png (1.37 MB, 1580x1972, 1490220__safe_artist-colon-nig…)

>What is, objectively, the best fetish?
I would go with masochism, simply because you are given the option for self-gratification by your own actions and by the actions of others.
Granted, in the long term you may become more and more dulled by the same ideals, but the potential for pain and humiliation is readily endless.
At least in the reality of our short lives.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 095a8a)  17093

I should ask if it is still suffering, if one is gratified for it.

-Z- (ID: dc6eae)  17094

File: 1514149844641.png (123.05 KB, 865x1024, large (2).png)

If the one giving the suffering is gratified, then it's cruel and suffering... however, if the one receiving the suffering is enjoying it, then it's not suffering.

(ID: d3bdd4)  17095

File: 1514184000809.png (1.46 MB, 2907x3077, 1609057__safe_artist-colon-hot…)

merry christmas, /space/

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 332986)  17096

Merry Christmas, Mwike!

Merry Christmas, Z! It's good to see you about.

Merry Christmas, Macaroni!

Merry Christmas, Adl!

tho (ID: cc9b73)  17097

merry christmass all

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 4b386f)  17098

new years soon

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 557d8c)  17099

File: 1514582829924.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

Here's a sort-of inspired pedagogical question:

Is there anything you can do to convince a universal skeptic?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 3ea9b6)  17100


Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 677f89)  48740


Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 332986)  50036

File: 1515037549333.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

I never asked for this.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  51977

File: 1515269070902.png (154.56 KB, 482x410, tldr.png)

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 307513)  55495

Yinz dead?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  55659

Not really.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 410b42)  56113

What's up, then?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  56267

File: 1515988169885.gif (1.06 MB, 396x331, pffzzzt.gif)

The last several posts.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 307513)  57158


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7ad7e0)  57223

File: 1516129240329.jpg (63.77 KB, 890x897, fffbbbbtt.png)

You are the boring one.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 332986)  58116

File: 1516257466489.jpg (12.21 KB, 119x144, 19.jpg)

I wonder how much longer I'll be here this time.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 78bdab)  58131

File: 1516259512013.png (128.8 KB, 416x456, you did what.png)

They say wondering is the first step to doing, or something.
Doing what? That is questionable.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 332986)  58133

What do you want out of this year?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c07cf8)  61934

File: 1516327994270.png (75.57 KB, 331x282, wut.png)

It's kind of narcissistic to expect personal fulfillment out of a calendar rotation, it feels like.

Heavy Mole (ID: 16d5df)  61981

File: 1516330194045.gif (51.19 KB, 300x360, lucy384.gif)

Well I've committed to being more self-assured. That's a good resolution, right?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  65683


Anonymous (ID: f2ace5)  65710

File: 1516900273009.jpg (650.01 KB, 900x900, Katsuragi.Misato.full.1886948.…)

As long as you live, you'll have the chance to find your happiness.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 06e766)  66032

File: 1516933689912.png (281.45 KB, 563x471, whatthehell.png)

There is some kind of an idea that language more often than not cannot provide a direct correspondence between what someone means and an actual thing in the world that represents this thing. As far as it seems, vagueness is "built-in" to statements in general. It may be that this is necessary to make the world intelligible anyway.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  66410

What can you even change when you're dead? Your fate is sealed and your story ended once you're above or below, or in oblivion.
Fulfillment, and thus happiness, is attained by the living.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66434

File: 1516970419145.jpg (13.34 KB, 124x201, 43.jpg)


I fucking replied to these. I replied to these days ago. What the fuck.

I knew you'd say something like that.
But it's more about, during this arbitrary time period, is there something you'd like accomplish.

I geddit, and I have indeed seen what you did there.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66435

File: 1516970567027.jpg (12.98 KB, 174x301, 45.jpg)

What makes you happy?

You ever read Wittgenstein?
I haven't, but I've heard some overviews of his philosophy.
He's all about that communication.

Oh that's an interesting one.
Which comes first, happiness or fulfillment, and is one necessary?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66449

File: 1516976390630.jpg (16.55 KB, 153x235, 133.jpeg)

Oh fuck I love new reaction pics.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  66452

Fulfillment is, to my reckoning, a deeper sort of happiness than ecstasy or base pleasure, leaving an imprint on someone's character and experience of life, but ultimately belonging on the same emotional spectrum.
...An analogy between mere anger and lifelong vengeance may be drawn, if that helps.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66459

File: 1516977962935.png (37.43 KB, 129x165, 124.png)

No, I getcha.
Like fulfillment comes from, say, a long goal being reached, or a lifelong goal being accomplished and the glow lasts beyond the initial happiness one gets from eating chocolate or something.
Do you think you can be fulfilled and not happy?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66466

File: 1516978659850.jpg (22.51 KB, 167x312, 130.jpeg)

>posting more often bcuz new reaction pics

Define universal skeptic so I know what we're playing with.
Do you mean one who doubts everything?
'cuz that was maybe the first philosophy essay I wrote in school. Answering the question "Can the skeptic be defeated?"

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  66468

You can lack the "energy" of ecstasy or the like, but a complete emptiness or pure pain would require the loss of fulfillment.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66493

File: 1516981496909.jpg (37.91 KB, 330x357, 68.jpeg)

>computer and waterfox is fucking up so bad my posts aren't posted even after it says post submitted
Guess I'll take a break from the quick reply dialogue box.

What, then, is the criteria for gaining fulfillment? If you can lose it by continuous pain, would you gain it by continuous happiness?
Not attacking your argument by the way, I just wanna get a solid understanding of your perspective before getting into the nitty gritty.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  66530

I didn't say you could lose it that way, merely that a fulfilled attitude will buffer against painful scenarios which may otherwise be hollow entirely.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66534

File: 1516986500698.jpg (53.77 KB, 414x436, 69.jpeg)

Ah, I got it backwards. I understood it as pure pain would cause the loss of fulfillment.
Still, how do you think one gains fulfillment?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  66537

Depends on the individual's values and desires, and what happens in the world.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 06e5d4)  66538

File: 1516987341815.png (41.98 KB, 132x165, 126.png)

Alrighty. Can you tell me what fulfillment is, or how it would be gained given certain values and desires?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: e0093b)  66581

It would roughly be an overall positive sensation from some lasting state of affairs, whose existence we feel some causal connection with or contribution towards, such that we may identify ourselves with it.
This could be from any effort or works which serve our values, but in any case, it must bear some relation between ourselves and the world we created.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 619ab7)  67467

File: 1517077019840.png (55.57 KB, 237x182, omg.png)

Not really.
I'm pretty boring that way.

Wittgenstein is like one of the people who you listen to and think "no that's wrong" but it also makes a lot of sense.

I'm also not sure that video makes a good representation of Tractatus, particularly the part about it supposedly being a suggestion that we should all "speak more carefully and less impulsively".

That's probably it.
But not from a purely logical stance. It might be correct to point out that skepticism is ultimately self-defeating or whatever, but if I were someone who had adopted that view, this wouldn't be a very convincing argument.
So sometimes these are two different things, I think.
I guess the sub-component of my question is something along the lines of how you can tackle ambivalence.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1d218e)  68672

File: 1517240499699.png (41.2 KB, 168x293, 105.png)

You know, I don't know much about your life at all.
I suppose you'd like to keep it that way, huh.

David Hume I think is like that. Except in the sense he starts off with something that makes you go "There's no fucking way. No fucking way." And by the end of his argument you're like "Ah well, shit, I guess that's the way."
He's got his argument way more clearly laid out than Wittgenstein.
I'd love to read the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus sometime.
I'd defend the video to an extent, but of course I haven't read all of the book, but I did read some for my analytic/continental essay. It ends with that phrase "Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent" which I think could be interpreted as "speak more carefully and less impulsively."

How can you convince the unconvincable?
We could try this out. Do you want to be the convincer who poses a question or statement, and I'll be the skeptic who tries to find cause to doubt?
And if one of us is stumped, we switch sides?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1d218e)  68674

File: 1517240660686.jpg (30.85 KB, 307x320, 114.jpg)

Do you think there's a best path to pursue fulfillment? Do you think there's any sort of worthier goal? Could fulfillment for one be justified if the fulfillment causes ill for one who does not deserve it?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: ce4324)  68877

File: 1517283000488.png (42.53 KB, 416x267, u dun fucked up.png)

I think I've mentioned before how I'd prefer not to leave much of an "impression".

Anyway, I think it's interesting.
I say it doesn't seem like a good representation because as far as I know it was meant to be an analysis of how statements (particularly certain philosophical statements) are intelligible to begin with - or even if they are at all - and not really said as "life advice".

In that case, maybe I'll start by prescribing that regardless of whether we can actually know anything to be true, we must still pretend "as if" we know some things to even begin to function as humans who are alive.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: b4f5ba)  69041

No one path exists, and a 'best path' for a given individual may only ever be approximated due to physical limitations. Goals only exist where an individual values one set of affairs over another; for the selfish, no worthier a goal can exist than their personal enrichment, but funny enough, for the altruistic it would fulfill them to see others happy.
Again, we must define ourselves before we can answer questions of ethics.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 3d09d2)  69820

File: 1517514753454.jpg (34.99 KB, 290x289, 63.jpeg)

Is you not wanting to leave much of an impression true in all cases? Like, how can you do that with the people that've known you for the better part of a decade? And are you alright doing that on a broader, longer term scale outside of personal relationships?
I guess I don't get that preference.

Philosophy definitely seems to be more about asking the right questions rather than finding the right answers. You don't get life advice from questions, but you benefit from finding the answers, I find.
I'll read the tractus at some point and we'll discuss it then, if ponychan is still around then.
Come to think of it, I wonder what the server costs are.

Wouldn't, say, a madman who believes in nothing still be able to function as a human being? Or do you have a specific understanding of what it means to function as a human being in mind? In which case, we'll need to lay those terms out pretty clearly to continue. Because I can see it as one requirement to define a person as a human being is that they pretend as if they know some things, in which case you're presupposed the solution in the question.
And do animals need to pretend as if they know certain things to function as living animals? Because that'd seem to imply they'd need a level of rationality and comprehension which is rare among animals, unless you're talking about pure instinct, in which case an animal wouldn't need to pretend to understand, but would just be able to act without thought or without asking or understanding why. Also, if it is the case that animals don't need the same criteria of belief or pretending of understanding as human beings do to be as they are, and rely on more than instinct alone, we have to establish what differs man from animals. Also also, by pretending to know if things are true, does this necessarily direct our behavior to be as a human would act, or can a human act without pretending or knowing?

I'm assuming fulfillment is something that should be generally strived towards for humans, but I'm having trouble by your definitions and understanding of finding the common factor that would allow humans to strive for this general notion. I think we'll get there though.
By defining ourselves before answering questions of ethics, do you mean defining our personal understanding of good, and our personal understanding of what a good goal is, in this case a good goal leads one to fulfillment? Or do you mean defining ourselves in terms of what we are, as a living thing or as a human?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: b6ba16)  69949

Fulfillment will have different requirements for different people, being contingent on the person's mind, although pro-social and lasting enrichment somehow linked to their identity is a good start for most individuals...

Defining what pleases us or hurts us, as this informs what we'll find fulfilling.

Anonymous (ID: 6704cf)  70759

File: 1517614365054.png (24.81 KB, 223x227, peer pressure.png)

Having other people be aware of you is stressful. A gaze is a transaction of power.
And it's not like I'm a total complete hermit or something. Have you never turned away from an accidental eye contact with a stranger? I'm just more comprehensive about it.

What if proper life advice are all in the form of questions?
Well, it's not like I "read" Tractatus as much as I followed its statements.
It's sort of an esoteric book.

What I mean is that it takes some kind of "knowledge-like" element to process sensory information into something that rational beings can make use of in order to interpret the world. For example, suppose my eyes see a red and orange thing moving around, I feel an increase in temperature, and I smell something unpleasant at the same time, and so on. In general if this happened, I would instantaneously and without any consideration interpret this as "my stove is on fire". We do this all the time; in fact, it's such a fundamental activity for normal cognition that I think it's impossible for most humans to function without it. What is "knowledge-like" about this activity is the process of abstraction that takes atomic sensations - qualia, as they say - and maps them to abstract objects. How do I go from the sensation of color and heat to arrive the understanding that those things represent "a fire"? I argue that this process of "recognition" requires knowledge, or at least something similar to it in function. Suppose I am looking at two different things: one is a passenger plane and the other is a helicopter. I'm able to call them by their name to begin with because I've seen airplanes and helicopters before, and I "know" generally how they look. However, a person who has never encountered flying machines before will obviously not be able to recognize them - they don't have the "knowledge" required to do so. Further, upon seeing those two things, my situational understanding of those things is changed based on the abstract properties that I know airplanes and helicopters have in general. They're both meant to transport things through the air, etc., so by seeing those two objects together I would form a connection between them by virtue of my recognizing that they are the same "kind" of object: maybe I'm next to an airport. But the person who does not recognize those things would never interpret them to belong to the same "kind", since they don't look anything alike. This kind of interpretation by abstract association works on practically everything. We don't find it weird when there's water in a cup, we think Dalí's long-legged elephants are wacky and exotic, and so on. This may not be true knowledge, since how do know we aren't hallucinating or whatever, but it doesn't matter because our subconsciousness automatically performs this recognition process on our qualia and classify them as if we actually know the facts about them that we think we do. They might actually be illusions, but we are only able to be deceived by illusions in the first place because we think we know some things.

As for animals and the mentally impaired, I would say living things acting on instinct alone would be unable to recognize objects. That is, they would not be able to abstract away from the immediate sensations that their instinct responds to directly. But apart from that, some animals and even most mentally impaired people (depending on the severity) do have this ability. That does not necessarily mean that they have rationality or comprehension, though. Higher reasoning ability is not required for me to recognize a fire. Maybe a squirrel can have an abstract notion of a "nut" through which it carries out its scavenging process. In that sense, maybe the squirrel does pretend to know some things.

It's like an inversion of Plato, maybe. We don't know anything due to reasoning, but we reason due to pretending to know things.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6704cf)  71159

Crab (ID: ad8d64)  71168

File: 1517635577363.png (103.6 KB, 420x329, REEEEEEEEEEEEEE.png)

I'm back bitches

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6704cf)  71177


Crab (ID: ad8d64)  71182

File: 1517638240772.png (637.41 KB, 7031x4522, For when Dusky's around.png)

Time to stop talking for another year or two.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6704cf)  71183

File: 1517638323264.jpg (188.7 KB, 733x733, 1006605.jpg)

Not the same.

Crab (ID: ad8d64)  71184

File: 1517638519780.jpg (42.12 KB, 600x300, BEHOLD.jpg)


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6704cf)  71197

File: 1517639126843.png (160.02 KB, 699x584, uh oh.png)

Well, I'm sorry but you can't just come in here to tell other people not to say anything.

That's their own responsibility.

Crab (ID: ad8d64)  71198

File: 1517639236357.jpg (184.18 KB, 800x492, Loogid dem tiddies.jpg)


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 6704cf)  71201

File: 1517639449607.png (156.82 KB, 350x354, who was that pretty lady.png)

At least you appreciate the cruelty of shouting "SILENCE" at the top of your lungs into the open void.

クキ (ID: 97166b)  71224

File: 1517646537826.jpg (33 KB, 512x418, aa2444e242f53606f94fad209506bf…)

Life is awesome, get on my level nerds

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: b6ba16)  71279

For you.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f15783)  76376

File: 1518414972048.png (61.85 KB, 665x640, mind blown.png)

Any particular fact about a deterministic world is predetermined throughout the past and postdetermined throughout the future. At any time, past or future, it has at least one determinant: a minimal set of conditions jointly sufficient, given the laws of nature, for the fact in question. (Members of such a set may be causes of the fact, or traces of it, or neither.) The fact may have only one determinant at a given time, disregarding inessential differences in a way I shall not try to make precise. Or it may have two or more essentially different determinants at a given time, each sufficient by itself. If so, it is overdetermined at that time.
How much overdetermination of later affairs by earlier ones is there at our world, or at a deterministic world which might be ours for all we know? We have our stock examples-the victim whose heart is simultaneously pierced by two bullets, and the like. But those cases seem uncommon. Moreover, the overdetermination is not very extreme. We have more than one determinant, but still not a very great number. Extreme overdetermination of earlier affairs by later ones, on the other hand, may well be more or less universal at a world like ours. Whatever goes on leaves widespread and varied traces at future times. Most of these traces are so minute or so dispersed or so complicated that no human detective could ever read them; but no matter, so long as they exist. It is plausible that very many simultaneous disjoint combinations of traces of any present fact are determinants thereof; there is no lawful way for the combination to have come about in the absence of the fact.
An asymmetry noted by Popper ([16]) is a special case of the asymmetry of overdetermination. There are processes in which a spherical wave expands outward from a point source to infinity. The opposite processes, in which a spherical wave contracts inward from infinity and is absorbed, would obey the laws of nature equally well. But they never occur. A process of either sort exhibits extreme overdetermination in one direction. Countless tiny samples of the wave each determine what happens at the space-time point where the wave is emitted or absorbed. The processes that occur are the ones in which this extreme overdetermination goes toward the past, not those in which it goes toward the future. I suggest that the same is true more generally.


Heavy Mole (ID: fedbf8)  76397

File: 1518420535801.jpg (18.5 KB, 430x426, lucy486.jpg)

Perhaps it is not that what is factual is overdetermined by traces in the past, but rather that our experience of 'what is the future' belongs to a different intellectual category than what can be represented by pragmatic laws. One problem with the excerpt is that it assumes an axiomatic "present" and distinguishes between 'causes' and 'traces' as a matter of convention. But at what point does the pierced heart go from being a 'cause' to a 'trace'? What is the locus from which we say 'before' and 'after'? Are not 'early affairs' and 'later affairs', in the sense that the other has used them, nonetheless both early affairs?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f15783)  76416

File: 1518425885836.png (39.48 KB, 264x228, aha.png)

It is my understanding that "traces" refer to determinants of some fact in the past and "causes" refer to determinants of some fact in the future. So something can indeed be both a trace of one fact and a cause of another.

The "stock example" is a fact that is determined by two causes, hence the fact of the pierced heart is overdetermined. And - maybe this is your concern - facts can themselves be causes or traces of other facts. You can say, well, maybe we can see the heart instead of as the trace of another fact, or as the cause of something else. But the point is that facts overdetermined by causes seem extremely rare while facts overdetermined by traces is pretty much ubiquitous.

Another way of saying this is that a fact almost always has just one cause, but there is always an abundance of effects.

I don't really see this convention as being contingent on a notion of "present", but rather only on a causal ordering of facts. And there is a notion of symmetry under time reversal embedded here, since that is how we allow later events to determine earlier ones. The focus of the argument at least is about how it is that, given this kind of determination, we think of the present (or "later facts", if you want) as depending counterfactually on the past ("earlier facts") but not the other way around.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f15783)  76418

File: 1518427221453.png (54.41 KB, 283x380, todo.png)

I think there is a more substantial issue: in what sense can we "count" the number of determinants of a given fact? That is to say, is there a consistent way to label one bullet as exactly one contributing cause, or are there a number of smaller "atomic facts" that make up this one thing? Could both the bullets even be grouped into a single cause?

I don't see the argument as very prescriptive on our views of time, but the suggestion at "numbering" our facts does get to the heart of what we think facts actually are. We can probably replace every mention of "fact" with "event" or something like it, but I can already see the problems arising from this treatment.

Heavy Mole (ID: affda5)  76750

File: 1518505308583.jpg (54.58 KB, 567x794, lucy559.jpg)

That's not quite what my concern is, though the misunderstanding is my fault, both for my lack of clarity and my applying an emphasis of thought which is probably discursive to the author's larger argument. I'm really interested in the nature of determinism, not as a chain of sequential order (time's arrow) but as it is experienced existentially as a modality (or set of modalities).

I would formulate 'traces' and 'causes' thus:

traces--> what is in the past but acting from the future;
causes--> what is in the future but acting from the past;


traces-->determination of early affairs by later ones;
causes-->determination of later affairs by
early ones;


traces-->the past depends on the future;
causes-->the future depends on the past.

I think this is close enough to the author's sense. One begins to see a kind of reciprocity at work (perhaps an uncertainty of mutual-involvement, akin to that of mutual-exclusion). Here the question of "the present" becomes vital, because we have either to deal with an actual past and future or an uncertain (in the phenomenological sense) or unfolding one.

My feeling is that if we looked at the case of the pierced heart carefully, we would see that (indeed) the bullets are both a cause and a trace, because they belong to the same modality of experience.
This post was edited by its author on .

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 83d0f6)  77023

File: 1518547615660.png (40.29 KB, 278x337, errrr.png)

Do you mean that there is a phenomenological distinction between the "actual" past, and a relational past in the deterministic sense?
As in, there is a point after which facts have no epistemic access, even if they are fully determined? The article does not really focus on this part, but I guess the vocabulary is relevant.

I know the author, David Lewis, has his own theory on modality that the paper was apparently signposting to, but for our own sake we can suppose for example that there is a modal distinction between the actual past and the actual future. Everything else seems deterministically symmetric. Is there another characteristic asymmetry we can find?

There is a section of the paper that claims the epistemic asymmetry that we usually invoke is not as strong as we would like: essentially, it seems like we actually tend lose information about the past, and simultaneously can predict some things about the future. And incidentally, much of the difficulty of predicting the future compared to finding out about the past seems to be due directly to the asymmetry of overdetermination anyway. That is, there are a lot of traces in the present that point to a fact in the past, while not a lot of causes can point to a fact in the future.

Perhaps we can consider the "present" as a contingent quality on the past or the future. It is the thing we have the most knowledge about. As far as this goes, the epistemic uncertainty that characterizes phenomenological asymmetry between the past and the future is explained by the asymmetry of overdetermination. Lewis treats this as a matter of universal fiat. If this is not the appropriate asymmetry, is there anything else?

Heavy Mole (ID: affda5)  77445

File: 1518592786358.jpg (36.89 KB, 500x500, lucy477.jpg)

>Do you mean that there is a phenomenological distinction between the "actual" past, and a relational past in the deterministic sense?
The distinction we're making between "actual" and "relational" past is itself essentially phenomenological; the former regards real events which exist "out there" and must, we assume, have happened in order for us to exist in the present; it is a logical concept relating to our experience of cause and effect; it is what we think of as "history", in the ordinary sense of the word. In the "relational" sense, 'past' is something which is part of the structure of consciousness and not simply a matter of locality. Just as we cannot have a sense of 'form' without categories such as bifurcation, catastrophe, etc. we cannot have a sense of 'time' without past and future; so in that sense 'past' is inherently deterministic (another way of looking at it might be that 'past' is a modality of what we experience as 'determination').

However, I'm suggesting that in both cases the function of 'past' is deterministically similar, so that we can draw parallels between the modality of one (the "relational") and the material suppositions of the other (the "real").

>As in, there is a point after which facts have no epistemic access, even if they are fully determined?

From one point of view, the determinism of 'past' and 'future' are the only epistemic access we have to facts. This is the source and goal of material science and circumscribes our notion of 'natural laws'. So if the facts are fully determined we ought to have access to a kind of true perception or cognition of a real world.

(to be continued)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 289f50)  77725

File: 1518660604559.jpg (22.91 KB, 158x297, 137.jpeg)

Y'all are cute together.

tho (ID: fb7ed4)  77796

<3 adl

Heavy Mole (ID: affda5)  77843

File: 1518673455499.jpg (48.58 KB, 600x849, lucy497.jpg)

Anyhow, to rein this back in a little, I would contend (or maybe proffer) that there is a reciprocity within our sense of 'past' and 'future', that we experience phenomenologically, which may give us a different sort of insight into physical problems involving asymmetry. For this purpose it might be more useful to think of 'future' as something containing our expectations rather than causes per se, both because it is hard to imagine what cognition would look like without some notion of "expectations", and because, as we have pointed out, "causes" are really "traces" in tessellation, and so properly belong to what we have been describing as 'past'.

We can then describe the "contingent" present moment with a little more detail: we have expectations of the future, and are surrounded by traces. However, these are mutually-involved--we do not simply have access to a "pure" past or future. Our sense of the past is differentiated by theories, concepts, explanations, etc., which give it some sort of meaningful conjunction; on the other hand, our expectations of the future are ineluctably bound by what has led up to it. This former and latter can be pictured as modalities of "determination".

Perhaps, then, if the past seems 'overdetermined' it may reflect on the dominant scientific emphasis which values calculations over explanations (a counter-reaction to 20th century atomism, for example). Interestingly, Popper himself despised instrumenalism as much as he did Wittgenstein's "mysticism"; his scientific logic was founded on the idea that it was possible to know more or less clearly the real mechanics of natural order, and not just our own sensations/cognitions.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: f22d88)  78351

File: 1518751299640.png (26.34 KB, 269x268, meadowlark.png)

If the "arrow of time" from asymmetry of determination is a residue of some historical narration, would you describe it as a synthesis from the usual epistemic asymmetry and the lack of an obvious physical asymmetry?

I also have a nitpick with the notion that determinism is really the point of epistemic access for most facts, which is unrelated to the question of whether determinism is true in the first place. At least, this is not the kind of determinism that arises from "natural laws". It may seem like the task of physical science is to make these sort of predictions, but it's only as a result of designing science to be empirically descriptive. So these are not necessarily the same "natural laws" that we refer to when speaking of physical determinism.

Maybe it supports your line of thought, in that it would suggest our problems (of asymmetry, what seems like overdetermination, whatever) are mostly psychological in nature. In any case, I don't grant a logical connection from "later facts are fully determined by earlier facts" to "we can know any later fact by fully knowing earlier facts" or vice versa.

My hat is sugoi.

Heavy Mole (ID: affda5)  78420

File: 1518761571167.jpg (27.35 KB, 400x330, lucy401.jpg)

I'm not quite thinking about it in terms of an "historical narration" as that seems to place an emphasis on concepts like social construction and conspiratorial thinking. I am rather suggesting a sort of hermeneutic picture which we can look at and say, "Here are the limits and extremes of the categories of our experience," from which we may form a bridge to the larger process which is unfolding as concerns/movements in science/metaphysics. Of course, I am personally limited in my judgment on such matters. But it's a little bit of an act of imagination.

Regarding the relationship of science to determinism, I think that really was the view in some circles up to certain developments in 20th century physics (see for instance Hermann Minkowski's 'absolute world'). "The world is intelligible and comprehensible to reason"--but what form does that knowledge take? Determinism is the universe "on reason", in a sense. I'm painting in very broad brush strokes, but the idea again is to give a sense of extremes. It is as though a ring of people are standing around a complex geometrical figure, holding hands, giving their perspective of the trajectory. "Determinism" doesn't represent the whole domain of science, but a space within it, which we encounter as an entire world of experience.
This post was edited by its author on .

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: b8d6ed)  81392

File: 1519169576813.png (68.28 KB, 645x446, scouter.png)

So, anyway.

Is there an important sense in which the "larger process" of scientific or philosophical development is not a historical narrative?
Now that I think about it, I'm also not sure if that bridge actually gets anywhere. It does seem to sit in some weird cross-section of epistemology and sociology, so I guess I just lack anything interesting to say about it.

If science is meant to be a study of the physical world, you could reasonably assume that scientific knowledge is true knowledge about physical things. The tangle is in how they happen to be true, which becomes more opaque the less observational evidence you are presented with.
I think realism is making a comeback these days.

Also, imagine that there is a species of intelligent whales, who are magical in that they have a completely accurate deterministic physics simulation embedded in their subconsciousness. So given a locally "small" area of consideration and a boundary condition, they can instinctively "guess" the correct outcome modulo some insignificant amount of error. If physical science develops in prescient whale society, would it be completely independent of empirical methodology, like mathematics? I think it wouldn't, but it would be interesting to figure out why that's the case.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87064

File: 1520295139647.jpg (23.45 KB, 253x328, 66.jpg)

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87068


Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87071

File: 1520295814008.jpg (15.94 KB, 202x159, 121.jpeg)

's aight.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87076

File: 1520296420291.gif (20.99 KB, 228x200, sack of thinly-sliced potatoes…)

I don't see much of a point in advertising your location, but hey.
Add a Lilliputian flag and we'll talk.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87077

File: 1520296510036.png (37.21 KB, 131x165, 125.png)

I don't really get it either, but the kids seem to like it.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87078

File: 1520296701552.jpg (121.72 KB, 722x785, comics.jpg)

Who are "the kids"?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87079

File: 1520296852540.jpg (22.51 KB, 167x312, 130.jpeg)

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87080

File: 1520297239010.png (82.93 KB, 269x296, colgate.png)


Same here.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87081

File: 1520297302711.jpg (33.79 KB, 269x278, 216.jpg)

Feels good.

Anything you want to talk about today?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87085

File: 1520297905032.png (9.36 KB, 913x929, 1293.png)

I can only think of interesting things to talk about once per month.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87088

File: 1520298274015.jpg (45.43 KB, 287x282, 61.jpg)

And I only have the mental energy AND the desire to talk about interesting things at completely random intervals.

I'm writing an essay about love and sex if you wanna hear about it.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87089

File: 1520298631947.gif (3.54 MB, 480x1024, i've made a huge mistake.gif)

Is it full of flaky metaphors and wild guessing?
I mean, I'll read whatever you post either way.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87090

File: 1520298766760.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

It's not as interesting as last semester. It's extremely straightforward. I'm almost disappointed.
I present an argument by Nozick, explain an objection by a contemporary philosopher named Jenkins, and defend Nozick's argument from Jenkins.
Not as intensive as last semester.
Not all that interesting either.
But what the fuck, right. My last semester, I can take it a bit easier.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87094

File: 1520299353148.gif (1.97 MB, 364x226, canterlot poor.gif)

Well, that's how you know you've gotten to the serious part of any activity.
When it becomes boring.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87097

File: 1520299436283.jpg (14.71 KB, 173x226, 11.jpg)

Last semester was the serious stuff, I guess.
Maybe once you get good enough at something it gets boring.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87101

File: 1520300370340.png (365.33 KB, 900x629, chryssilurk.png)

So I recently heard someone say, to paraphrase, that women are more selective in choosing their partners because "they're conditioned to go for 8+ guys" or something.
I mentioned that it's probably self-defeating to think of people's romantic choices as picking products based on some kind of abstract numerical rating.
They responded by saying that the proliferation of online dating directly enables this behavior since people can literally browse through a catalog of other people for choices.

Is it cynical to find something problematic, but still embrace it in a completely sincere way?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0a811f)  87107

File: 1520300596016.jpg (8.41 KB, 108x141, 36.jpg)

8+ as in the scale from 1-10 of attractiveness, or 8+ as in the total number of partners?
The former, huh.
I think people are conditioned to select more attractive people, sure. Because we don't see the unattractive side of people on social media. There's the pictures they want to present only, the ones that make them look good.

I don't think that's cynical. Hypocritical, maybe?
That's not giving up, that's just giving in.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e4d3a9)  87117

File: 1520301653397.gif (351.67 KB, 576x576, dj sugarbell-3.gif)

Well, of course people tend to pay more attention to attractive people. That's what it means, after all.
I mean the idea of theoretically having a problem with reductively "choosing" someone based on a 1-10 scale, but at the same time forming your opinion of the entire social environment around that same scale.
Perhaps because you feel like that is the "standard" way of doing things, or for some other reason. And I don't limit this to dating. Say for the familiar example of someone who feels disenfranchised by the consumerist ethic that their status is determined by what they own, but cannot afford to buy these things, and so acts out in a consumerist way, by stealing things and so on.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  92881

File: 1521339734159.png (176.98 KB, 434x532, 1567459.png)

thn (ID: fb7ed4)  92900

hi adl..

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  92903

File: 1521342169113.png (197.45 KB, 518x602, found you.png)

Describe yourself with three emojis.

thn (ID: fb7ed4)  92905

☭ † ☹️

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  92910

File: 1521342780886.gif (114.62 KB, 336x336, nod.gif)

Unicode symbols are technically not emojis, but I will accept it.
How much we know ourselves is inextricably tied with how much other people know of us.

thn (ID: fb7ed4)  92912

nobody knows anything about me

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  92921

File: 1521343286570.png (276.72 KB, 308x475, oh look.png)

Not exactly. Other people know exactly as much as they think they know.
Or I should say, it's more about the image than what is actually true. How do you think about me, for example, having by necessity only known me through the interactions I have with you? If I think I have a rather different inner life, is it that you don't know me at all, or that you know very well the real me that you interact with, and I'm the one who is mistaken?

thn (ID: fb7ed4)  92925

its that i dont know you at all. projections and impressions arent the person who created them; while they can be useful, if very carefully analyzed, in constructing a theoretical version of the actual person who created them (thinking about the reasons why they did, underlying motivations and fears and hopes and beliefs), its not any kind of true knowledge of the person

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  92942

File: 1521344905621.png (199.81 KB, 550x734, cupcake.png)

But why should I have such a privileged access to the truth, whatever that is? Can't I also be mistaken? To mind, an characterization of my person is not just a set of facts about things I do or think, but rather an interpretation of those facts. I am in a unique position to form such an impression that values my inner thoughts, but they might not be informed by internal thoughts as much as they are corrupted by them. I may believe incorrectly about whether certain things are right or wrong, I might make excuses for myself, or I might underestimate or overestimate my own abilities, and so on, just as others might have the "wrong" impression of me. Therefore, having access to my inner life does not privilege my own impression of my person over anyone else's.
What is true here? That I have thoughts inaccessible to anyone else is true, but are those thoughts themselves true? I argue no, at least no more than anyone else's thoughts about me.

thn (ID: fb7ed4)  92945

the point that we have flawed understandings of ourselves isn't in dispute. but the idea that people who not only aren't privileged to the inner self in any way at all, but also don't know the feelings and experiences which lead the person to the underlying reasons for the projections which the outside viewer solely has as a reference point makes it absurd to think that they have an equal or greater understanding of the individual

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  92964

File: 1521346791553.gif (711.55 KB, 432x431, 1112673.gif)

It is not that we are wrong about ourselves despite being in a unique position of having access to our inner selves. Rather, we may be wrong about ourselves precisely because of this. It is not that we are wrong with respect to any particular "more accurate" view that someone else may have. In fact, others don't have an equal or greater understanding of ourselves, either. They might know fewer facts about ourselves than we do, but any interpretation of those facts lies beyond determination. Only the reason that I value my own impression more than that of others survives.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 9c4896)  93897

File: 1521558697121.jpg (13.46 KB, 337x324, 102.jpg)

♬ Happy birthday, to me ♫ ♪
♫ Happy birthday, to me ♪♫
♫♬ Happy birthday, dear pwnies ♫♬
♪♬ Happy birthday, to me ♪

I'd like to steal love for my friends. I know some that can use it.

It's about that there biased perspective and ego barrier.
It is hard to get a perspective of yourself outside your human level though.
Hell, it's hard to get a perspective on how other people see you.

I can describe you in two words.
I think you'd agree but I don't think you'd like it.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 5e1a16)  94169

File: 1521591904888.png (365.33 KB, 900x629, chryssilurk.png)

This year I made you a cake, but I figured the anticipation of eating it was better than the actual experience, so naturally I took care of it for you.

So what, you're going to be like a changeling Robin Hood or something?

I had to read this sentence about five times before I realized that "that there" was one expression and there isn't supposed to be a clause in the middle of it.
Anyway, I don't think there is any significant amount of time we ever spend viewing ourselves as if from a third-person camera somewhere outside our own body. Even in a "brain piloting a fleshy robot" kind of way. It's creepy if you think about it.

thn (ID: fb7ed4)  94320

out with it
the only argument then i see is that no one has any viable insight into anyone

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 739c1f)  94358

File: 1521603889044.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

Viable means viable for a purpose. If you wanted for your individual impressions of someone to be validated, for your images to be true, then obviously this won't help you. But as far as impressions and assumptions, however "incorrect", are what allows humans to perform our social functions, I'd say these insights are absolutely crucial. Sometimes it doesn't really matter whether your perceptions are accurate or not, only whether you believe them. I said that your self-image is tied to others' images of you because this kind of socialization is completely unavoidable for most people. Others are like little mirrors in this way; how they behave around you inform a view of yourself that is external to your inner thoughts.

-Z- (ID: 1a1e59)  94386

File: 1521609217241.png (107.16 KB, 788x824, 1405915__safe_artist-colon-loc…)

One year closer to lookin at the ol Grim Reaper.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: b89724)  95267

File: 1521730755270.png (74.2 KB, 260x186, 163.png)

Thanks for the cake! I hope you enjoyed it like I would've.

Sure, why not. That sounds like it could help a lot of people.

Yeah that's sorta my point. It's helpful to see ourselves from this third-person camera. It's hard to 'cuz of that-there humanity.

And one more year I successfully avoided him. I should throw a party.

Every year you pass the day of the year you will die on. You never know it.
I used a random number generator to decide what day it'd be. I expect to die on January 17th, but I can't say the year.
So I have a little death-day party for myself.
Just do something that makes me glad or appreciate I'm alive.

Just tired.

(ID: d3bdd4)  95480

File: 1521750918035.png (421.55 KB, 647x668, 889870908.png)


Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: b89724)  95541

File: 1521754050045.jpg (34.99 KB, 290x289, 63.jpeg)

Always been best thread.

-Z- (ID: 1a1e59)  95554

File: 1521755114087.png (283.22 KB, 1200x1200, 1617015__safe_artist-colon-ski…)

I had it set in my head that I was to die at 25, yet I'm 26 and somehow not dead.
Though not to be said life hasn't fried to fulfill this.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 826cf2)  95562

File: 1521755364085.png (146.19 KB, 743x1024, thinking aj.png)

I almost certainly enjoyed it less than you would have.

So the idea of changelings is that they play on the fear of inauthenticity, but here it's inauthentic for a good cause.
That's shameless.

I've heard of some of these experiments in altering people's perception, like one dude who wore glasses that flipped everything upside down for a year, and another one with digital goggles that had a video feed from a camera mounted in his chest.
Somehow the idea of not being able to see through your own eyes is scarier than that of being blind. I guess it's because we can make ourselves temporarily blind anytime we want.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 826cf2)  95563

And also time, too. Don't forget about that.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: b89724)  95599

File: 1521762206151.jpg (6.84 KB, 79x232, 46.jpg)

Wasn't that Greeny's plan too? Commit suicide at 26 if their life wasn't what they wanted, and they couldn't be talked out of it?
It's not the right way to live.

Depends on your utility function.

Shamelessness with good intentions can lead to good results. Sometimes.

I heard about that! I forget the results though. But people get used to it pretty quick. Well, relatively quick.
I'm definitely fine seeing through not my own eyes if the alternative is being blind. Unless you're wearing those nightmare goggles it's hard to justify blindness over any sight.

Heavy Mole (ID: 24ff39)  95611

File: 1521763117434.png (65.87 KB, 145x203, lucy168.png)

I thought it was decided that /time/ would be merged with /space/...?

!SqueAkSiEs (ID: 518a08)  95717

Totally was! things worked out. can't say i'm happy now, but I can say i'm content or distracted enough to keep on keepin' on. uh, 23 now.

-Z- (ID: 1a1e59)  95724

File: 1521768969798.png (127.23 KB, 1000x1000, 1583534__safe_artist-colon-ski…)

>Suicide by 26
Huh, did not know that.

But no, I was talking about the fact that before I was even 25 I had been...
>Dead twice
>A heart transplant
>Been in the hospital over 20+ times
>Attempted suicide about 6 times

After all that, I bet I would be dead by 25... not cause my death by 25. Shit, that's the cheater's way out.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 616480)  95764

File: 1521771130481.png (139.46 KB, 294x324, i've seen some shit.png)

It's very pathological. You wouldn't want to look at it.

At least for the upside down guy, I think he said he got used to it after a few weeks, in the way that his brain flipped the picture around in his head or something. Probably had another round of acclimation when he took them off, too.
The chest camera thing is weird, because you could potentially see your own head through your own eyes while inside your body, which is totally distinct from looking at a mirror in an unsettling way, I'd imagine.
Of course I'd pick having bizzaro-vision over having no vision, but there's a bit more unease about not being able to comprehend what you're seeing over not being able to see anything at all, I think. On one hand, there's information you don't know, but on the other, you know all the information there is to know and still don't know how to process it.

I'm not responsible for any decisions around here, so I don't pay attention to them.
I just post here.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: b89724)  95853

File: 1521777859245.jpg (56.46 KB, 351x746, oi.jpg)

Oh shit, whaddup g.
It's been half a decade.
I'm 23 too now,
I'm extremely happy to hear you're on track to making it to 27.

Well done on making it to your next breath.
I saw Louis Theroux interview some religious people who were utterly convinced that the second coming of Jesus would be soon and Rapture would happen. So soon, in fact, that when Louis Theroux asked this one guy how sure they were about the world making it to next week, he replied "I'm not sure about this evening."
That's unbelievable. It's so hard for me to understand what it's like to live like that, genuinely not believing you'll make it to tomorrow. It helped me understand it though.
So I haven't been in that place. But hey you're alive, and I'm still going to say that's a good thing.

Army speak calls it the cowards way out for a reason. Or at least call of duty 4 called it that, I think.

Your mom's pathological, lol.

Oh there must've been acclimation after. It happens with VR glasses, it'd happen with those, no doubt.
I wanna try the chest camera thing now. It's hard to imagine so i wanna see what it'd actually be like.
I remember reading about man who had been blind since birth. Sometime into his 50s he was cured of it. He killed himself two years later. The world was too much.
It all depends on how accustomed you are to your current way of being, and how adaptable the change is.
Being blind, at this point, would be a HELL of a change for me, of course. Because I still have the memories of normalcy.
If the bizarro vision could be changed back, then no problem. Otherwise it'd take a long time to get used to, but I could. I'd probably long for the days without it, but that'd fade eventually. I think it's something I could get over.
Basically I'm saying I'd be able to adjust my level of understanding as I am now for whatever level of understanding I'd require with the weird vision thing. Maybe I'd be able to process it eventually. I prefer the chance to adapt over no sight.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 616480)  95868

File: 1521780829055.png (127.61 KB, 387x521, limestone.png)

Seeing is believing indeed.
There's a description on how your eyes are the least fallible of all your senses, where you wouldn't mind as much if you lost your sense of touch or smell because it's relatively easy for your vision to make up for them, so it functions as a kind-of check on the the other senses.
Presumably that's why your eyes are the closest sensory organs to your brain. Could you imagine if your arms were attached way above your point of vision?
Speaking of eyes, there's pretty much only one way to make a physically efficient light-focusing device. That's why all "eyes", even the mechanical ones on cameras and such, look pretty much the same. Just a round hole with a lens.
It generates a situation where you tend to be aware of when something is looking at you. There are a lot of fears about this sort of thing, too.

!SqueAkSiEs (ID: 518a08)  95905

uh.. let's see.. half a decade..
so i moved to philadelphia for school, was okay
got a bunch of friends
got a girlfriend
broke up with girlfriend
made up with girlfriend
girlfriend broke up with me
lost a bunch of friends
made a few friends
lost a few friends
graduated from school
moved to california
now i'm a NEET with not friends, living at home!

that about sums it up. hbu?

-Z- (ID: 1a1e59)  95909

File: 1521785255310.png (324.32 KB, 1293x1748, 1546335__safe_artist-colon-smo…)

Well to live life like it's your last is an odd thing to do, but I know of those who do it.
For me though, it's more "I can go at any moment" which becomes a break from inhibitions and barriers allowing myself to become more of a person then I would normally.
It helped break me from most of my depressive ways back a couple years ago and continues to be a mindset that I use when I start to "slow down".
Not to say it doesn't come with any faults, as I do have moments where I break and I need that time to wallow and/or repair myself to get back at it... but you get the point.

Those who call it the "coward's way out" do so without meaning, because it's not cowardly... it's foolish.
When you create your own path to death, whatever that may be, you choose to not deal with your problems and attempt to escape them.
But you don't escape them, you put them on everyone else that knows/cares about you.

Which is why you alienate every possible person in your life, THEN off yourself. That way yo take everything with you by yourself into the fiery pits of hell or into the void of nothingness... or whatever which belief you subscribe to.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: cf1ef0)  98010

File: 1522078624689.png (54.71 KB, 226x298, 103.png)

If you had to lose a limb, which one would you pick? I think the left leg for me. At least that's got solid prosthetics.
I say that because if I had to pick between being deaf, mute, or blind, I'd pick deaf and mute over being blind.
The eye is amazing. Every part of it. From the amount of information it takes in, to how well information is processed. I like having eyes.
I got glasses this year. It was a big deal.
Isn't seeing the first sense that occurred in human evolution? Shit's important, yo.

I have little doubt you're a better person for the experiences you've gone through.

I'm doing pretty well. I've had a gf for a few years, and I've been going to school in Scotland while she's back in America. We've been doing the long distance thing and seeing each other on breaks. This is my last semester of college, and I'm on track to graduate with a degree in Economics and Philosophy.
Dreading having to find a job though.
No idea where I'll go after college. I've been talking to people, though, about potential career paths. It's something. I kind of like finance.

I'm glad you're still alive.

Heh, I can say with absolute certainty I live my life like it's the last life I'll ever live. I don't live each day like that tho.
Yeah of course. For me it helps appreciate my current and next moment. I can look outside right now. I can walk outside right now. That's a big fucking deal to be able to do. Can't do that when you're dead.

It's the coward's way out because it's much, much braver to keep on living when you want out.

Yeah exactly, that's the spirit. How's that working out for you.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  98265


Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: e595de)  98415

File: 1522156191337.jpg (6.84 KB, 79x232, 46.jpg)

How's your day, t?
I remember your name changing from tho to thon and thinking you must be feeling better or have had a good day.

-Z- (ID: 1a1e59)  98459

File: 1522172118550.png (263.11 KB, 2000x1600, 1245869__safe_artist-colon-mar…)

I wouldn't care if I could look outside or not, because I would be dead. All actions and thoughts for me would cease, I would become one with nothing.

Considering that I live life alone, talk to almost no one, feel like shit at my job, and things have no chance of getting better for me... i'm on track.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 45c65e)  98565

With these sort of questions, I don't think the point is to try to minimize the impact of such a thing, but to think about the actual consequences involved. Otherwise, it would basically be the same as saying "I would prefer not to lose any limbs".
So as far as I interpret this to mean not a "preference", exactly, but as a sort of "which one would be the most interesting", it would be the left arm. But at the shoulder, instead of having there be a remaining stump or something.

I think for most people, they don't realize how poor their eyesight is until they get glasses. The first time I got mine, I was surprised that normal people were supposed to be able to see individual leaves on trees from the ground. It was pretty mind-blowing.
I imagine this is like a mild feeling of the blind guy getting being able to see for the first time.

I'm sure there was some kind of reaction to haptic stimulus that we had back when we were jellyfish.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: cea5a2)  98695

Give me a question that you think everyone should consider at least once.

Anonymous (ID: fb7ed4)  98698

just how insanely huge humans are

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 45c65e)  98714

File: 1522187467617.jpg (44.96 KB, 527x640, 971.jpg)

How is babby formed?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: cea5a2)  98721

Our physical scale is roughly between that of the planck length and the observable universe, IIRC?

It would be easier to demonstrate.

Anonymous (ID: fb7ed4)  98725

yes, we are right smack in the middle of the full size of the universe and the smallest conceived things in existence.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: cea5a2)  98739

Well, the full size of the universe is as-yet undetermined and may be undeterminable, as is the difference between the planck units being the absolute smallest quanta or merely the smallest that could ever be discerned.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1f2c8e)  98880

File: 1522197645222.jpg (17.25 KB, 287x298, 195.jpg)

Well it's always important to have a goal.

I respect that you'd prefer to lose it at the shoulder.

I left the optician's office, walked out side, turned left, and was stunned there were so many leaves on a tree.

I remember watching an episode of Cosmos or something, where micro-organisms that moved away from light lived longer, so those with a better ability to react i.e. those who could see the light better lived longer.
I wouldn't want to be a jellyfish. They are neat though.

What if, after you die, there's nothing?

Did you know in terms of size, a dust speck is halfway between a single atom and the entire Earth?

t (ID: fb7ed4)  98881

i think it's something like ^-32 and ^32 in terms of scale, with humans at roughly 1-2 sq meters

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 7451f5)  98908

I'm not around to lament being dead, then.
And if there is any hereafter that involves my mind in any capacity, then I retain the ability to have an interest in life, etc.

This helpful?
This post was edited by its author on .

t (ID: fb7ed4)  98910

oh it was 36

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 1f2c8e)  98923

File: 1522202548850.jpg (53.77 KB, 414x436, 69.jpeg)


Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 7451f5)  98950

If there is nothing for me to exist as, then I can't be too upset when that does happen.
Conversely, while and when I do exist, I have the capacity to care about life and living.
Death is certainly to be feared because of what it prevents, but it is not to invoke generic nihilism or hysterical religiosity, as I am naturally aroused into pursuing things in life just by being alive, and I can't regret anything if I'm dead.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 45c65e)  98951

File: 1522205561479.gif (991.04 KB, 400x446, i ain't even mad.gif)

If you're going to lose something intentionally, there's no going halfway with it.
Also this way I could sleep on my side without awkwardly laying on top of a limb and cutting off circulation.

The anecdote with the leaves seems to be extremely common. It's a lot more surprising than being able to see letters far away without squinting. I think you begin to have this picture in your head about trees that they're just supposed to look like big green blobs since that's what pictures of them usually look like.

That may be the case. I wouldn't call simple reactions to light stimuli as "sight", though.
It does bring up the question, even though I suspect it's pretty much unanswerable: do sensory experiences require consciousness?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0be954)  99197

File: 1522258138593.gif (10.74 KB, 139x163, 22.gif)

See, that I can understand.

But yeah. That's Epicurus' argument. I forgot where he wrote it, but I looked it up and it's in his letter to Menoeceus. If we are not when death is, then we are not there to experience it. And if death is only when we are not, then we will never experience it.
I wrote an essay on priorism, or the belief that death affects us before it occurs. I think that damage is done in the worry of death. So like, because I worry about death, which will occur to me, the fact that death occurs detracts from my current life. And there is the harm from death prior to its occurrence.
There's also the line of thought where death isn't feared, but dying is.

But I mean I think it's a question everyone should consider because of the implications it'd have on their lives today and for the rest of their lives. I'd hope people would live better for themselves and others if they consider that this life is all there is.
I think it's a question everyone should seriously consider, just to see what they'd conclude out of it. Not just considering what happens after you die, or is there a god, just skipping to the case where this life is all we have.

Sleeping on your side is tops. I've been trying to sleep on my back, since it's better for your spine. Only problem is I can't fall asleep that way. I've been trying to sleep on my back when I'm super tired, but dammit my brain doesn't register that as sleep time.
Would you rather have half a brain or none.

I think it's because trees really are everywhere, and they do have stunning detail you only notice when you see them clearly. It makes sense.
The drive home I could read the street signs from what felt like miles away. It was amazing.
I remember thinking it was neat that I'd just experienced something I'd remember probably for the rest of my life. Those things don't happen every day, you know.

It's primordial sight. Pre-primitive sight.
Depends on how you define sight, though. I see it as an old old version of it, that's all.
I don't know if they require consciousness, but I think you need some kind of awareness to have such experiences. That's not to say you couldn't have them if you were brain dead. You could have sensory experiences and not register or be aware of them. That doesn't change that they're happening, though. And it depends on what consciousness means, but that's an even bigger can of worms.
What do you think?

Anon (ID: a09e37)  99200

File: 1522258340397.png (116.41 KB, 900x778, TOTALLY not trolling1.png)

I'm here to inform you that you're in Ponychan

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0be954)  99225

File: 1522260532552.png (143.07 KB, 200x395, mlpchan is where the heart is.…)

Ponychan is where I live, but MLPchan is my home.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  99228

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0be954)  99229

File: 1522260885294.png (41.2 KB, 168x293, 105.png)

I made that for you<3

Anon (ID: 286bc3)  99277

File: 1522266891899.png (172.89 KB, 1284x728, ?Macabre.png)

t (ID: fb7ed4)  99299

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  99302

File: 1522270230786.jpg (46.54 KB, 955x500, cremation.jpg)


More like here.

Anon (ID: 8b1d61)  99303

File: 1522270560829.png (516.12 KB, 462x482, macabre?1.png)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 0be954)  99304

File: 1522270793065.gif (3.3 MB, 640x360, snake salute original.gif)

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  99305

File: 1522270876713.gif (525.77 KB, 320x240, 1510929356549.gif)

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 44cdf1)  99586

File: 1522291904203.png (52.99 KB, 263x231, hmmmm.png)

I think your mattress makes a bit of difference in which position works out better.
Though I used to sleep on the floor, so I dunno.

Depends on which half, I guess. I've heard of people missing chunks of their brain with still relatively minor issues. Although however you cut it, an entire half still sounds pretty severe. Can people even live with half a brain?
It seems like a totally different question than missing your limbs, since how you'll evaluate it now won't be the same as how you'll evaluate it afterwards.
I'll be brave and say half a brain. Although it's hard to tell how to compare the two.

Being able to read signs is a rather useful thing, I agree.

I would say that sensory experiences requires something to be able to experience them, sort of like communication requires both a speaker and a listener.
Now, it's insufficient to just be able to register a sense (awareness I think is a different matter). If I press a button and it makes a beep, the button doesn't experience anything. It should require some kind of ability to interpret the "raw" sensation.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: c9527e)  99782

File: 1522338293620.png (25.38 KB, 115x127, 122.png)

This really is the only thread on Ponychan I like, come to think of it. It's the one that doesn't make me sad or angry.
I must like being angry, otherwise I wouldn't read replies on /gif/.
I need an outlet for my anger, but I've never, ever been good at letting it out. I feel awkward or weird doing so. Huh.

I slept on a couch for like four years. Funny that. That's actually probably why I'm used to sleeping on my side, thinking about it. People sleep on their stomachs, and I have no idea why.

Hehe, I basically see no brain as being dead. I'd take half a brain. I'd rather be brainwashed and happy with where I am than dead, I think .
I know you can cut out a quarter. And I suppose you can live without half a brain, if you get rid of only the least essential halves. Didn't have to be left side or right side, I mean, coulda been half the mass removed.

So would you say a sensory experience requires a sentient receiver? Definitely doesn't need a sentient sender. A rock falls off a cliff and someone hears the sound.
In the button case, are you saying the button would register a sense? I don't think the button has awareness, sense, or experience. I don't think it can register the sense. It's got a function, sure, a mechanical function that causes it to make a noise when pressed.
I don't think I get it yet. Can you elaborate on that? On the insufficiency?

t (ID: fb7ed4)  99787

File: 1522340107668.png (41 KB, 1004x161, know your roots.png)

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 27c261)  99881

File: 1522357365265.png (183.76 KB, 975x1024, uhh sorry.png)

I don't look at any other threads.
It's fine though. Caring about something is pretty much the only prerequisite for getting mad about it. The Internet generates this sort of area where getting a rise out of people is considered good entertainment. It's a place where one's emotions get confused over what's real or not.
Well, it's all real, but certain things have a different character to them.

They say you shouldn't cheap out on a mattress since it's something you spend more or less a third of your life on. Same with glasses I guess.
Ever been camping before? One of these days try spreading a mat or blanket across the floor and sleeping on top of that instead.

I get the feeling your brain isn't really clearly delineated between "unimportant parts" and "parts that actually do stuff".

I realize I'm just making up terminology as I go, but by "register" I meant in a mechanical sense, producing a specific kind of reaction or response to a cause. To be "physically affected" by something in a regular way is to register that thing, you could say.
And by regular I mean not random or plainly chaotic.
This is all just to abstract away from what people experience as sensation and say that there's something that goes beyond the mechanical process of reacting to stuff.
In science people tend to anthropomorphize stuff a lot. The function "sees" this point, the earth "feels" a gravitational field, so on. This is a language that comes naturally, so we often take them too seriously.

It's a nice little slogan, though I think turning it into one made it a bit frivolous.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 27c261)  99889

I say this is relevant because to a certain extent we might be able to view some simple animals' nervous systems as "just mechanical responses to stimuli". Do earthworms experience sensations, or do they just register them? Do jellyfish? Do diatoms?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 95ca9f)  100071

File: 1522366208354.jpg (11.55 KB, 184x193, 15.jpg)

I think I joined Ponychan in March 2011. I forget exactly. Pretty sure it was late March. Never hit up those /co/ threads, if that's what that is. You're an original, eh?

Yeah I don't know why I do. Probably 'cuz I can't think of anything better to do online, basically.
At least I care about something. But I gotta try and use my anger productively. Not sure how though. Writing, maybe?

Mattresses and sheets are absolutely worth splurging on (lul). The only downside I can think of is that it makes it harder to sleep anywhere that isn't your own bed.
I've been camping a bunch. I've done that floor thing before too. If it works for you then whatever, right.

I dunno, if I left it to a surgeon and payed them enough that they'd agree to cut out 50% of the mass of my brain, but they'd only get the money if I survived the operation, then maybe they'd be able to figure something out.
Maybe on a labrat instead of me. Having half a brain doesn't sound too pleasant.

So the button could still register the press, right?
Oh okay, yeah, I'm with you there. There is more to the mechanical reaction of experience, like the button being squished and making the noise.
Which brings me back to people being aware of it or just feeling it. I'd say the feeling is enough to call it an experience. Awareness would be a step above it. Like being able to respond, or able to process and have a desired reaction, maybe.
It's a habit of mine to pick apart as deeply as I can what the meaning of the words of an argument mean before I can address the argument. Before I can argue a side, I have to know precisely what I am arguing, before I can say how to argue it.

That's a good question.
I'd say no, actually, after thinking about it a bit.
It's a reaction, and I guess I distinguish it from a mechanical reaction because it's organic. That's not a very good distinction, though, but we can build from it.
So I think the line between registering and awareness....

No never mind, that's not good enough. It's not just because it's organic. There's something else to it.
How about an event that a human can understand, from a human perspective, as a sense being activated?

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 27a88e)  100192

As an aside on impending death and the like, I also take the view that the past and future are 'real' locations, their status as past or future determined only by what other times and places they exist relative to.
As such, any good or evil that we see fit to do in the finite lives we have, has always existed in an eternal or tenseless sense, and so if we do good or evil, that good or evil was always a fact of the universe, and will always be 'happening' to our past selves no matter what else comes before or after.
So, I should feel rather encouraged to bring about as many desirable moments as I can, and to do so with a degree of almost stoic security, precisely because this life is both deterministic and all we may have.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 09083b)  100609

File: 1522420279652.gif (7.08 KB, 122x183, 91.gif)

There ain't no time but the present for me. An infinitesimally short span of time that we actually exist in. That is the present. The past is gone, and the future is never reached. There's only now.
But what happened in the past will always happen that way. And what will happen tomorrow can't yet be said.

And what's the connection between an act always having been done and an encouragement to do things that make you happy?

>this life is both deterministic and all we may have

>this life is deterministic
You're going to have to defend that. What makes you say this life is deterministic?

Do you study philosophy?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 545f86)  100745

File: 1522447196667.png (75.57 KB, 331x282, wut.png)

I've actually been writing a bit, lately. It's enjoyable, but not really something I can do for the entirety of my free time.
It goes rather slowly if you don't have much of a solid idea, too.

Well, every time the seasonal temperature changes roll around it's like sleeping in a different place. Ventilation is pretty important as well, now that I think about it.

Or maybe use some way to pick every other neuron out of your brain. I don't really feel like speculating on how well you'd function if you did that.
Use the leftover neurons to make another brain, I guess. Now there are two brains that are each half as dense as a regular brain. You can use only one at a time. Swap between them as needed.

I used to think that way about definitions as well, but nowadays not so much.
Sometimes the meaning of a statement is inherently vague, but that doesn't imply that it's meaningless. For those times, a dialectical approach can be more helpful than trying to reconcile all the facts about it a priori.

Do you mean that there is no fact about whether something is experiencing a sensation independent of a human's observations about it?
That might be the case. So indeed like the anthropomorphisms I mentioned, to say that a registration is a sensation means that someone is likening it to some subjective view or intention that they have towards the receiver?
Like, if I say that a food is good, I'm not describing how the food has this property of "goodness"; instead I'm only expressing my positive reaction towards the food.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: cf1ef0)  101101

File: 1522499998128.jpg (244.87 KB, 719x750, 62.jpg)

I've been writing too. One of my resolutions for the year mirrored an older resolution. A few years back I resolved to read a book a month. Now I've resolved to write a story a month.
I need a more consistent way of doing it. Right now I've got 500 words and haven't really finished the intro.
I'll figure it out.
If I keep at it I'll have more fun with it, and will do it more often. It's the keeping at it that's hard.

WELL as long as you're comfortable. I slept on a rock hard futon for a while, too. Got used to it. As long as I've got enough blankets to be warm, I'm all set.
I love sleeping with my windows open. It got to the point where it felt weird to sleep with them closed. But now that it's consistently around freezing outside, being warm is the main challenge. I'm looking forward to going home.

Would it work or not?? There's only one way to find out...

It's fun for me to get specific about vagueness, sometimes. Sometimes it just helps me understand it and enables me to think more clearly about it, now that I have firm context.
It's not necessary, yeah. And there's more important matters to attend to, like the actual argument itself, yeah. Still helps sometimes, though.

That's at least part of what I'm saying, I think.
We can only understand something as having the experience of a sensation by comparisons to our own experiences, and when we see something that we understand as having some ability to experience such sensations, which then experiences some sensation, then there we go.
If a dog devours their bowl of food, you can probably say they enjoyed it, their experience of taste is similar to our own when we enjoy food. We can probably say that creature is experiencing a positive sensation of taste.
This doesn't hold up to extremely good imitations, though. Like a robot dog who mimics the enjoyment of a real dog perfectly. We'd think their experiencing a sensation when it's just mechanical registration.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 69a4ec)  102060

File: 1522638129285.gif (707.36 KB, 400x294, winky.gif)

Writing consistently is a difficult habit. Sometimes I can pour out 5,000 words in at a time and other times I barely manage to squeeze out a hundred words in an hour. A lot of it just feels like being prone to random bouts of inspiration rather than any kind of conscious effort.
I've taken to getting a notebook and writing with pen and paper instead of on a keyboard. It's less tempting to try to go back and nudge things every five seconds once you've already written it down.

Here it's never cool enough to have the windows open without practically sleeping naked. And waking up sweaty and hot is a lot worse than being a bit chilly.

Does it feel like a cheap trick to you when we refactor questions like this from being about "what does X mean" to "what do we mean when we say X"?
It's probably true that sometimes there is no answer to the former, and that the two are inextricable since we are the ones who are asking the questions. But occasionally it feels like there ought to be an answer beyond the way people interpret the world. How do we tell the difference between assertions about how the world appears to us, and ones about how the world actually is?
Because it seems like, if you were someone who believes that there are facts about the world, and that there are facts about the relationships between facts, then you'd want to know whether there is a fact about whether a certain animal has sensory experiences. Now our answer is unsatisfactory; do dog stop experiencing taste when there's no human around? And so on.

-Z- (ID: 1a1e59)  102066

File: 1522639625222.png (2.39 MB, 3000x2000, 1551913__safe_artist-colon-wil…)

I wouldn't really call it a goal, more like an end result.

sorry for the long response time... been dealing with some shit lately.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: fe275a)  102328

File: 1522679719659.png (41.98 KB, 132x165, 126.png)

They say you can't wait for inspiration, you gotta go after inspiration with a club.
The notebook idea makes sense. I wrote like a dozen 100-200 word stories in a notebook. I was at some cafe, as cliche as it sounds, and smiled at people or made up stories for people that passed by. It was a lot of fun.

I'll agree that waking up sweaty and hot is a lot worse than being a bit chilly, but at least I can sleep while I'm sweaty and hot. If it's cold enough, I can't sleep.

I think those things have different answers. I think saying those two questions are different ways of asking the same thing is incorrect. Like asking "What does it mean to be good?" is absolutely different than "What do we mean when we say 'it is good?'"
So I guess you're right, my definition only answers what a sensory experience is in the second way.
What do you think a sensory experience is?

Well it's always important to have a plan.

And that's alright, I don't expect replies.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  102531

File: 1522716018963.jpg (34.57 KB, 1199x522, 111.jpg)

t (ID: fb7ed4)  102532

File: 1522716029943.jpg (54.92 KB, 1200x663, 112.jpg)

t (ID: fb7ed4)  102533

File: 1522716040936.jpg (61.03 KB, 1200x664, 113.jpg)

t (ID: fb7ed4)  102534

File: 1522716052849.jpg (50.07 KB, 1200x675, 114.jpg)

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  102584

File: 1522718379045.jpg (24.57 KB, 796x436, 1520913034326.jpg)

Wow, this screams cringe. Guess this is one anime to avoid.

Thanks for the heads up.
This post was edited by its author on .

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: a5e6c5)  102593

File: 1522718729998.jpg (19.45 KB, 250x250, fb8.jpg)

>watching anime
>watching television
>reading books
>listening to music
>experiencing things
>being happy
>finding things you like
>feeling life is worth living
>enjoying things
i seriously hope you guys don't do this

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  102596

File: 1522718835427.jpg (37.02 KB, 491x446, 1521770853676.jpg)

>doing anything
I bet you still breathe, don't you, pleb?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: a5e6c5)  102601

File: 1522719107197.jpg (9.62 KB, 332x336, later homo.jpg)

>he actually allows his cardiovascular system to pump oxygen to his brain

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  102604

File: 1522719303345.jpg (71.83 KB, 900x900, 1517889569652.jpg)

>He's not in a perpetual state of unconsciousness
Joke's on you, I've been dead for 3 weeks.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: a5e6c5)  102613

File: 1522719625752.gif (955.03 KB, 360x360, spoopy.gif)

>dead for three weeks
>he was alive before that
>he actually existed

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  102615

File: 1522719678886.jpg (28.25 KB, 505x411, 1510536657080.jpg)

Fine, I concede.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 3384f3)  102682

File: 1522723681188.png (281.45 KB, 563x471, whatthehell.png)

Once I catch up to inspiration, should I break its legs and beat it to a pulp, or just threaten it so that it never tries to run again?
I can't write fragments like that. My ideas always run so long that I end up cutting most of it anyway.

I'm the opposite, I think.
Although I've never really been cold when trying to fall asleep so I wouldn't really know.

I mean, for the most part I don't think there is an unambiguous way in this case to distinguish between what we think we mean by sensory experiences and what they "actually are".
Part of the appeal of naive physicalism seems to be that you get to dismiss this sort of messy stuff as illusion and say "there are no experiences, only registration". There is no consciousness, only your brain. Or whatever.
It's like that whole thing with deflation -- your asserting a statement is the same as saying that the statement is true. In this case, experiences are like whatever you assert to yourself. There are no false experiences, but somehow it still seems like we are wrong about them sometimes. I hear someone say my name in the crowd, but in fact no one said anything of that sort. My experience of having heard it was real, though. If my brain makes something up, it is real to me, as far as I'm convinced. But did I hear it or not? What decides this?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 7369c2)  103096

File: 1522798419745.jpg (17.25 KB, 287x298, 195.jpg)

Oh, now that takes me back. Just like old times.
Glad you conceded there though, I couldn't think of anything else.

I dunno, you should write a story exploring that concept.
It could just be a warmup exercise. Random stories that don't need to go anywhere. I'm torn between doing it for fun and wanting to get it done.

I got that nice warm Scottish weather. Sun sets at 11 in the summer. It actually almost gets warm then.

Thaaaat's a tricky point. Bit finicky. For that naive physicalism, then what are you talking about when you say experiences? How can you say what they're not?
You heard something, but you misheard it as your own name. You experienced a noise, that is true. Believing you experienced a sound that was your own name is a false belief.
G. E. Moore's response to the skeptic saying you can't prove you've got hands was to shake his hands in front of their face and say yes I do!

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c7fb9a)  103211

File: 1522803152915.png (204.98 KB, 1147x1024, that's not scientifically poss…)

I feel like that's a bit too heavy-handed on the metaphor, though.
I just don't know how to feel about being really unfocused about it, I guess.
I could write stuff like in the OP, but to be honest I'm not very happy about it.

I mean that there is no "further aspect" that is required for there to be sensory experiences other than registration. And I don't really say that; it just seems like the most convenient option.
What I mean is that the difference between hearing something and mishearing something is not that we are mistaken about our senses, but that our senses are mistaken about reality. What makes it a false belief is that no one actually said my name, not that I didn't hear my name being said.
There's a frequent and well-documented occurrence in amputees where they would be able feel a "phantom" limb where it used to be. This is despite the fact that there is obviously no longer a limb there to feel anything with. The sensation of having a phantom limb is only false in that it does not correspond to reality; the feeling is still real nonetheless. That's what I mean when I say that there are no false experiences.
So with regard to what these experiences "actually are", it seems like a major hurdle is identifying what constitutes this "actuality". After all, sensations can only be experienced firsthand. So it becomes difficult to see when we've passed from "what does this mean" to "what do we mean" in the first place. Then should we just trust our instincts that there absolutely should be an answer to this question?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8f1059)  105260

File: 1523048357607.jpg (7.49 KB, 79x187, 46.jpg)

Didn't you write a number thing?
Where scientists had a convention to name numbers?
I like that one a lot.
And that's why you keep writing. If you don't hate anything you made years ago, you aren't progressing enough.

I actually disagree with that, there. I think that our senses interpret things accurately, it's the way our brain turns them into information where things get messed up. I don't have it but I think that's how synesthesia works. It's your brain that fucks up, not the tools that record the senses.
Oh yeah I've heard of that. That's... a good example. Hmm. So would you say the sensation is accurate, but doesn't reflect reality?
There should be an answer to most questions, but dammit if you can find them.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0a2951)  105284

File: 1523050292456.gif (290.63 KB, 500x501, 1176929.gif)

I remember that one vaguely. I think it was me commenting on ultrafinitism before I knew what ultrafinitism was.
Although, on a completely unrelated line of thought, I even had the idea recently of writing something involving a person working on naming and recording all the possible numbers and arithmetic combinations, even though I had completely forgotten that I already did something similar to it until now. I guess you can call that self-plagiarism.
Though it had a bit more to the concept than just that.

I would say that sensation happens at the point where our brains turn the mechanical signals from our organs into information, not at any point before. So even if my ears didn't pick up any sound, I can still "hear" things in my head. Like how you might sometimes enunciate words to yourself as you read.
The sensation is accurate under this meaning, which I think is the only useful meaning to talk about in this case. For many other things, we typically think of "accurate" as being synonymous to "corresponding to reality" in some way.
I wonder what measure has the subset of questions with no answers. I suspect it's much bigger than you think.

(ID: b5d203)  105319

File: 1523052562048.jpg (84.52 KB, 739x751, f4f68e25e8db0cb7ed85ad50ce7d29…)


A lot is actually known about this and is well documented in my into psyche class's textbook. This is the edition we used and it's dirt cheap and clears up a lot of the factual/anatomical bases of the questions being discussed the last several posts in this thread:


First, the fallacy that we use only a little of our brains is completely untrue. We actually know a lot about how it is used.

Each of the senses are hooked directly up to its own region of memory, a vast amount of data that flows in constantly and the entire body is mapped to its own memory area as well, actually in several separate areas for each type of nerve for example pain, touch, and hot each have their own separate "map" in the brain. Even severed nerves from missing limbs store information in the respective locations, information that is perceived as real because it's real information even if the tissues the nerves would connect to are no longer real.

The "central executive", where our "flow of consciousness" creates our perception of reality, consists of a few bits of scratchpad memory that is only a few seconds long and holds only a few bits of information, like 4 to 7 little boxes for most of us. That memory is filled with what grabs our attention as it comes in from the sensory map, and anything that does not flow into our short-term memory scratchpad is quickly lost, replaced with new information as it flows in.

Then, our scratchpad memory is encoded into long term memory stored literally in the DNA of brain cells. Pretty much everything in the scratchpad is recorded, but recall is based on associations, so while it's in there, we might not be able to find it to recall it unless we focus on an associated "index" item, like a mnemonic device ( "bad boys rape our young girls but violet goes wllingly" to remember the color code of black=0, brown=1, red=2, orange=3, yellow=4, green=5, blue=6, violet=7, grey=8, white=9). Smells can trigger memories of things that happened while you smelled that thing etc.

The scratch pad contains less boxes than a ten-digit fone # which is why we remember them in groups: 510 fits in one box, 555 fits in another, 23 in a third, 45 in a fourth. 4 boxes and within most people's scratchpad limits while ten boxes of 5105552345 exceeds almost everyone's scratchpad limits. Further, encoding long term memory can take longer than the few seconds that scratchpad lasts, so to keep that # in scratchpad long enough to encode it with an index for recall, we rehearse it: putting it back in before it expires and is discarded.

So while we are flooded with vast amounts of sensory data, that which we focus on is brought into our consciousness and is then recorded into long term memory, where associated memory assists in recall.

I hope this primer is helpful to the discussuon, and that everyone interested gets their hands on the textbook i linked above. It's like the instruction manual your brain should have come with when you got it, and without it my clock eternally flashed 12:00 and i couldnt figure out how to work anything.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0a2951)  105342

File: 1523054297958.png (671.06 KB, 972x646, Sketch88.png)

So with your background, do you suppose that sensory experiences (by which I mean the "feeling" of touch and smell and so on in contrast to the process that allows this to happen) are fallible or not? That is to say, is it possible to experience a sensation that is not actually happening?
Of course this is by whatever notion of "actually happening" that you want to have.
Otherwise, do you think it is a coherent question to ask whether there exists an accurate (by the same standard of actuality that you had before) notion of sensory experience that is independent from the human who is experiencing it?
This post was edited by its author on .

t (ID: fb7ed4)  105376

this class is way too much shit to be 2 credits

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 5f451c)  105391

File: 1523057320511.png (93.16 KB, 313x353, 012032.png)

What is the class?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8f1059)  105399

File: 1523057587582.jpg (15.94 KB, 202x159, 121.jpeg)

Oof that's a lot of words you just posted there man.
Will reply, don't worry.

Can I help?

t (ID: fb7ed4)  105427

upper level anatomy, lab segment. it's coupled with a lecture segment that's 3 credits, but can be taken in a later semester. i took them in the same term, which about half of people do. but i think either way it's just a ludicrous volume. it's not material that's too *difficult*, it's just packed into too small a time. and they've done a poor job of coordinating the material; eg., in the lecture and lab they won't be covering similar material, so you're kind of pulled in 2 directions at once, and when you do cover material that the other has gone over, it's covered differently, sometimes using different (older, newer, or alternate) terminology. the superficial fibularis nerve will be the peroneus in the other section, for example. the actual in-class portion of the lecture half is frustrating as well, because you're required to take a quiz on... what the lecture will cover, *before* the lecture. it makes the lecture superfluous. and scheduling, ugh; you'll have a big exam you dont get done with until 7pm, but then you've got the first lecture of the new unit the next day so you gotta rush home and do that because you had no time otherwise since you were studying for the exam.
in the lab segment, the format of the exams sucks hard for me. it's more of a clinical anatomy format, since a lot of the people taking it are going into medical fields. you go to stations and at each station is a table with cadaver tissue or a plastinate or something and you have to identify and answer 2 second order questions within 90 seconds, then move to the next station; at the end, you can't go back and change anything. shit feels hardcore. i'm over 90% in both but it's taxed me heavily, and my general average is 94-96. right now i'm cramming for exams in both back to back next week. all the brain, cranial nerves, muscles of the face/expression, skull & cranium, eye anatomy, other senses anatomy; while in the other half is all the lower extremity, all the tiny muscles of the foot, all the origins and insertions, all the neurovasculature.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8f1059)  105437

File: 1523058968369.png (167.76 KB, 520x319, sup.png)


Y = W + R + I + P + I + T
Output = Wages + Rent + Interest + Price + Investment +Tax
You Want Really Interesting People In Tanks

You want a mnemonic device for the names of the muscles in the foot? I can figure it out

t (ID: fb7ed4)  105443

File: 1523059158503.png (948.94 KB, 1388x894, unknown[1].png)

this is one page; i have one for lateral side of lower leg, posterior lower leg, anterior upper leg, posterior upper leg, and medial upper leg. also for all the bones and their landmarks, and then the neurovasculature pages.
This post was edited by its author on .

t (ID: fb7ed4)  105451

(also have to be able to identify these in a cadaver)

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c35697)  105458

File: 1523059718537.png (281.85 KB, 627x408, Sketch98.png)

So I mean, I'd guess that the overall content of the work isn't something you can do much about. Have you tried complaining to the teacher about the coordination or the scheduling? As long as it's something that affects a large portion of the class they're usually receptive to talking about rescheduling exams and whatnot.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  105461

it is the first year they're using this textbook format, so it's a little out of the usual. i dont know if they'll do anything about it this late in the semester, but certainly something i should explain in the post-semester feedback. i don't feel this is working as well as they'd hoped (or maybe, the textbook company hoped because it saves them money since it's e-text and not printed material). scheduling maybe they can do, but idk.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c35697)  105464

It doesn't hurt to do it, at least. Even if you get one exam moved over by a day, that's worth quite a bit for reducing the perceived workload.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8f1059)  105471

File: 1523060396176.png (22.1 KB, 77x125, 86.png)

I got a friend who's trying to be a doctor. I think he should be a nurse.

Player 1 is a coward with a nervous tick who's bad at leadership. Player 2 just wants to tend to his garden. Player 3 is a criminal scared straight. Player 4 is trying to impress their partner's family.

Foot (Dorsal Group):
Don't get excesively high before examining digital boytoys.

Plantar Layer 1
Player 1 flexes digits before abdicating hastily away, directing minimally

Plantar layer 2
Player 2 quietly plants lumber

Plantar layer 3
Player 3 abducts Holly, finds Hell briefly, figures dying might blow.

Plantar layer 4
Player 4 didn't interest Peter's in-laws.

Idk how much this'll help but let me know if it does.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  105494

haha, thank you for this. i'll try anything.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8f1059)  105502

File: 1523061208967.jpg (22.91 KB, 158x297, 137.jpeg)

I can keep going if you want.
Just don't develop a foot fetish.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 8f1059)  105560

File: 1523064372287.jpg (9.84 KB, 97x98, 58.jpg)

What is ultrafinitism, then?
You could call the previous story a first draft. Expand on it a little bit. Build the job a little bit.

Do the things you think about count as sensory experiences? Like sometimes I remember really well tastes and smells, and almost experience them again.
Alright, just reiterate, once more, what exactly we're talking about here in terms of sensation.
A lot of questions have answers we can't answer yet. Some just don't have answers within our logical or questioning framework.

B-but Lucy and Limitless told me we only use 10% of our brains!
Lucy was just a bad film. Wanted my money back.

That's actually really, really cool. I remember reading a thing on an image of ponies that was like, your brain has certain pathways that light up when exposed to certain stimuli. When the brain gets used to this stimuli, and the stimuli is associated with dopamine, when the stimuli stops you miss it. It's how friendship works.
But yeah, that makes sense to me.

that is really fucking cool

that is so fucking cool

It all begins to fall into place.
I want to get better at mental math. I know pi to a bunch of digits for no real reason, but that's not scratchpad data, that's memorization.

It is possible for your brain to tell your body they are experiencing a sensation that is not actually occurring. I think. Like the phantom limb is your brain telling your body something is happening when it's not. The nerves are acting as they should, though. The brain, processing normally and unable to think to any degree on it, thinks things are in order, when they're not.
Can you think of an accurate notion of sensory experience, independent from the experience-er? I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I don't know what my stance on this actuality is. I know it when I see it, and that's unhelpful.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 0e5b8e)  105816

File: 1523074355886.png (253.15 KB, 478x470, uhm___.png)

So remember when I mentioned intuitionism, about how you're supposed to construct every true statement positively, how under this type of logic, things that are not untrue aren't necessarily true?
Ultrafinitism is like that, but for everything in mathematics.
The insistence is, as far as I can tell, that every number has its construction from the natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ... and so on. But in order for statements about mathematics to have meaning, they must correspond to a kind of physical construction. So it is said that infinities do not exist, since it's plainly impossible to construct if we want our mathematical semantics to be meaningful, and even very large integers do not exist, because nothing can ever have enough time to construct them.
At least, that's my reading on it. It seems sort of wack, but I was assured that they have their own sort of rigor.
Anyway, of course no one would actually go around constructing large numbers one by one. I don't intend for the story to be some kind of Sisyphean metaphor.

Maybe under this train of thought I'd have to consider memories of sensations as sensations.
But I think there's a difference. Do you smell something when you remember yourself smelling something? Memories decidedly do not feel real, whereas "phantom" sensations certainly do feel real. So I would say there is an additional barrier between remembering a sensation and actually experiencing it. But I wouldn't be able to tell you what that is.
Maybe our psychologist can help us out with this.

That wasn't me, by the way. It wasn't supposed to be a follow-up to my previous post. I was simply asking someone else what they thought of the topic we were discussing.

I think it would have to be more than half of the entire set, since using the liar paradox you could always construct a question with no answer, given any question with an answer.
Q1: Is this sheep black?
A: Yes, this sheep is black.
Q2: Is it true that either the answer to Q1 is negative, or the answer to Q2 is negative?

Additional question, inspired by recent developments:
Is a memory of a sensation equivalent to the actual sensation? As in, does your brain distinguish between remembered sensations and "actual" sensations occurring spontaneously? I would say no, because remembering being hit by a car is certainly less painful than actually being hit by a car, but where is it different mechanically if I'm remembering the sensation of pain nonetheless?

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: 3c677c)  106004

File: 1523110542579.jpg (28.51 KB, 250x314, i read it for the expressions.…)

100% thought lostpony was you.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106548

File: 1523154692836.jpg (42 KB, 332x345, 119.jpeg)

I'm gettin to that point again where I wanna drop off the face of the site, swear I won't return, then post again after a few years.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  106550


idk.. i dont care about the place, i care about like 5 people i dont see 'elsewhere'.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106555

File: 1523155077513.gif (13.95 KB, 174x227, 39.gif)

It's easy enough to do. I've done it like four times by now.
Just have some social embarrassment set up if you return that you want to avoid.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 71143d)  106556

File: 1523155113481.png (113.99 KB, 277x278, waiting.png)

Don't do things that make you mad.
My entire experience of this site is very contained. Hence I'm here rather than anywhere else.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  106557

youll still be my friends

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106558

File: 1523155189355.jpg (32.59 KB, 273x292, 70.jpg)

I don't really do things that make me mad here, but being here exposes me to things that make me mad.

LèAnon!S7FMZNZ5ng (ID: 908789)  106561

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106564

File: 1523155354371.png (118.7 KB, 459x452, 27.png)

Okay, see you in 2020

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106568

File: 1523155639092.jpg (35.42 KB, 278x306, 21.jpg)

I couldn't forget /space/ if I tried.
The people on Ponychan have influenced me one way or another, for better or for worse.
You're still a good man.

I ought to do more of my writing. I've got an idea for a pretty funny story, and making people laugh brings me genuine happiness.

Nah, I'll be back, like, 2021 or 2022. If the site's still around.
Course, I didn't really expect this all to still be here by now.

I'm typing a thing in the harsh opinion thread for you btw.
I say that because it seems rude to have a normal conversation here when I'm writing one of them harsh opinions.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106569

File: 1523155752672.png (137.01 KB, 379x436, 25.png)

Honestly, I've never seen much of a point to "leaving" and all that. Shit happens, people move on, life sucks, yadda yadda...

Also, that's good. Now it'll be 5 people instead of 4.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  106570

dickscord is more my speed these days anyway

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106572

File: 1523155848490.jpg (8.9 KB, 103x138, 37-.jpg)

Discord is the opposite of my speed.
I dunno why, I just don't like it compared to this.

For me I wanna move on, but danigt I like it here.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  106575

well say hi now and then anyway nerd

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106578

File: 1523156069658.jpg (67.61 KB, 328x331, 59.jpg)

I wouldn't get your hopes up for that.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  106581

i dont have hope. i have faith

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106583

File: 1523156336665.png (109.67 KB, 334x447, 28.png)

So then move on, nothing says you have to cut all ties to everything to "move on". Besides, it's nice to hold on to old connections no matter where you go or who you talk to.
even if those connections don't fucking remember you after a year and you feel empty inside realizing that you never stuck in their mind in the first place. Then you have that hollow feeling inside as you try and rekindle what friendships you had but everyone else has moved on and no one will even give you the time of day so then you start to think maybe it's me, maybe I'm the bad egg in the bunch and so the depression kicks in and then your fucking dog gets hit by a car going the wrong way down a road and you pray upon pray that she'll get better but then in just three days are told by the vet there's nothing they can do so you put the poor dear to sleep because the only one who should suffer like that is you, you disgusting piece of human garbage, and then you spend the next week trying to keep everything together but it just doesn't stick and you're stuck at the point where you deem that life isn't worth living anymore as it's all just a fucking pack of lies that there's a light at the end of the tunnel and the sun will eventually come out but that's just people trying their best to try and seem like they give a shit about you when in reality you aren't even a fucking blip on their radar and you'd be better off calling everyone a nigger kike just to get the kinds of interactions that you were used to back in the day just to find out that in the end of it all that nothing matters and you're going to die alone anyway.

Keeping connections can be fine, just don't go cold turkey.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106584

File: 1523156451754.jpg (7.36 KB, 125x131, 18.jpg)

Z, did you ever have cancer?

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106588

File: 1523156688226.png (178.09 KB, 651x489, 11.png)

Yeah... I did.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106589

File: 1523156813771.jpg (12.21 KB, 119x144, 19.jpg)

I'm not sure which is better. Or I'm not sure which is worse.

I shouldn't have asked that. I only would've believed you if you had said no.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106591

File: 1523156949324.png (128.91 KB, 415x418, 58.png)

Why, because you think I just made it up?

It was actually one of the scariest things I remember going through. If you choose to believe me or not, it's up to you... but I can say in complete honesty that I had cancer.

It's fine if you don't believe me, it's hard for other people to believe some of the shit I've been through.
This post was edited by its author on .

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106601

File: 1523157398757.jpg (21.25 KB, 103x145, 81.jpg)

You can get me on Steam though, that's something I'm alright with. My name's Pwnies and my avatar is a edit of that Don Draper laughing picture.

I know that just by probability, there are some people the universe will refuse to stop kicking. Out of 110 billion people who have ever lived, some of them will get so many bizarrely unlucky things to happen to them.

I can believe it when it happens to some people. I just don't trust you.
You don't need to say it's fine if I don't believe you. You don't need to try and absolve me of anything here.
If you did have it, then I really am glad you are alive. That would still hold if you didn't.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106604

File: 1523157515690.jpg (48.25 KB, 527x284, 35.jpg)

>I just don't trust you
Oh. Okay. I think I understand.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106611

File: 1523158199912.jpg (23.33 KB, 226x303, 96.jpg)

Mneeh. I feel bad for doing this in the /space/ thread. I feel bad for doing a lot of the things I do because of the restrictions I impose on myself. It's like 4:30 in the morning, this wouldn't come up in the day.

But fuck it.
Anything I'd say to you in the other thread would boil down to this:
I don't trust you and that makes me far less sympathetic towards you.
You are genuinely depressed and desperate for attention and affection and the way you get it is by acting as you do. Maybe this makes people move away from you. Maybe you come back to Ponychan because people here will always care about you.
You're so accustomed to your state that anything outside of sadness feels like withdrawal.
But for all I know I'm jealous of the way you can let yourself express your sadness when I'm so used to shoving it down.
You are a friend of mine and I want to see you get better regardless.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106614

File: 1523158347865.png (108.72 KB, 314x429, 31.png)

Now see... that's a good one...

You know that feeling you get when all the wind gets knocked out of you in one go? Cause man, I'm not sad but I sure feel like I'm on my ass... it's weirdly cathartic.

You are a friend to me as well, no matter what.
I have been through far too much with this crew to ever forget any friendships made.

(ID: b5d203)  106616

File: 1523158437633.png (49.73 KB, 237x250, thumb (7).png)

First, my "background" other than nearly half a century of stumbling along in ignorance as to how to actually use the brain i have properly, is a single semester junior college "survey" level psychology class a couple years ago, of which i remember the keys points somewhat, so i recommend you get n read the book.

That said, yes absolutely there are hallucinations of most if not all of the senses, perceived by the brain as the same as reality. I believe there are multiple mechanisms behind them but yes they are in some cases 100% indistinguishable from real sensory input. Absolutely.

What you are referring to is conditioning. Like Pavlov's dogs for example, and there are different types of conditioning including "operant conditioning" and, oh heck i'll stop there to avoid recounting inaccurately. All thoroughly explained in the book.

There is also desensitizing, where an input is learned and becomes less noticeable, which is one of many reasons why "punishment" is a much less effective tool in changing behavior than most people think. The types of parenting are also discussed including understanding exactly how the effective type "authoritative" differs from the ineffective types "permissive" and "authoritarian" which isn't the subject at hand so i'll not go further.

Remember an actual experience physically is stored in somatic (sensory/body map) memory, and is noticed there by the central executive and becomes part of your stream of consciousness. It then is encoded into brain cell DNA (a digital storage method!) and when recalled, is experienced from there. So no, the experience is not representative of its original form stored in somatic memory. Now, i'm not entirely sure the text i recommend goes into nearly enough depth as to how a recalled memory is experienced to fully discuss it, or if perhaps i didn't absorb that portion fully, but i do remember the following. As most of us know, memory is experienced in synapses, which are circuits between brain cells. We don't directly remember thingd from the brain cell dna storage because the text discusses the experiments that established that the memories are stored in dna, where in cultures of live cells (from a particular type of snails btw, wjich have particularly large structures so are ideal for such physical experimentation) had the connections between the brain cells cut (the "axons", or senders which extend from a nerve cell, and come right up close to a receiving spot darnit forget the name of the receiver but they are then seperated by the "synnaptic gap" and then neurons go between them to complete the connection, remember the synaptic gap is where things like dopamine serotonin and oxytocin are experienced etc), and in a short time those axons re-grow in the same places showing that the synapses are formed according to information stored with the brain cells. So...while beyond the scope of a survey-level course, it's implied that the long-term memories stored in DNA are still experienced in synapses so, at any rate without knowing exactly how they are experienced, they are not shifted back into the somatic memory body map areas like live sensations. Conclusion: just like what our own direct experience tells us, no, memory of pain etc no matter how unpleasant does not fully relive the original experience.

I've always been fascinated by the concept of storing an individual's memories on a cpmputer like in star trek etc and i always wondered if some ineffable quality of that memory would inevitably be lost be digitizing it. But, it turns out our own actual long term memory is already stored in digital form! In the 4 dna molecules, each one with its pairing partner. While there are 4 letters, there are therefore only 2 pairing partnetships, hence our memory is already in fact stored in binary data.

Another fun thing, is the stream of consciousness itself is not the analog flow we experience either, but a simulation of same formed by essentially a frame rate of refresh update of information coming in from our sensory somatic memory. Just like a video, our experience is actually choppy in still frames, coming in so fast they seem smooth. So, we are not just a biological machine but our brains themselves are actually digital computers. Which is outrageously exciting when considering then, whether artificial intelligence has the potential to actually experience life as we do. Wowzie.

One more thing, about senses, vision in particular. As you know we have three color receptors in our retinas, each of which has its own axon leading directly into our visual cortex, each of which detects light within a range of frequency. Our brain is the actual thing, not anything in our eye or along the pathway, that learns what those levels mean and adjusts to normalize them before sending a perception of a right-now image to the central execitive. Not every receptor works the same as its neighbors, but we see a normalized even and consisent field of view that looks the same as it scrolls across our many receptors. I had a retina injury almost ten years ago and a lot of this had to completely reset to deal with the loss of a lot of retina.

Further, as a little kid i wondered if people like different colors because maybe we don't see the same color the same as other people. Adults thought that was silly. However, i think what we know now makes it clear that the green i see isn't necessarily exactly the same green other people see. It might be. But theres no way to be sure, and lots of reason why it might not be the exact same.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106638

File: 1523159075742.jpg (20.11 KB, 159x298, 136.jpeg)

Also Adl I will, of course, reply to your stuff up there soon enough.

Little Albert is a good conditioning experiment, and also like super fucked up and an example my psych teacher gave us to show how far ethical standards have come. They didn't do the desensitizing in that experiment.

I don't... like... doing that.
I really don't like to do that.
It's mean.

If you're not sad you're numb or stunned for external reasons.
You don't just need to not give up. I'd say you need to say fuck it to this life and start a new one, with different people in a different place. Apparently it's easier than you think.

I can stand to forget a few people from the group. Like Lightning Ruff.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106642

File: 1523159315630.jpg (157.33 KB, 748x722, 34.jpg)

If you truly care about someone, then you need to be honest.
If you're not honest, then you end up doing more harm then good.
Once in a while, it's always good to lay down all the cards and give people a taste of reality.

It's true, I am numb... but that's due to my dog's untimely passing so I'm still recovering from that.
However, I can say that just putting myself into my work has helped a great deal in coping as it gives me something to focus on.

>Lightning Ruff

Holy shit, no.
I'm talking OG crew.
I'm talking /space/-RP- Apartment crew.
I'm talking sharetube crew.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106648

File: 1523159532129.jpg (24.47 KB, 265x294, 38.jpg)

I've learned that lesson. Believe me.

That's good. It's something.

Still got some old /space/ pics, you know. Old, old pics. Hang on.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106649

File: 1523159683170.png (168.38 KB, 374x445, 6.png)

>2012 /space/
oh boy... this is gonna be cringe good.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106652

File: 1523159703686.jpg (742.83 KB, 2248x1798, space in one picture.jpg)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106653

File: 1523159715669.png (470.55 KB, 504x360, banner.png)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106654

File: 1523159771727.gif (12.97 KB, 184x237, Pwnies meets Niddog.gif)

The alignment chart is one of my favorite pictures.

It's 5 am. I'm sleeping in minutes.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  106655

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106657

File: 1523159879379.png (101.86 KB, 545x395, 10.png)

Rutilus, -Z-, BMO, Stalin, Adlbeay, Dr. Yogurt, Oreo, Black Snootie, Pwnies, and... uhh...

Greeny/Little Hawk?

My memory is kinda weak...
This post was edited by its author on .

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106660

File: 1523159969929.png (196.8 KB, 500x420, 67.png)

It's kinda weird looking back at that and realizing how right that chart is still.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106661

File: 1523160080167.jpg (15.94 KB, 202x159, 121.jpeg)

>Modified May 29th, 2013
That pic will be celebrating it's 5 birthday after I've finished my last college exam.

GEOP's on there, I'm sure. Also The Doctor and Nauticus or Nocturn or something.

There was a bigger version, but it wasn't as good. I don't have it saved.
It is a great picture.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106664

File: 1523160147464.png (195.29 KB, 474x441, 68.png)

It is a good picture

Aaaaaaaaaaand all the OC images come flooding back...

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c4b639)  106668

File: 1523160298872.png (364.07 KB, 538x535, vandalism is fun.png)

Sounds pretty conclusive to me.
I wouldn't have thought that much of our brains' operations are characteristically digital. Although I suppose everything is digital to some degree if you zoom in enough. What this sounds like to me is that a "continuous" sensation doesn't actually have one's brain operating continuously.

In any case, we have effectively, more or less established that there is a level of realism to consider with sensory experiences beyond whether they are merely in correspondence to reality. This is the big hurdle I was talking about. Whatever notion of "experience" we talk about must include such a realism, so it's not a matter of simply distinguishing between "what something is" and "what people mean". These are the same question.

Which leads us to the topic of "AI" that you mentioned. The seminal thought experiment here is the Chinese Room, which I think we've talked about in here before. But the question of sensory experience is directly related to this, I think, since we need to have a good understanding of the standards we apply to thinking about "experiences" when we don't have access to the privileged first-hand information that makes it real. I'm sure other people have written about this elsewhere.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c4b639)  106669

File: 1523160446021.png (200.93 KB, 582x452, skeptical.png)

Also, you guys are boring.
It's always been the same things since 2012. I'm not telling you how to live your internet lives, but try to do something fun for a while.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106670

File: 1523160515847.jpg (8.41 KB, 108x141, 36.jpg)

I'll reminisce more next time.
It's past 5. I'll drop one pic that's still great then turn in.

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106671

File: 1523160527121.png (8.31 KB, 275x162, boop.png)

Pwnies!sD7XnNJAdM (ID: ed2270)  106672

File: 1523160580021.jpg (13.46 KB, 337x324, 102.jpg)

Well, you're not wrong. I got plans.

Goodnight. See you all tomorrow.

-Z- (ID: 2d670b)  106673

File: 1523160638548.png (200.36 KB, 578x442, 55.png)

it already is tomorrow

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: c4b639)  106674

File: 1523160948498.png (220.28 KB, 488x433, meh.png)

The form of cynicism is to recognize what one is doing, but to still do it anyway.

(ID: b5d203)  106692

Hey Z what kinda cancer did you survive?

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  106744

File: 1523181159974.png (19.4 KB, 330x189, 1519515145471.png)

You won't.

No balls.

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  106746

File: 1523181576481.png (103.66 KB, 500x426, im-gonna-make-columbine-look-l…)

>The only /space/ collab I've been in is a porn image

-Z- (ID: a3567a)  106908

File: 1523221726044.png (78.89 KB, 346x486, 104.png)

Colon-cancer, Stage 2

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 9a8ce0)  106912

[I didn't forget any posts, I just realized how much of an infodump I need to explain my thoughts.]

t (ID: fb7ed4)  107824

File: 1523321475239.jpg (1.32 MB, 2256x4032, 20180409_194609[1].jpg)

can check

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  107825

File: 1523321601905.png (218.48 KB, 569x761, 88.png)

>Diet Root Beer

!RISkQqf4EM (ID: ce9045)  107826

less calories, to avoid getting fat

-Z- (ID: bd6e80)  107827

File: 1523321681560.png (418.81 KB, 762x992, 100.png)

But all those artificial sweeteners... not to mention the taste

t (ID: fb7ed4)  107828

>drinking calories

!RISkQqf4EM (ID: ce9045)  107829

what about them? there are several different ones. if you're a soda addict but need to lose weight the taste is similar enough.

!RISkQqf4EM (ID: ce9045)  107830

if you think artificial sweeteners are bad for you, you should see what actual refined sugar does


!RISkQqf4EM (ID: ce9045)  107851

guys the board is dead

t (ID: fb7ed4)  107853


Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 097388)  109276


Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: b75bb9)  109280

File: 1523421390455.jpg (184.17 KB, 737x850, hate this book.jpg)

I'm thinking about some kind of metatextual gizmo in fiction. The usual idea is that there are canonically things that happen outside of the text: characters supposedly have their own lives beyond what the author writes down on the page. In reality, however, the text is really all that exists in the fictional world that the author creates.

So when you write the end of one scene, and jump to another, the expectation is that things really did happen in between the two scenes, only they were too tedious and irrelevant to write about. But why should this assumption exist? What if the text really is all there is to the world? Perhaps the argument is that, the story would not make any sense otherwise. Characters would appear to remember things out of thin air, they would teleport around in space and time, people and places would disappear and reappear on a whim, etc. But there is a real-life analogue to this atmosphere. If all the characters kept following this fundamental assumption of fiction, if you only took an arbitrary work of fiction an applied this question, then of course it wouldn't work. But if even one character is aware of this? If one character doesn't remember the "offscreen" events?

They say that you never remember how a dream started; you always find yourself becoming aware during the middle of something.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 097388)  109294

This is how your memories effectively work too; you cannot remember all events in your life, and writing down everything you do recall would paint a similar picture.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: b75bb9)  109377

It seems like an inexplicable loss of short-term memories like how you ended up in a room has much a different character from not being able to remember what you ate in fourth grade.

t (ID: f480c5)  110482

File: 1523546788262.jpg (272.29 KB, 900x1238, pikachu_tiedup_roped_up_by_raf…)

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  112349

File: 1523799452021.jpg (71.06 KB, 700x691, 1523521804455.jpg)

Dead general.

Anonymous (ID: 4472e0)  112351


Somebody made a Discord server for it and killed what's left of it. RIP. I miss this place.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: a51f65)  112469

File: 1523819199534.png (45.48 KB, 350x350, shrug.png)

Who cares.
I like slow threads, and you never post in here anyway.
It's rude to complain about inactivity if you're not going to contribute anything.

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  112545

File: 1523824128459.jpg (6.82 KB, 250x250, 1522512402762.jpg)

And I wasn't invited? How rude.

Nobody's complaining, just making an observation.

Not that it should matter to you, otherwise. In the 5~ years I've been in /space/ I think this is the first time you've actually acknowledged me.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: b84022)  112577

Ok, I wanted to explain some thoughts I had shared previously, but didn't give a good background for. So, here is where I am coming from.

[1] Eternalism is true; the past, present and future are all equally extant in exactly the same way, and the present moment is an entirely relative and even subjective phenomena.

Incidentally, the universe may or not have an 'earliest' moment, but regardless, there was no ex nihilo creation; the entire history of the universe from start to end has always existed timelessly, the flow of time itself being an apparent phenomena limited to our perspective of parts of the universe, but not the whole in-itself.

[2]Pattern Identity is the true description of the identity of a mind, which is to say that it is not the matter one is made of, the history of the arrangement of matter, nor the stream of consciousness, nor any memory or trait that would have to be constant, but the higher-level mathematical pattern of neural connections and recorded information within neurons, and it is this that we may identify as the person themselves.

This creates a problem where we would have to recognize a new identity for every individual for every single moment that passes, and for us to account for the 'stream of consciousness' appearing to be a smooth continuity.
I would think that, respectively, every different moment of an individual's existence IS a new pattern, however belonging to the same 'family' of individuals by their virtue of all being 'states' that can 'evolve' from 'preceding' individuals or into 'following' individuals, and as any 'following' individuals are necessarily 'built' from 'preceding' individuals, they would always perceive and report their 'present moment' and even themselves as being a continuous and evolving phenomena, despite every moment holding an existence in-itself.

Back to the two initial concepts, it may then follow that every single moment within the entire conscious lifetime of humans all hold equal claims to 'consciousness' and to being 'at present', and so moments of pain or pleasure will, in some sense, always be happening to a conscious individual, the temporary and transient nature of all of these moments only being such to those individuals existing in moments that occur 'after' those moments.

Furthermore, to those who have the psychological trait of being pleasured by the pleasure of others, or to be tormented by the torment of others, this adds a moral twist on the finite nature of any occurrence or effort, partially rebuking 'nihilistic' attitudes: everything we do, really is forever.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 187214)  112670

File: 1523839950050.png (38.82 KB, 306x257, 012746.png)

So, this seems like a natural first question to ask after reading your post.
What are these "higher-level patterns"? Are they "just" a kind of physical arrangement of matter? Can people know what they are, and are they unique?

Second, how does this create a problem of identity? Do these patterns necessarily have to change continuously? If there is such a "family" of causally related patterns, why can't we identify this as the individual rather than going through all the issues with multiplicity?

What do you think of David Lewis's defense against the moral objection to modal realism, where moral decisions are relevant precisely because we don't care about these "other instances" of our individual selves?

PC (ID: 7e13d2)  113012

File: 1523896174084.jpg (54.84 KB, 720x715, 1522719443856.jpg)

>Goes right back to not acknowledging me

Now I'm complaining.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  113239

File: 1523927127789.jpg (273.88 KB, 989x1200, 1523236691602.jpg)

hello saddle-bay

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 09f193)  113616

t (ID: fb7ed4)  113617

File: 1524014932525.jpg (93.46 KB, 1080x719, wjq9j7pli2r01.jpg)

How are you my friend?

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 09f193)  113624

File: 1524015298586.png (60.89 KB, 660x308, raise hoof2.png)

I'm pretty bored.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  113659

Hi, Pretty Bored.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRo (ID: 7b2084)  115002

They would be the mathematically definable quantity, types and content of neurons, the connections between neurons (and the content or traits they have, say, signals in-transit, or connection 'strength' or time delay), and a set of rules for the 'evolution' of the system, which is itself really just a set of rules for which patterns are related to which other patterns.

The medium does not matter; physical matter such as ours can obviously implement such patterns and the evolution from one into another, but in theory alternative chemistry or computer simulation could do it just as well; it is more about the algorithms than about the medium.

We can and are even beginning to more rigorously define them (see connectdomes and other phenomena), much as we can and have with other objects or phenomena we have found in our world.
They are unique in two senses, and in two ways respectively: they are unique mathematical objects within the set of all mathematical objects, they are also (but not necessarily) unique in the physical world in that, barring multiverses, it is in only one time and place that particular patterns are ever realized, although any kind of brain emulation would allow more than one to exist at the same time, and for the same pattern to be realized for more than once.

The problem lies in the fact that our minds are always 'changing' from one state to another, and each state is it's own pattern, and so has it's own identity; if we imagine a far simpler object and some rule to apply to it over time, we can see the issue. If I define a sphere which gets proportionately taller and thinner depending on the value of a time variable, then I have an infinite set of different oblongs (and one perfect sphere at t = 0, and maybe an infinite set of different pancakes if we go negative).

They need to be related by some rule that describes the 'evolution' from one pattern into another; a boltzmann brain may coincidentally exist for one moment and then disperse back into a cloud, but that would be only one pattern of a 'mind', hardly the set of patterns we find in human life, and although we may imagine a new boltzmann brain for each moment of the 'lifetime' of someone, none would ever hold an awareness of what they are, and would collectively be identical with a 'genuine' individual anyways.

For all practical and subjective purposes, this is how we must identify individuals, although our identification does not erase nor blend together unique objects existing at different times and places, except and only within the sense of creating a set for our personal recognition and means of handling decisions; while typing this, I have not been the same patterns that defined my eight-year-old self, although I could be directly traced back to him, and he could be predicted to evolve into me, (albeit, in principle only), and as individuals will tend to hold the same intentions for others and the same values as their past selves, they may be associated with them in a justifiable manner.

We cannot do anything about those who are causally disconnected from us, by definition, and so all of the consideration in our world would be for nil, and how much good or bad exists in the multiverse is a different discussion for a different day. Conversely, were it possible to link different worlds together, we would have a unified world whose inhabitants we would be able to influence, and thus they would be subject to our considerations, but this is not so. However, we are causally connected to our pasts and our futures, and so we can act based on their contents; knowledge of the past can inform present decisions, and under both eternalism and some given moral philosophy, exist as "on-going" moral goods and evils.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: e2ebde)  115021

File: 1524192067278.png (35.41 KB, 411x258, huh?.png)

I don't think you've actually explained why we can't just identify the group of things gathered by the "rule that describes the 'evolution' from one pattern into another" as the individual instead of every instance of particular change over time.
The motivation is that we already do this in practice; you even introduce the "infinite set of different oblongs" in the singular, and in doing so you seem to presuppose that we must necessarily identify different physical configurations differently. Maybe in principle you can do this, but under what practical consideration would you consider the instantaneous partitions individually rather than their grouping under the time-evolution rule?

The rest of it makes sense.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 7b1ecf)  116613

File: 1524441484187.gif (1.28 MB, 469x310, laughing_sun.gif)

Consider the following.

t (ID: bb98fe)  116929

I love doing 80% of a group project by myself with 2 weeks left before presentation, and watching that 2 weeks go by with 0 remaining work done by any other group member despite the massive head-start I gave them.

Adlbeay!Moon/tgj4w (ID: 297d40)  116961

Group projects for school are mostly solo projects that you have to let other people see what you're doing.

t (ID: fb7ed4)  117122

its a hell for me

Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]