406
Literature / Re: Matchy, non matchy (brent weeks)
« on: January 05, 2018, 06:26:14 pm »
Pretty unfair, I didn't even get to see Redeagl's reply to my latest post.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
407
General Misc. / Re: Obligitory music thread. (or What Are You Listening To Right Now)
« on: January 04, 2018, 04:56:04 pm »
Deathspell Omega - A Chore for the Lost
Quote
Let us be a blight on the orchard, on all orchards of this world, even the
least of these words will be judged during the times of reckoning, bearing
a latent damnation a feverish seduction exasperated in death, every letter
is a code to extreme horror, utter contempt and divine conflict; it is lethal
to speak the language of resistance, every gasp exhales a particle of the
remission of Golgotha, as if the blazing Logos demanded the exercise of a fragile power just above annihilation, the one of a harmony in ruins; it is a
task for a man who cannot bear any longer to be, a chore for the lost in the
denial of free will: perinde ac cadaver!
408
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 04, 2018, 04:34:22 pm »Thus we arrive at the dangerous precipice of "can't know nuffin" where all discussions eventually go once they have lingered long enough.But that's not correct if you ask me.So this is my point entirely. Its not real, yet you choose to use your preconceptions to justify why all the information pointing otherwise justifies your reaction, because you don't fully understand the phenomenon.
Just like everyone else.
All I'm saying is you're not special, which seems to be exactly what you're saying about everyone else, so I'm not sure why the cognitive dissonance.No, there's a tremendous difference. What I'm trying to say is that just realizing we don't have free will isn't going to shut down everything, we'll still be driven to do things because that's what we are, but this is not the same thing as there being no difference.So then what is the difference and how does a change in self-understanding affect reality?
It changes our self-understanding.
Maybe not having free will doesn't change anything for you, but it does for me. It delegitimizes certain world views and legitimizes others, because like everybody else I must believe in something, right?
409
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 04, 2018, 03:18:48 pm »Keep in mind that "because people have trouble accepting ideas that go against all their preconceptions" applies equally to you and your preconceptions. I think you're reading on the DSE is a primary example.But that's not correct if you ask me. Mass does exist. I think Thorsten used it as an argument against the claim that consciousness was an illusion
ETA: Also the opposite is true as well. People testing hypotheses that go against all preconceived notion. That's how science works. Shutting down either half short-circuits it - which is why the highest form of knowing is a 'theory', not an assertion.
You're not addressing the fact that things can verifiable both exist and not exist. Mass being the example provided in the thread.
Quote
So mass is a property of high level effective theories only, it is not a fundamental property of the world. The illusion of mass of a rock arises largely because there is a lot of field energy in the binding of quarks and gluons which makes an empty vacuum energetically disfavoured, and thus stuff plowing through the field energy contained in the vacuum effectively acquires mass.this is not the same thing as mass literally not existing, and I have no problem with this or the way he explained it.
Since you've established that there's no difference between the free-will and not free-will universes, what now? If people use your words to describe the universe, rather than theirs, does that change anything?No, there's a tremendous difference. What I'm trying to say is that just realizing we don't have free will isn't going to shut down everything, we'll still be driven to do things because that's what we are, but this is not the same thing as there being no difference.
It changes our self-understanding.
410
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 04, 2018, 06:16:03 am »This is really kind of a God of the gaps argument, in the sense that because macroscale phenomena haven't been completely mapped out or aren't reducible to quantum mechanics for various reasons, that this allows things such as free will, which necessitate an ontological feature peculiar to humans (and perhaps other higher animals; you would never call a bacteria free, since everything it does can be pretty much explained by the machinations of molecular machinery) to exist. I don't understand your point about circles lines etc. These are mathematical concepts. There are no circles in R1.I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that his claim is wrong, I just find it to be... mysterious. Would you say he's right though? Would you say that physics is more about what we experience rather than what things really are? He himself said something that goes against this when he said something about everything just being fluctuating quantum fields or something.The arguments are there, and he made them better than I could.
I don't have a deep understanding of physics, just a cursory one. I would say yes, I agree with him.
Since you said you just skimmed, let me badly summarize:
The argument made is basically that things that don't exist on some minute scale, like mass (yes, mass doesn't exist), have an affect on things that do exist: ie an object will kill you even though its mass is an illusion. The point, essentially, being that the existence of a phenomenon on one scale, and its non-existence on another scale, does not make for a bulletproof argument. What are we really saying when we say its 'not real', when you can take literally any idea or concept and make it 'not real' in a specific enough circumstance?
(another quick example. No such thing as a circle, or a line. Just points drawing infinitely close together. Their shape arises by taking in the whole, and we can use the whole for meaningful purposes even though 'they don't exist'. We could go all day. Language a series of incomprehensible finite sounds. Music, a series of individual notes. The whole is not always equal to the sum of its parts.)
Really whacky phenomenon do arise in quantum physics.From wikipedia:
A human physically observing the double slit experiment, either directly or remotely without any interference whatsoever, physically changes the outcome. Not by interference, not by vibrations, or absorption, or throwing off the experiment in any measurable or discernible way. It simply is changed by the act of observation.
Billions of dollars are being spent on quantum computer research, and a huge part of that money is spent by keeping the weird super-imposed state of existence shielded from observance. IMO, its basically magic, and I've not heard an explanation that I can offer to you as to why.
But what makes the DSE so interesting is its simplicity and replicability. Why does looking at something stop it from existing? We don't know, AFAIK.
Is physics more about what we experience than what is? Yes. From my reading, there is not conflict in his statements throughout, its very consistent.
Does that mean he's right? Not at all, but it does make for a compelling argument.
Quote
In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.[2][3] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen — a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[2][4] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen.[5] Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[6][7][8][9][10] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. These results demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.[11][12]The experiment shows particle/wave duality, the probabilistic nature of nature, and that how we measure things can affect things. It's not about specific human consciousness observing the experiment changing the outcome.
Feel free to point out a specific one. Let's take one example.Lots in this thread, for one, that you haven't addressed but outright dismiss. You can't claim there isn't evidence, however you can rebuke. Objectively, there is plenty of evidence.In that case, there's no point going further with this one either, much to my chagrinWhat other evidence?.
Quote
If you follow the chain that sometimes we discard experiences because of science, but science is ultimately justified by experience only, things start getting very very murky. I do not think one can automatically assume that the same deduction principles continue to hold - they have to be justified anew if applied to the mind. Especially because the mind is self-referencing, but several principles are known to break when applied to self-referencing systems. If psychologists would test the foundations of their own field with the same level of rigor they apply to, say, religious experiences, they'd be in for a bad surprise.The argument is basically that (human) minds specifically are ontologically different because they are "self-referencing". It's another God of the gaps. To take examples from evolution again, this is the same thing that happens when some religious people accept that everything else in nature evolved "naturally", but that a scriptural God had a hand in designing humans. How else could our specialness be explained? Would you, or any other, have difficulty accepting that a worm doesn't have free will?
Wut.Would you say that a single protein flexing and vibrating, probing different conformations according to the thermodynamic potential is free?Would I? No. But by that logic, medicines don't have potentiating affects (they do).
But this is just another God of the gaps. We are talking about a fundamental difference between humans and ALL other forms of matter here. Free will necessitates some kind of divine aspect, a soul, for how else could you explain that your molecules have agency while the molecules of everything else does not?If not, then how could an ensemble of such molecules become free?In the same way that a multicellular organism exists as an accumulation of interconnected single cells. Complex phenomenons emerge from systems that you can't see if you look too closely.
Just because you can't see it or measure it at one level, doesn't mean its not there at another.
Ignorance doesn't a good argument make.The jury is still out because people have trouble accepting ideas that go against all their preconceptions. Again, the idea of evolution was and is still is a very sensitive topic, even though every biologist in the world assumes it to be 100% fact. The jury is still out, but will I find myself on the flat earth side? No.
Right now, the jury is out. You could still find yourself on the flat earth side of the debate. Your certainty that you are correct doesn't make it so.
No hard feelings either way, Tleilaxu. I don't have much of a personal investment in this, in that my identity isn't tied closely to the results. I'm probably more on your side as it were, but I probably see more shades of grey.
That being said, if you could find strong evidence of the existence of a soul, I'd be open to change my stance.
TL, you express the seeds of your view's destruction - the fact you care that some don't "see the fact of the matter" proves you could be wrong - otherwise, it doesn't matter who accepts and who doesn't if we're simply complex machines with no soul. There is more to human reality than the complex assembly of quantum physics, for which if there wasn't, than the point of any of it would simply be to reduce human suffering - achievement, greatness, discovery, empowerment would all be for naught including the intellectuals' dismay at the more pedestrian minded. Other than the avoidance of pain ( quite the powerful evolutionary program ), nothing else matters given your view. Doesn't even matter if humanity suffers extinction since we're all just complex programming. So why does it matter so much to you if you know it's simply a "trick" of evolution making you think it should? You're "awareness" should dull your dismay.That's actually a problem I have with this book. Every time the Argument is being talked about, the characters become furiously aggressive and respond with stuff like "b-but if nothing's real why does anything fucking matter, fuck you dude!". Think, why should your programming cease to be because you realize you are programmed thus?
You crashed my program.Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?Wat
Now that's terse!
411
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:00:29 pm »Well, the manipulative intent doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious decision. I do think claim of expertise holds a lot of weight. I'm generally going to take a physicists word on things relating to physics (which the Argument does) over an average Joe's words, so if I see a purported physicist writing something I do not usually associate with physicists my alarm bells start ringing.That's certainly one interpretation. But, I typically try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Rather than assume manipulative intent, I take it as polite conversation. Also, again to me I don't think the claim of expertise holds a lot of weight on the conversation. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think the arguments are no less valid with or without whatever purported expertise.Necromancy initiated:Why assume he was lying? Habit?
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.QuoteI am a theoretical physicist by profession, working mostly in applied quantum field theory (Quantum Chromodynamics mostly).
This raises alarm bells because claiming to have a background in quantum physics gives the appearance of being an authority on physical matters, i.e. we'd be more likely to think our physicalist (I dislike that word) interpretations were false if he as an authority on physics told us we were wrong, and this could've been known/assumed by a clever intellect with the intent to manipulate.
Even without the claim, we're either going to assume the person we're talking to has equal grounds as us to be involved in the conversation, or we will dismiss them outright regardless of what is said. Since the former leads to more interesting conversations, I don't bother with the latter.
I'm not claiming with absolute certainty that his claim is wrong, I just find it to be... mysterious. Would you say he's right though? Would you say that physics is more about what we experience rather than what things really are? He himself said something that goes against this when he said something about everything just being fluctuating quantum fields or something.I'm not really sure how you can claim to not know anything about the subject, but then claim with absolute certainty that someone's claim is wrong. It also pretty much ends the conversation. Where do we go from here?Quote(As a side note, modern physics is all about what you experience and not at all about what things really *are* - all Quantum Field Theory is concerned with are 'observables', and it is very clear that we don't have a clue what nature is, only how it behaves when we look at it).This quote also raises alarm bells. I don't know anything about quantum physics, BUT I know that all those new-age interpretations of the double slit experiment (dude, like our minds determine like reality dude) are wrong, and this sounds conspicuously similar ("modern physics is all about what you experience").
From my understanding, he's absolutely right.
Besides, the double slit experiment only has new-age interpretations, its basically the foundation of a brand new science that didn't exist previous. Using "new-age" as a qualifier doesn't add anything but confusion, unless you've got some Aristotle interpretations of the Double Slit Experiment that I'm not aware of. (For clarity, imo 1927 is pretty new-age in terms of science and human history).
With new-age I mean new-age spirituality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
There's a ton of videos and webpages where these people claim that the double slit experiment proves that the mind is somehow active in determining reality or something, but as far as I understand it it's basically about how you measure things.
What other evidence? That's kind of a point in itself. There's probably tons of interesting stuff about discoveries in neuroscience that I'm not familiar with or qualified to accurately talk about, but even without that knowledge, if you take a biological point of view, we are all born with a set of genes into a certain environment. The space for free will shrinks. Going beyond that, looking at individual molecule. Would you say that a single protein flexing and vibrating, probing different conformations according to the thermodynamic potential is free? If not, then how could an ensemble of such molecules become free? They are chemicals interacting with each other as parts of a complex system, still not free, they are acting according to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.In that case, there's no point going further with this one either, much to my chagrinYes I can. Free will being an illusion is just as absolutely true as evolution, gravity etc. in my world. I cannot see any way it can be false. Thorsten's arguments seem to skirt around the issue or mention "emergent properties", but (and I skimmed through the posts) I have still not seen a convincing argument against the notion that what comes before determines what comes after.In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?
When you start your claim by defining yourself as correct and all other evidence as incorrect, there's no room for constructive conversation. Same as if I said "God tells us that my way of thinking is right, therefore I'm right". I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there's nothing left to discuss when that's your basis.
The fact that there's nothing more to discuss is kind of a point in itself. Using evolution again (low hanging fruit, I know) as an example, discussing whether or not it's true might be interesting from some points of view, but it doesn't change the fact that it absolutely is true according to all existing evidence. The fact that some people, some very smart people at that, still do not believe in this fact says something about our predicament, the way that e.g. intragroup relations, demands for certainty and a fundamental feeling of being ontologically different from the rest of the world characterizes our psyche.
412
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 03, 2018, 01:28:39 pm »Tleilaxu, I am surprised by your questioning me as to why I think anything, since your deterministic stance should inform you that no one knows why one does anything. Correct?Wat
413
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 03, 2018, 08:32:28 am »Necromancy initiated:Why assume he was lying? Habit?
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.
Quote
I am a theoretical physicist by profession, working mostly in applied quantum field theory (Quantum Chromodynamics mostly).This raises alarm bells because claiming to have a background in quantum physics gives the appearance of being an authority on physical matters, i.e. we'd be more likely to think our physicalist (I dislike that word) interpretations were false if he as an authority on physics told us we were wrong, and this could've been known/assumed by a clever intellect with the intent to manipulate.
Quote
(As a side note, modern physics is all about what you experience and not at all about what things really *are* - all Quantum Field Theory is concerned with are 'observables', and it is very clear that we don't have a clue what nature is, only how it behaves when we look at it).This quote also raises alarm bells. I don't know anything about quantum physics, BUT I know that all those new-age interpretations of the double slit experiment (dude, like our minds determine like reality dude) are wrong, and this sounds conspicuously similar ("modern physics is all about what you experience").
Yes I can. Free will being an illusion is just as absolutely true as evolution, gravity etc. in my world. I cannot see any way it can be false. Thorsten's arguments seem to skirt around the issue or mention "emergent properties", but (and I skimmed through the posts) I have still not seen a convincing argument against the notion that what comes before determines what comes after.In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?
It's just another way of saying "nearly absolutely certain" I guess. Now, the real thing I don't understand is why you would think I were trying to "science" up my claim when feeling somebody is lying is kind of like, inherently subjectiveWhose idioms are allowed, and whose arent? Are you the decider of that, BFK?
Seems to me like you're claiming some kind of expertise, falsely, which I think someone pointed out is "egregious behavior" - would you like to suggest appropriate punishment?
Must we all communicate on the grounds that you define, else risk ridicule? I certainly don't want to risk being called out as 'egregious' and 'bogus', can you help me avoid that?
But wait, "98% sure" is no more precise than 'pretty damn sure' in this context, is it? Well, unless you're prepared to describe concretely what a % of the esoteric concept of 'sure' looks like. I'd appreciate your expertise on the matter.
Also, please clarify:
"Telling of" what?
"tactic" of what?
I'm having difficultly discussing those parts because I feel I have to guess what you mean, and I wouldn't want to run afoul some kind of obvious conversational ques that might raise your ire.
When someone chooses a certain idiom as opposed to another, I think it is interesting to analyze that choice. In this case, to use a mathematical percentage to describe a level of certitude might display a desire to ground one's view in the firm terrain of science. Of course, I'm certainly (well, almost certainly...) over-interpreting the remark, but if you actually consider the matter, why write "98% sure" when "pretty sure" fits the bill? Well, especially given the nature of the topic under discussion, perhaps there was a subconscious desire to be extra precise.
I don't find anything in my post that demonstrates any ire or that proposes that I desire to arbitrate any usage. I'm merely pointing out an interesting rhetorical device (the faux measurement of certainty) that actually is no more informative than the use of qualifiers like "somewhat and "very". God knows I've used it myself unthinkingly. "I'm about 75% sure that M--- will be late." So, yeah, just a verbal tic. But there's always deeper ways to look at things.
I appreciate TLEILAXU's reference to the necromancy of dead threads. He's a sharp and attentive reader.
414
General Misc. / Re: The Joe Rogan Experience
« on: January 02, 2018, 11:25:55 am »I'm not qualified to interpret the studies, especially since I don't have access to the full one or the methodology etc.I see. Yeah that thing was pretty awful. Not only was it shameful behavior in itself, but it also helps fuel the fires in the already heated debate regarding SJWs.
I'm just answering "What asshole did he pull that information out of?"
I'm totally the wrong person to debate this. I just found hm cause of a conversation about Laurier university and how they lied to a TA that her showing a Peterson clip got complaints then organised a kangeroo court to try her, and if she hadn't secretly recorded it she would have been in the deep shit. The report exonerating her in every way just came out before Christmas.
So i searched Peterson and saw the two videos i posted, me and Madness had spoke about Rogan on Skype (i'm an MMA fan so i know him from commentary on that) and it's a Canadian academic department so posted the link.
There's every chance i'm not even representing his views correctly so any argument would be null anyway.
415
Philosophy & Science / Re: Space Porn
« on: January 02, 2018, 08:51:06 am »
I have a folder with this stuff https://imgur.com/a/QbW3B
416
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: January 02, 2018, 08:42:00 am »@1: No, it's just the way he e.g. said he had a background in quantum mechanics that looked like a tactic I feel I've seen before.Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.
1. "98%"? Why the bogus precision? Are you trying to "science up" your claim?
2. Brilliance and eloquence don't "guarantee" anything, but those are good qualities to bet on.
@2: Right. Being a physicist obviously requires a big brain, but having a big brain does not necessarily mean you will realize e.g. the illusion of volition.
417
General Misc. / Re: The Joe Rogan Experience
« on: January 02, 2018, 08:35:12 am »A quote from the linked study:I meant more the assertion that gender differences are largest in Scandinavian countries and that this gender difference is specifically caused by genetic differences between the sexes. What asshole did he pull that information out of?
Have you ever tried to find out? Or are you asking me to find out for you?
The first google i get is this paper
Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differences in Mathematics Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857
The next google result stated this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
My main interest was in the protests about him and how they were conducted, what he was saying was pretty immaterial at the time.
Quote
Further, we found that boys reported higher perceived parental valuation of mathematics than did girls, and parents actually rated mathematical development as more important for sons than for daughters. The differential valuation of mathematics between the sexes was larger in more developed countries. Paradoxically, economic and social development was associated with a widening gap between parents’ beliefs about the importance of mathematics for sons versus daughters. We found that in this respect the Nordic countries differ from most other countries: These countries score highest in gender equality and have no (Iceland) or a small (Norway, Sweden, Finland) difference between parental valuation of sons’ and daughters’ mathematical development. Further study of the unique socio-cultural factors affecting sex differences in these specific countries will be of importance for better understanding the relation between gender equality and gender differences in educational attitudes.
I don't see how this harmonizes with the conclusion. Would you also e.g. say that girls just intrinsically find pink to be a more desirable color? But pink only became associated with femininity last century. It's dangerous to make sweeping conclusions about some "intrinsic" variability when we are ALWAYS associated with a specific culture.
Regarding https://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf , when looking at table 1, one of the things that can be seen is that some very well developed countries Far Eastern countries have a very low GSDI. Maybe Western culture is somehow correlated with sex differences? Even if there was a clean trend, it'd still be a premature condition since you'd have to show that these differences are specifically caused by sex and not by socio-cultural tendencies associated with higher human development, i.e. you need to show that this proposition
Quote
It is proposed that heightened levels of sexualis true, or seems to be true, which it doesn't seem to be IMO given that we are bombarded with culture and ideals all the time.
dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to
naturally diverge in developed nations.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that there are no differences between the sexes. What I'm taking issue with are broad politically motivated statements.
418
General Misc. / Re: The Joe Rogan Experience
« on: January 01, 2018, 08:41:48 pm »
I meant more the assertion that gender differences are largest in Scandinavian countries and that this gender difference is specifically caused by genetic differences between the sexes. What asshole did he pull that information out of?
419
General Misc. / Re: The Joe Rogan Experience
« on: January 01, 2018, 07:36:01 am »
Jordan Peterson is interesting. He can go from saying things that sound sensible at one moment to complete nonsense like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7GKmznaqsQ&t=43m56s
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of that man's mouth.
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of that man's mouth.
420
Neuropath / Re: Countering the Argument with Thorsten
« on: December 31, 2017, 04:29:56 am »
Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.
