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.

Messages - H

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 187
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi souls
« on: July 03, 2020, 10:12:10 am »
Maybe this has been raised elsewhere, but what happened to the progenitors?

Do we know? Were they riding along in the Ark and died during the fall?

Were they already dead when the mad quest for salvation started?

Is there another thread on this issue? I tried to search the word progenitor but I got to hits.

Unfortunately we must keep the posts brief at the moment, but the short answer, I think, is no, we don't know what happened to them.

Personally, I think they were on board Ark, because it just makes more sense to me.  One, it can be a call to something like Noah's Arc, and two, if Ark succeeded, what good would that do the Progenitors on the other side of the galaxy?  I don't buy the notion, personally, of a Universal Outside, even though I do think an Outside is Universal.

News/Announcements / Re: Scheduled Downtime
« on: July 02, 2020, 04:28:52 pm »
There seems to also be a content limit on posts, much to my dismay...

News/Announcements / Re: Scheduled Downtime
« on: June 30, 2020, 04:28:05 pm »
Also, the Chat/Egora thing seems to have some sort of arbitrary entry limit, that I can't quite discern exactly.

News/Announcements / Re: Scheduled Downtime
« on: June 30, 2020, 12:54:00 pm »
EDIT: Hmm, seems there is a sort of odd "bug" with quotation marks (" and ") and some characters like (the u with an umlat, alt+251), for instance, I had to change my signature to remove both.  Also, in the title of this thread:

They show up fine in a preview, but won't let the message be posted.

Let me try a different character.  (Seems none of those would work...)

Also, if you try to edit a post, the "double post protection" stops you, which isn't a big deal, but is a little odd.

News/Announcements / Re: Scheduled Downtime
« on: June 30, 2020, 12:38:28 pm »
Excellent, site seems vastly more responsive and quicker!  Thanks again!


Save for some nitpicking, this is pretty much my line of thinking.

One important thing to note is the fact that unarcane ground does, in fact, exist in Earwa, and the No-God famously avoided it.

I think we can actually sort of rectify this with the notion of Ark not working in Arcane situations.  First, I think we just clarify that it is unlikely that Ark completely stopped functioning.  I tend to think of it more as the AI (or, not so A I) that constituted Ark did not work under the Arcane conditions.  That is, the "circuits" did not function.

So, when Ark crashes, many of Ark's various parts still function, there is simply no more intentionality, because the directive element (possibly the No-God apparatus itself) did not function.  So, once "bootstrapped" with the Consult with an Earwa-compatible substitute "circuit" the opposite problem becomes the issue, an aversion to the Anarcane. In other words, it simply cannot function outside the particular circumstance of it's genesis, perhaps.

News/Announcements / Re: Scheduled Downtime
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:33:37 am »
During this time, the forum will probably be on- and offline intermittently until the maintenance is complete. Let me know if there are any issues with that time window.


I don't foresee any issues with the time, thanks for letting us know, we appreciate your work!

General Misc. / Re: Quotes
« on: June 18, 2020, 12:53:44 pm »
"Let me tell it to you like this; inside one's head there is a brain. Now that brain is blind, deaf, and dumb. It can only go about animalistic procedures, and it has no real knowledge of what it feels like. For an illustration let us say that the very high entity so-and-so wanted to experience what it was like to be burned. Well, in his own body he would not be able to get down to the rough, crude vibrations necessary for one to feel the burn, but in this lower entity body—yes, burns can be felt, so the super-entity enters the substitute body and then the necessary conditions occur and perhaps the super-entity can get to know what it is like through the experience of its substitute. The body can see, the brain cannot.”
- Tibetan Sage

Nice, to me, these are notions of "extended mind" and "embodied consciousness," which I think I am with.  But I always fail going full panpsychist though.

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 16, 2020, 06:51:23 pm »
We watched Dark on Netflix.  Went with the original German, rather than the dub, since I usually hate dubbed things.

I don't usually go in for shows like this one, but I have to say it is well done and entertaining.  Season 3 comes out in 11 days or so.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 16, 2020, 12:17:38 pm »
We watched Dark on Netflix.  Went with the original German, rather than the dub, since I usually hate dubbed things.

I don't usually go in for shows like this one, but I have to say it is well done and entertaining.  Season 3 comes out in 11 days or so.

‘Philosophy experiment’ tests our ability to see the world as it is.

Johns Hopkins University researchers who study the mind have used methods from cognitive science to test a long-standing philosophical question: Can people see the world objectively?

Their answer, as published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is a flat no.

With a novel series of experiments using sophisticated computer graphics and laser-cut “coins,” the Johns Hopkins team found that it’s almost impossible for people to separate an object’s true identity from their own perspective on it. In this case, people looked at round objects that were tilted away from them; even when people were certain that the objects were round, they couldn’t help but “see” them in a distorted way, as ovals or ellipses.

“This question about the influence of one’s own perspective on perception is one philosophers have been discussing for centuries,” said senior author Chaz Firestone, an assistant professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences and director of the Hopkins Perception & Mind Laboratory. “It was really exciting for us to take an experimental approach to this question.”

When humans see things, the brain identifies them by combining raw visual information with ingrained assumptions and knowledge about the world. For example, if you take a circular coin and tilt it away from you, light from the coin hits your eyes in the shape of an oval or ellipse; but your brain then goes beyond that information and makes you “see” a circle in the real world. Philosophers, notably including John Locke and David Hume, have long wondered if it’s possible to separate the way the object really is from how it lands on our eyes—in other words, whether pure objective vision is even possible.

To get at the question, the team designed a “philosophy experiment” for the lab.

Over the course of nine experiments, subjects were shown pairs of three-dimensional coins. One was always a true oval, the other was a circle. Subjects had to pick the true oval. Seems easy, yet when presented with tilted circular coins, subjects were flummoxed and their response time slowed significantly. This persisted whether the coins were still or moving; with different shapes; and whether the coins were shown on a computer screen or displayed right in front of subjects.

Objects are stamped with our perspective, concluded lead author Jorge Morales, a post-doctoral fellow.

“Our subjective approach to the world stays with us,” Morales said. “Even when we try to perceive the world the way it really is, we can’t completely discard our perspective.”

This is the first of several experiments the team is working on using approaches from psychology and neuroscience to test ideas from philosophy. In collaboration with philosopher Austin Baker, they are looking at how stereotypes affect perception—specifically if subjects have a harder time seeing people who defy their gender stereotypes. Another project examines how people perceive objects that aren’t there, or how people notice the absence of things.

“This is a project that really surprised us—we expected ‘objectivity’ to totally overwhelm any influence of the subject’s perspective,” said Firestone. “This is a nice example of how ideas from philosophy can influence the science of the mind and brain.”

Evidently they didn't have any Kantian or Neo-Kantians in the lab?

This makes perfect sense to me, as I don't, personally, believe that we can ever remove the mediating fact of Subjectivity, even in the case of a hypothetical "perfect" Rationalism.  All we can really do is draw closer to the notion of the Objective (numenal).  In the end, there are two problems I think.  One, that without knowing the full scope of the Subject, we cannot "subtract" it and two, that even if we did, we still have no actually accessed the Noumenal, only the notional Noumena (as far I can could imagine).  While we can't know if they are, in fact, different, we also cannot know they are the same either.

General Misc. / Re: Politics
« on: June 04, 2020, 07:47:57 pm »
Well, China has been a fixture of American politics, something to be feared ( as was Japan in the 80's, political fervor over their economic success, followed by 2+ decades of a flat Japanese stock market - so Japanese "concern" as baseless and only served political ends ). So do we American citizens write off the China talk as only political and ignore the chat about it or do we take China seriously as a threat, et al? Knowing more about what China is can assist with how I relate to China politically.

Well, this seems like an interesting question, epistemologically.  If we take your example (which, mind you, I am ignorant to the facts of, frankly) as, in fact, being the case, I guess we could question what the role of what we did knew of Japan did to lead us to the, apparently, unfounded fear?  I'd think (but not know) that we had "better" or more information from Japan, given it was not nearly as "closed" as China is.

Unless it is the case that we didn't know what we thought we knew (that is, we were mistaken in the facts), or that we did know facts but we did not understand the implications of those facts.  Or, did those fact indeed lead to action that made the initial forecast appear false?  The question then, it seems then is would precise facts about China lead to a different outcome?

So, in a sense, I'm not sure at all.  If we knew China's exact GDP or population, for example, does that mean that we have what we would need to know exactly how the future plays out?  Or, what intervention is needed or unneeded?  It's unclear to me.  I would think, just off the top of my head, that it would be more crucial to know what China is doing than precisely what state China is in.  In other words, what policies are are undertaking, what action are the taking and so on.

Perhaps though this is not pragmatic for some reason I can't think of at the moment.  Still, it seems much more feasible to be able to "see" that, rather than thinking we (or even China itself) could know just how many people are in the country.  Or maybe I am just being overly skeptical for no reason.

General Misc. / Re: Politics
« on: June 04, 2020, 05:56:42 pm »
I don't know as much as I should about China - so I think the observations here are likely valid.

Well, my question is just to ask why, exactly, it matters if "we" know China's GDP or population though?

I broadly agree that more knowledge is just generally better, as a matter of course, but then I am still left with the question of if it is a "problem" that we don't know though.  I really am not trying to advocate that it is or is not, rather I am just trying to understand why we "should" take on it as one or the other.

General Misc. / Re: Politics
« on: June 04, 2020, 01:08:36 pm »
So is the "problem" here, if there is one, would be to ask "do we know if China is or has problems, when we don't know exactly what is going on?"

General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« on: June 02, 2020, 01:38:03 pm »
The previews had the look and feel of being a piece of shit, so I've held off for now ( thanks for saving me the time :) ). I intended to watch it given how much I like HBO shows, but they were due for a dud. Thanks for the heads up.

Definitely save your time.  We watched Upload, that was much more worth watching.  Rather entertaining, some "dark humor" and little drama, overall a good show, I'll be very interesting in seeing where they go with it.  I really like the pseudo-dystopian vibe of the show, which it does without overdoing it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 187