|
agarjogger posted:Best send-up of TED to appear in a TED talk so far? I'm not sure what kind of navel-gazing is required to think that people watching a bully pulpit for academics is "one of our most frightening problems". It sounds like he's confused about what TED is, and it shouldn't be a surprise that donors aren't lining up at his door.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:01 |
|
Kaal posted:I'm not sure what kind of navel-gazing is required to think that people watching a bully pulpit for academics is "one of our most frightening problems". It sounds like he's confused about what TED is, and it shouldn't be a surprise that donors aren't lining up at his door. I don't think he needs donors, since he is an academic working on anthropology, and not a pitchman? The frightening problem he describes is the casual and rampant substitution of technology for progress, and then the conflation of the two. Of endless one-line fixes in place of actual improvements in social organization. The reason the talks in particular take so. much. poo poo is that they pretty much insist that the speakers flatter and wow the audience, one after another after another. It's a parade of flashy messianic band-aids and future worship, for a class of people who take an enormous amount of pride in the fact that the future means anything to them. As if this was enough, or that it meant or assured anything worthy of self-reverence. His criticism is that the ideas presented in TED represent a dangerously limited range. Still, the name is not obscured, and what they have on offer is technology, entertainment, and design. Maybe TED-hate is a proxy for extreme distrust of Silicon Valley and VC, and how they're taking shape as a political force. They are hated, without a doubt, and it's not jealousy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
What happened to the other, similar, thread about Strangecoin? http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3620968 I was half way through it and it started displaying: "You do not have permission to access this page. If your forums account does not appear to be working correctly, please check out our tech support page. Otherwise, fly away nerd!" ..even for the pages I've already read. WTf?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist broke the thread pretty bad. This has made me skeptical about how well a world run by software would work tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Gone Fission posted:What happened to the other, similar, thread about Strangecoin?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The thread ascended to the secret mod forum, due to all the attention it was getting. Some other posters introduced the concept as an example of secretive closed networks and challenged him to explain how his thought castle would Solve the Problem of Internet Pedophiles. As the thread is gone, I can't remember how badly he waffled, but I do know that that long story is one of the closest things I've seen to him actually responding to criticism, even if it was in a subsequent thread. It's hosed up that he then got pilloried for it, given that he didn't raise the subject matter to begin with. Hubris and word salad doesn't deserve what this thread turned into.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Which is a pity, because the contents of that thread completely exonerate Eripsa from the most recent, pretty loving awful personal attacks (Is Eripsa A Pedophile?! No, get the gently caress back to the Daily Mail.) That story was fuckin' weird dude.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That story was fuckin' weird dude. Murray Rothbard posted:Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[10] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous "shortage" of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[11]
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Once again, a hammer sees everything as a nail.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
There's a bunch of my writing in the Strangecoin thread that I haven't archived for my files. I'm rather sad that it just disappeared without a trace. I would be surprised if the fiction was what got the thread pulled, since I thought it was rather tame for this audience. I didn't think I said anything that would have to be edited out a basic cable, much less the something awful forums. But I guess it's not my call to make. Cefte posted:When people are unwavering ideologues, and you confront them with a problem, they'll happily wade into the sewer to claim that they can fix that problem. I think that's a fair assessment of the situation and the relevance of the example in the context of this thread. For what it's worth, I play an unwavering ideologue in these threads because it's basically the only way the discussion would maintain a cohesive narrative. I'm much more reasonable as a person, but these threads have a life of their own and I'm happy to ham up the role I play in them to keep the threads fun and alive. I also happen to think that the ideological positions I'm staking out and defending are qualitatively distinct from the libertarian garbage, even if we're diving in the same sewers. I think a lot of spergy kids are attracted to libertarianism not just because they find the ideology itself is attractive, but because it provides ready ideological responses to a broad range of difficult questions that other more careful positions can't so easily derive. So when someone issues the flippant challenge "so what about child porn?", traditional political ideologies (like the social democrats) see practical nuances and shades of grey so they give boring proceduralist responses that only make sense to someone steeped in everyday political realities. But the libertarian kid can not only work out the logic of a response from their own pillow fort, but can also find some chapter and verse in the Austrian School gospels that confirms their twisted interpretation. In some ways I'm doing the same little dance from my own pillow fort, but I think I'm defending ideological positions that are qualitatively distinct from both the libertarians and the traditional political ideologies on the table. I think the ~~networks~~ theme running through the thread is robust enough to stake out a coherent ideological position that yields different kinds of responses to existing political frameworks, and people have stated that's where at least some of their interest lies. The threads allow me to entertain flippant challenges from all quadrants so I can see how well they stand up to the stress testing of the internet. There's been lots of good criticisms raised in these threads, but the ideological framework seems to be weathering the storm just fine. One constant criticism through these threads is that I can't state my positions simply. I think ~~networks~~ is a pretty clear statement of the position; I think SedanChair deserves the credit for distilling the philosophical ideology presented in these dense threads into a single word. He think that makes me Tom Friedman because he can do it, but I take it as evidence that the position is coherent, distinct, and can be communicated simply, if not by myself then by others. I have a bunch of open notepads with half-completed posts. One of them is a 7 page long fictional transcript from a quarterly report meeting for a paper conglomerate, quite a bit less scandalous than the one on fire safety that apparently made the last thread disappear. The other was an attempt to summarize some key themes in the threads, perhaps in an attempt that the next one start on the right foot. quote:A sourced guide to my empty philosophical views, by Eripsa The philosophical framework I'm defending is simple enough to state in a few paragraphs, as I've tried to do above. But it's not enough to draw out the logical answers to all political questions as the would-be libertarians might want, because a lot of those answers are going to depend on empirical and technical details that I'm not nearly equipped to discuss. As a philosopher of science and a nerd I'm mostly interested in making progress on the technical details, but as a mere mortal I can only explore so much of the framework on my own, and I'm forced to resort to fiction when my knowledge fails me. I was thinking of doing a similar summary of the technical challenges for implementing Strangecoin given the discussion in this thread, and another for the social/political challenges that have been discussed for a world that runs on Strangecoin/Attention Economy. But with the thread disappearing suddenly I'm less confident about the effort I put into my writing here. If redacting the thread is meant to discourage me from writing here, that'll probably work.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
quote:One constant criticism through these threads is that I can't state my positions simply. I think ~~networks~~ is a pretty clear statement of the position; I think SedanChair deserves the credit for distilling the philosophical ideology presented in these dense threads into a single word. He think that makes me Tom Friedman because he can do it, but I take it as evidence that the position is coherent, distinct, and can be communicated simply, if not by myself then by others. Is this self-parody? Philosophies shouldn't be sum-uppable in a single word. If it is, it's definitely not 'distinct'. quote:Historically, every attempt at scientific unification presents a variety of philosophical challenges, both metaphysically/conceptually and sociopolitically (see: Newton and Kant, Darwin and Marx, etc). Only one of those people attempted a philosophical unification: Kant. Newton didn't--he was a mystic dude, so he tried to unify things through religion. Darwin didn't try the least bit of any sort of unification, that's just silly. Likewise, Marx didn't try to unify science. This is one of your more baffling claims yet. quote:As best represented by the digital humanities, digital philosophy is driven by earnest attempts to get the science right, because that's critical for encouraging the participation of all the parties that need to be involved. But you don't earnestly try to get anything right. You refuse to learn the absolute basics of the topics you want to talk about. quote:Contrary to the reaction of the thread, ant behavior (or any animal behavior, for that matter) is not so easily dismissed as simple genetics operating in purely altruistic environments, and therefore completely irrelevant to the study of human social systems. Ants organize through the coordination of semi-autonomous individuals with varying incentives. Genetics aren't simple, and altruism isn't a concept that applies to ants. Ant behavior isn't 'completely irrelevant' to the study of human social systems, but it's very much non-analogous. You are really bad at thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Only one of those people attempted a philosophical unification: Kant. Newton didn't--he was a mystic dude, so he tried to unify things through religion. Darwin didn't try the least bit of any sort of unification, that's just silly. Likewise, Marx didn't try to unify science. This is one of your more baffling claims yet. Obdicut you are consistently the worst poster in my threads. Your basic reading comprehension is atrocious. Newton provides a grounding to the sciences that were a huge influence on Kant's philosophical unification, and Darwin's evolutionary theory was likewise a major inspiration for Marx. In general, philosophy is often inspired by the cutting edge of scientific research. Similarly, network theory (cutting edge math/science) provides the scientific background for digital philosophy (architechtonic unifying theory). The fact that you couldn't put that together from my post signals that either you are ignorant of the history of ideas or you are intellectually feeble. The fact that the only substantive response you could generate to the content of that dense post was some minor bitching because you don't understand what is going on is symptomatic of the worst, most tedious and grating parts of these threads. You. Are. The. Problem.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Obdicut you are consistently the worst poster in my threads. Your basic reading comprehension is atrocious. That's swell. None of those people, except for Kant, tried a unification, and he didn't try just a scientific one, but a philosophical one. quote:The fact that you couldn't put that together from my post signals that either you are ignorant of the history of ideas or you are intellectually feeble. Yeah, that must be it. quote:The fact that the only substantive response you could generate to the content of that dense post was some minor bitching because you don't understand what is going on is symptomatic of the worst, most tedious and grating parts of these threads. You. Are. The. Problem. Nobody is ever impressed, in any way, by that 'put a period after every word' thing. It just looks dumb. Again: You don't earnestly try to get things right. You don't do the basic, minimum work that you need to in order to understand the very, very basics of poo poo you want to talk about, like economics. By the standards you set out, you fail at digital philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You refuse to learn the absolute basics of the topics you want to talk about. This actually seems central to his approach. He's trying to, accurately mind you, describe things after a fundamental paradigm architectonic impact event has rendered the old approaches moot. Any roots in the old systems, be it understanding of the core principles or a mere word from the jargon, would taint his discourse of what's coming after. I'm a simple engineer and I work on iterative solutions to approachable problems. So to make what's next I really, really have to know what we already know and spend my limited time probing into small sections of unknowns. I can't say if his approach is good or not, other than it's totally inapplicable to the types of problems in my domain, but RA ought to be taking this up as a point of pride. JawnV6 fucked around with this message at 02:13 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:This actually seems central to his approach. He's trying to, accurately mind you, describe things after a fundamental paradigm architectonic impact event has rendered the old approaches moot. Any roots in the old systems, be it understanding of the core principles or a mere word from the jargon, would taint his discourse of what's coming after. From a philosophical perspective I'm doing basically the same thing. Individualist rational humanism is the old paradigm, network theory is the modest but fundamental empirical advance, digital philosophy is the slight tweak on humanism the results from the empirical advance. I feel like I understand the philosophical story of individualism that we've inherited from the Enlightenment quite well, and I also feel that I see clear lines of development between that story and the one I'm telling. Since the theory is fundamental it touches on all the details which others in the thread are more well-versed in than me. They think their knowledge of the details invalidates my discussion at the abstract level, when in fact they aren't engaging me at the level my argument is framed. I'm not saying their knowledge is invalid, I'm just saying the details don't address the argument.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Fundamental theories which fail when confronted by details are BAD THEORIES. (Like libertarianism.)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:None of those people, except for Kant, tried a unification, and he didn't try just a scientific one, but a philosophical one. Hey, let's see how long it takes for you to admit mistakes. If the old thread were around I'm pretty sure I remember you failing to admit a mistake there too, but in this thread I guess this is the only one you can be held accountable for. Newton's project was a unification project; in particular, he unified the theories of motion that governed the heavens with those that governed the earth, which on Aristotle's theory (the dominant theory prior to Newton) remained distinct. The unification of terrestrial and celestial mechanics is central to Newton's role in the history of ideas, and this unification was a central inspiration for Kant's philosophical project. Kant's theory covers the apriori, the empirical, the practical, the ethical, the aesthetic, and the religious; it was a architectonic theory inspired my an empirical advance in the sciences, meant to be both compatible with the science and to draw out its conclusions for other domains in the humanities. Newton's was a unification within the sciences, and Kant's was a unification of philosophy itself. Similarly, Darwin's unification consisted in unifying biology with laws known to govern the rest of the physical world. The physical world was explained by Newton's laws, but the explanation of biology in material terms was still up for question (by Paley and others) until Darwin's empirical advance set them straight. Hegel probably deserves more credit than Marx for unifying philosophy post-Kant, but Marx's dialectical materialism is an architectonic philosophical theory with a scope comparable to that of Kant's, made all the more complicated by history, and motivated seriously by Darwinian unification in the sciences. Again, we have a unifying empirical advance in the sciences inspiring a sprawling architectonic vision in philosophy. All four of these are unification projects; two are within the sciences and are extremely fundamental, and two are within philosophy by thinkers who were not scientists in their own right but paid close attention to the science of their day and thought hard (as novices) about the implications that science has for the philosophical and sociopolitical challenges of the day. I'm not saying anything controversial; this is all basic stuff in the history of ideas. It's a simplistic story, of course, and we can quibble about the details, but that's the standard narrative in the history of ideas concerning these figures, and the analogy to my discussions here with network theory and digital philosophy are fairly clear. The only reason you'd be missing this obvious analogy is if you aren't aware of the history of ideas. That's not a problem of course, and I'm happy to explain, but then your condescending posts would be completely unwarranted; you're just being a dick because you don't know what's happening. But since your posts pretend as if you know the history, basic discursive charity suggests that the above interpretation is bad: you understand the analogy perfectly well, and you're just trolling me for a laugh. This is, I think, obviously the case. You aren't an ignorant dick, you're just a dick.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Fundamental theories which fail when confronted by details are BAD THEORIES. (Like libertarianism.) There's a difference between failing when confronted with details, and simply not turning on the details. There's a ton of basic questions about evolution that Darwin would have no idea how to answer (most obviously, the mechanism for selection). It would take another hundred years before genetics would be able to solve these questions. There's still a ton of details we don't know. Although it was perfectly reasonable for people to doubt Darwin without some of these details, it's also perfectly reasonable to see that Darwin got the abstract theory right, and to expect careful work will fill those details in. Now we have enough details to be confident that the abstract theory of evolution will cover the details we still don't have, so the basic doubt in the theory is no longer warranted. But no one thinks that Darwin shot out of the box with a completed theory.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Only problem is, your theories actually do fail when confronted with details. You're a lot more Rothbard than Darwin.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Hey, let's see how long it takes for you to admit mistakes. If the old thread were around I'm pretty sure I remember you failing to admit a mistake there too, but in this thread I guess this is the only one you can be held accountable for. Combining some things is entirely different from 'unifying' things. Newton, specifically, avoided the subject of motive--why gravity acts, for example, since he thought that was straying into the theological. He specifically criticized Leibniz for that attempt at unification, and if you're going to talk about people who tried to unify, you really ought to talk about Leibniz. quote:Similarly, Darwin's unification consisted in unifying biology with laws known to govern the rest of the physical world. It was nothing of the sort. This doesn't describe anything of what Darwin did, at all. quote:but Marx's dialectical materialism is an architectonic philosophical theory with a scope comparable to that of Kant Marx's scope isn't the same as Kant's. It's not comparable. They both attempted to do different things, and on different scales. quote:But since your posts pretend as if you know the history, basic discursive charity suggests that the above interpretation is bad: you understand the analogy perfectly well, and you're just trolling me for a laugh. This is, I think, obviously the case. You aren't an ignorant dick, you're just a dick. I'm being completely honest with you. I think you're a terrible thinker who doesn't really understand almost anything--as you demonstrated by failing to understand the tragedy of the commons, an incredibly simple concept--and instead act as a cargo-cult thinker, repeating various phrases and words as though by doing so you give your argument meaning. I'm not trolling you. Among the things i don't think you actually understand is what you're calling 'the history of ideas', which I also think is a really bad phrase to use.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:The philosophical framework I'm defending is simple enough to state in a few paragraphs, as I've tried to do above. But it's not enough to draw out the logical answers to all political questions as the would-be libertarians might want, because a lot of those answers are going to depend on empirical and technical details that I'm not nearly equipped to discuss. As a philosopher of science and a nerd I'm mostly interested in making progress on the technical details, but as a mere mortal I can only explore so much of the framework on my own, and I'm forced to resort to fiction when my knowledge fails me. Your right; saying you believe human relations can be represented by graphs is not an issue. That you don't bother to give a working example of even the smallest, most trivial model/systems, or an accurate description of such a system... is a problem. If you have come to a point where you can't develop it further without technical expertise, you ought to be looking for such people and convince them help you out. Even if your idea is garbage to a field expert, if there is some merit to the idea you should be able to find an undergrad or postgrad interested enough to spend a day fiddling with it. Maybe they'll develop it far enough so that it will get passed along to people with even greater means of filling out the details. Isn't that the sort of behaviour that your ideas encourage? It would be sad if the theory itself couldn't take advantage of the social dynamics it is based on. Why talk about technical challenges of implementing a system you haven't even bothered to describe. How would you know what the challenges are if you don't know what the computational demands are? Maybe it will be something that could be done on pen&paper, perhaps someone's phone, maybe it is uses a lot of linear calculations that would be trivial for a GPU, or its something so complex that you require a large supercomputer cluster to do all the heavy work.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:58
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Your basic reading comprehension is atrocious. You have absolutely gently caress-all of a right to accuse anyone else of this. Let me put this in terms you can understand: Your cognitive output vis-a-vis the textual interfaces you synergize across network boundaries to attempt coherence of metaconceptual paradigms is destructively hindered by the self-evident architechtonic nature of your consciousness which is so dense that nary a neutrino could pass through it, you aggressively stupid idiot rear end in a top hat moron. gently caress you.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Combining some things is entirely different from 'unifying' things. Newton, specifically, avoided the subject of motive--why gravity acts, for example, since he thought that was straying into the theological. He specifically criticized Leibniz for that attempt at unification, and if you're going to talk about people who tried to unify, you really ought to talk about Leibniz. Ah, so you are appealing to a particular conception of unification that you haven't spelled out. I've explained quite clearly the sense of unification that I mean. Leibniz was also a unifier, but so was Kant and Newton. quote:It was nothing of the sort. This doesn't describe anything of what Darwin did, at all. Darwin explained how the evolution of species was compatible with an entirely mechanistic world. It's a unifying theory. I'm not sure what else to say. quote:Marx's scope isn't the same as Kant's. It's not comparable. They both attempted to do different things, and on different scales. Dialectical materialism and transcendental idealism are commonly compared in philosophy as among history's looming architectonic views, and are often compared along these lines. I don't know what else to say. Both of these disagreements are cases where I am very clear and accurately describing the situation, and your denials don't go any deeper than knee-jerk "nuh uhs". You are not giving an argument, and the objections you are raising are simply false. quote:I'm being completely honest with you. I think you're a terrible thinker who doesn't really understand almost anything--as you demonstrated by failing to understand the tragedy of the commons, an incredibly simple concept--and instead act as a cargo-cult thinker, repeating various phrases and words as though by doing so you give your argument meaning. I'm not trolling you. Among the things i don't think you actually understand is what you're calling 'the history of ideas', which I also think is a really bad phrase to use. Here's what this tells me: "I've already made up my mind about you, and I've decided I don't like you personally, so I'm going to deny everything you say without pausing for a second to consider it at all because I've already decided there's no content there." This is trolling, and as a result of your trolling you have issued some of the least cogent, most profoundly ignorant and most utterly brain dead arguments in any of these threads. Repeatedly explaining how your blind rage at my posting has rendered your arguments completely devoid of reasonable argument has done no good, and unlike me no one is demanding that you answer for your repeated mistakes and misunderstandings. You've also failed to model anything like the intellectual rigor or methodological standards that you try to shame me for breaking; and the complete lack of self-consciousness in your self-righteous posting is easily as embarrassing as anything you've accused me of.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Your right; saying you believe human relations can be represented by graphs is not an issue. That you don't bother to give a working example of even the smallest, most trivial model/systems, or an accurate description of such a system... is a problem. I've spent multiple 50+ page threads attempting to describe the idea and seek help from others. Saying that I haven't even bothered to describe it is rhetorically hyperbolic, and suggesting I ought to seek help from others uncharitably ignores any of the work I've done to accomplish exactly that. I'm really not sure why you guys expect to hear a reasonable argument from me when the criticisms being raised are themselves so unreasonable. You ask about the kiddie porn, and when I give you an answer about kiddie porn you accuse me of being a pervert libertarian and erase all my work.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Probably because your answer implied that in your perfect world pedophiles would be able to band together and form legitimate communities based around the creation and trade of child porn and that this was a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Well, that's not at all how I behave, though. It's not about you personally, it's about your terrible, awful ideas, and I spend most of my time talking about how and why they're wrong. For example: quote:Darwin explained how the evolution of species was compatible with an entirely mechanistic world. It's a unifying theory. I'm not sure what else to say. That's not a unifying theory, no. Your claim was: quote:Darwin's unification consisted in unifying biology with laws known to govern the rest of the physical world. This is false. Darwin did not 'unify' biology with laws known to govern the rest of the physical world. If you would like to challenge this, then you have to say what those laws are, and show how Darwin 'unified' biology with them. So let's do the typical thing of asking you to do a very simple straightforward thing and then watch you dance around and not do it. Explain what the 'laws known to govern the rest of the physical world' were, and how Darwin 'unified' biology with them. quote:This is trolling, and as a result of your trolling you have issued some of the least cogent, most profoundly ignorant and most utterly brain dead arguments in any of these threads. Repeatedly explaining how your blind rage at my posting has rendered your arguments completely devoid of reasonable argument has done no good, and unlike me no one is demanding that you answer for your repeated mistakes and misunderstandings. You've also failed to model anything like the intellectual rigor or methodological standards that you try to shame me for breaking; and the complete lack of self-consciousness in your self-righteous posting is easily as embarrassing as anything you've accused me of. I'm never going to suddenly start giving a poo poo about these rants, you can leave them out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:47
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've spent multiple 50+ page threads attempting to ftfy RealityApologist posted:Saying that I haven't even bothered to describe it is rhetorically hyperbolic, and suggesting I ought to seek help from others uncharitably ignores any of the work I've done to accomplish exactly that. You've done jack poo poo in terms of actual work. Words aren't work, no matter how much you want them to be. You use words to avoid doing any actual work and claim the work of others as your own, just as in every thread you have ever done and in 99% of the words you've written in this thread. RealityApologist posted:I'm really not sure why you guys expect to hear a reasonable argument from me when the criticisms being raised are themselves so unreasonable. We can only criticize what you give us. You lay out a trough of wannabe-intellectual schizophrenic word salad, you're getting back an equal and opposite amount of garbage. You've already gotten far, far more than you deserve, which is to be kicked out of academia and laughed at. RealityApologist posted:You ask about the kiddie porn, and when I give you an answer about kiddie porn you accuse me of being a pervert libertarian and erase all my work. You didn't respond with a balanced critique, you responded with loving fanfiction you creepy dingus. wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 03:57 on May 8, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:That's not a unifying theory, no. I'll ask again: perhaps you can explain to us what you mean by unification. I've given my explanation, but you've yet to give yours. Until we know what you mean by a unifying theory, then I take your criticism to be without content. quote:This is false. Darwin did not 'unify' biology with laws known to govern the rest of the physical world. If you would like to challenge this, then you have to say what those laws are, and show how Darwin 'unified' biology with them. In my explanation of unification I referred to Paley, whose watchmaker analogy purported to conclude that mechanisms alone could not explain the sophistication of the natural world (particularly of human anatomy). On Paley's view, Newton was not enough; the explanation of the material world was distinct from an explanation of the biological world. For the latter, on Paley's view, you needed an intelligent designer. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explained how Paley was wrong, and that the mechanisms of a natural world (the ones Newton described) were sufficient for explaining the origin of species and the development of biological organisms. What was formerly thought to require distinct theories was shown to in fact to be explained by the same theory. Darwin shows how biological phenomenon were compatible with Newtonian science. That's a unification project. Now, you can keep pretending like my analogies here are inadequate, or that they're completely misrepresenting the science and history here. But you haven't done that, at all. At best, you've demonstrated that you don't understand my arguments. That's fine, I'm happy to clarify. But you think that your inability to understand demonstrates a weakness of my views, when the weakness here is entirely yours.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've spent multiple 50+ page threads attempting to describe the idea and seek help from others. Saying that I haven't even bothered to describe it is rhetorically hyperbolic, and suggesting I ought to seek help from others uncharitably ignores any of the work I've done to accomplish exactly that. I meant from the academic world, not an internet forum. Maybe you can ask staff from other departments for contacts or how to go about getting help/advice. Maybe there'll be an enthusiastic math/comp sci student interested in the singularity that would be willing to hear you out and offer some help. Is there a way to solicit student help for academic projects? Surely if your ideas are interesting, people will go out of their way to assist you. That no one here is compelled to help doesn't mean you've exhausted all options, unless you believe the indifference is a broader reflection on the quality of your work. You don't cite Wikipedia in your academic work, for a similar reason why you wouldn't cite your 50 page threads as evidence of 'work'. The forums have come to the conclusion that your ~~network~~ ideas are essentially poo poo. So either step up and improve it, actually find people to help you (complaining that no one on the forum will help you isn't going to fly), or move on and spare us from the endless talking in circles, with slightly differing subjects to stoke the cycle.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:The forums have come to the conclusion that your ~~network~~ ideas are essentially poo poo. So either step up and improve it, actually find people to help you (complaining that no one on the forum will help you isn't going to fly), or move on and spare us from the endless talking in circles, with slightly differing subjects to stoke the cycle. I've explained before that these threads are incredibly productive for me. I disagree that words are easy; stringing words together is incredibly hard for me, and these threads give me practice at all levels: both with the theory, with the science and technical details, with the presentation, and with engaging an audience. There's no where else I could get such practice. I've not been at a university for a few years, and don't have any of the university resources (like eager students) to take advantage of that I might have otherwise. I'm basically an independent researcher with a blog and an internet connection. I have friends and we do work on things together, but it's not easy to get your buddies to spend their time on your project when they all have projects of their own. Again, there's no where else where I could assemble people for an extended discussion like I can here. Finally, I know some people here have a deep hatred for me, but I think these threads have been generally entertaining and fun for a lot of people, not just me. I was asked to start this thread and receive constant questions and challenges that keep the thread alive, and I've done my best to be diligent and responsive to criticism, to provide sources and explanations when I can, and to throw the odd joke or story or example in to keep things entertaining and fresh. I don't think I've always succeeded, but its silly to say I haven't tried or that I've done no work. I'm proud of the work I've done here, even if most of you are too thick to appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Has it been established why the other thread was removed?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Has it been established why the other thread was removed? I think one of the mods got upset that your real name was linked or something.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
No one has a "deep hatred" for you. Goddamn, Eprisa, you're a mildly annoying overly verbose know-nothing at worst. One cannot hold a deep hatred of you for the same reason one cannot hold a deep hatred for socks. You're too bland and uninteresting to hate on that level.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
quote:I play an unwavering ideologue Oh wowwwwww. RealityApologist posted:Darwin explained how the evolution of species was compatible with an entirely mechanistic world. It's a unifying theory. I'm not sure what else to say. What's your voyage of The Beagle, Eripsa? When Darwin did tons of detailed field work, followed up by decades of research?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:37
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Has it been established why the other thread was removed? Because you're a pretentious twat mayhap? e: If the old thread got pulled because of doxxing or whatever, let it be known that on RA's SA profile, he has a direct link to his real-life google+ account, complete with his real name and all available info. It's beyond making it available, wheez the roux fucked around with this message at 04:48 on May 8, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'll ask again: perhaps you can explain to us what you mean by unification. I've given my explanation, but you've yet to give yours. Until we know what you mean by a unifying theory, then I take your criticism to be without content. Can you be more specific here? I'm actually curious.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I've explained before that these threads are incredibly productive for me. I disagree that words are easy; stringing words together is incredibly hard for me, and these threads give me practice at all levels: both with the theory, with the science and technical details, with the presentation, and with engaging an audience. There's no where else I could get such practice. I don't mean any formal university resources either; a few emails to professors (you can even try other universities), suitable noticeboards, university clubs, that sort of thing. Am I mistaken for assuming you are living near the campus where your finishing up your doctorate? I'm glad that you are benefiting from the thread, but if your just going to say the same thing (with additional clarity), you'll run into the same criticism. Do you expect a new insight or solution to your problems if you just explain yourself well enough? Let me save you the trouble and tell you it won't happen. Even if you were a master wordsmith and could express your ideas properly, they would still lack the rigour which you admit, are not capable of supplying. If this is the road your travelling down, don't be surprised if the only people left talking to you are the same people who you consider too thick to 'get it'. Posters have gone far beyond what is sane in addressing you, and doing little beyond refining your initial ruminations is a good way to scare off posters with critical, but fair and constructive opinions. I've certainly been spending less time keeping up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
did no? ok good just checking
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Badera posted:Can you be more specific here? I'm actually curious. Key nugget is "Skyhooks and Cranes" in the Central Concepts section. I think what Eripsa's getting at with "unification" of biology with Newtonian ideas is: Newton described the universe, in all its complexity, as being guided by a set of simple laws. Everything in nature emerged out of these simple laws in a predictable, mechanistic way, not all necessitating a Creator. On The Origin of Species also described biology as being guided by simple, mechanistic laws which acted in a predictable fashion not at all necesitating a Creator. Natural selection selects random mutations with a purpose. Mutations unfit for survival are eliminated while mutations fit for survival prosper. Darwin's theory of evolution then leads logically to a coup de grace of Intelligent Design by implying that human intelligence is also a mechanistic construction that emerged out of simpler laws. I don't agree with Eripsa's other ideas, but you, Obdicut have brought up Darwin's Dangerous Idea before. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 05:39 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Of all the crazy Eripsa-isms we've seen, relying on somethingawful.com to archive his 'work' for him is my new favorite. That actually surprised me and slightly lowered my opinion of him, and I didn't think he could get either response from me again at this point. It's almost like relying on 'the network' for everything is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 10:00
|
|
