|
RealityApologist posted:A huge fraction of the criticisms coming at me (from basically everyone who has been uncritically echoing Obdicut in these threads) is that: Correct. quote:2) I have done no work whatsoever to describe any coherent theory Correct. quote:3) I have done no work whatsoever to think through the implication and practical consequences of the theory Correct. quote:4) I'm completely ignorant of all the available literature dealing with any aspect of the theory I've failed to describe Correct. quote:5) I'm making things up off the top of my head with no rhyme or reason Correct. quote:6) I have no methodological or philosophical principles I'm committed to and change the goalposts wherever and whenever I feel like it Correct. quote:7) I don't care about science and I'm not interested in learning about it Correct.
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
ITT we literally believe that saying things over and over makes them true.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:ITT we literally believe that saying things over and over makes them true. Your posting is indeed an near-Platonic example of this, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Your posting is indeed an near-Platonic example of this, yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque ITT we literally think logical fallacies are knock-down arguments. edit: there is no reasonable interpretation of my posting history in which 1-7 are true. Anyone who thinks 1-7 are true is reading my work uncharitably and therefore probably getting a lot of it wrong. People who are arguing with me on the premise that one of 1-7 are true is arguing against a strawman.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Darwin himself didn't unify the sciences, but Darwinian theory unified biology and made it consistent with the rest of the sciences, and Darwin's theory is itself the linchpin holding biological theory together. Plenty of other people have justified the idea adequately enough in this thread. You do realize that drivel like this is the reason people are saying you have no science background or knowledge? You've made a big grand ( and inaccurate ) statement about a whole branch of science and have nothing to substantiate it other than word salad. Which branch of the Sciences is it that your are claiming to be knowledgeable about ? Where did you acquire this knowledge ?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
Are... are you joking here?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
e: ^^^  RealityApologist posted:I have done no work whatsoever Since you've endorsed me as your official condenser: you could have just said this part.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
I did do these things, though. My main argument is that there is no sense in which the 'unification' of Newton (in which he explicity, adamantly was NOT unifying physics, since he refused to consider the origin of motive forces) is similar to the 'unification' of Kant, in which he actually was attempting a complete, coherent, and total philosophy of the mind. There is also not a sense in which Darwin 'unified' biology with the other sciences, this part is difficult to argue because it is just a fact that's not true. You've now shifted from claiming that Darwin unified stuff to the idea that the modern synthesis did, which is a puzzling argument because it points out the truth that Darwin did not unify biology with other sciences, but instead created a new, interesting area that later had to be unified with another aspect of biology, one that did depend on other sciences. This is the sort of post of yours that is easily mistakable for self-parody. Edit: This one too: RealityApologist posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
RA, aren't you asking Obdicut to prove a negative when you ask him how Darwin didn't unify stuff? You're the one making the claim, so you're the one who has to back it up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Eripsa I'll be frank for a moment here: you have so far departed from anything even constituting a refutable argument that there has long-since ceased to be much point in anything other than sniping at the self-glorifying gibberish you nevertheless continue to spew. Page after page, you write and write and write and yet you say basically nothing. It is near-impossible to tell what it is you're even trying, however unsuccessfully, to say. Your definitions shift and change from moment to moment, particularly when one of your many weak points or inconsistencies are pointed out. You repeatedly, seemingly intentionally, take people's points and statements out of context to give yourself an excuse to get huffy and not respond. This behavior also occurs whenever you use an example you don't understand and get called out on it, which is frequently. This thread, like Strangecoin before it, has become irredeemable garbage. I'd advise you to end it and take a long time both develop your knowledge base in those many, many areas in which you are lacking, but since I know you won't, you should at a bare minimum write a new OP which clearly expresses just what you think you're talking about, in as concise a fashion as possible. I'd even suggest running it past someone else for editing tips before you even post it, but like most other good advice you've received, I doubt you'll listen to that either.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
jre posted:You do realize that drivel like this is the reason people are saying you have no science background or knowledge? I was paraphraising others in this thread, who got this right: BUSH 2112 posted:This is wrong. Evolution absolutely unified the field of biology, and it's the linchpin of modern biology, quite literally. If we somehow suddenly discovered that some of the mechanics of evolution don't actually work the way we thought, the wheels will come off of the entire thing and it'll crash and burn. Of course, that can't happen any more than we could suddenly discover that the quantum mechanical theory that tells us how transistors work is wrong. Modern evolutionary synthesis is called that for a reason, it brought together all of the disparate subfields of biology and attached them to each other like conjoined twins. iFederico posted:I agree with the former part (the Darwinian synthesis was mostly the work of Fisher and his colleagues) but the latter point is untrue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution - while you can study the folding pattern of a single protein using molecular dynamics and ignoring evolution, you can also study the way an electron interacts with a charged plate ignoring the fact electromagnetism and the weak force are united - does that mean that the electroweak theory doesn't provide a compelling unification, since you can momentarily ignore it if you focus on a single problem? GulMadred posted:Cube-square relationships (like golden spirals) can be found in living things. The cube-square law is a unifying concept: biology, geometry, engineering, etc; gas diffusion applies to chemistry, astronomy, oceanography, etc. Darwin could have explored these similarities and built up some kind of ~~cube-square-gas~~ architectonic theory of life if he was trying to unify biology with previously-known laws. But what he was actually doing was proposing new principles/laws which were compatible with (i.e. did not contradict) other branches of science, and then using these new laws to scrutinize the available data (ethology, fossils, distribution of habitats, etc) and make predictions. Again, the interpretation of Darwin's place in the history of science that my argument rests on isn't controversial anywhere except the people here who are just looking for something to pick on.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque lol And thus my post saying you don't understand conversational charity. Conversational charity is a good thing, but it isn't infinite forbearance of judgment in the face of all evidence. Eripsa, you've received staggeringly charitable interpretations of your writing time and time again, including many good-faith attempts to nail down exactly what the hell you were talking about. You've consistently abused this charity and failed to respond to reasonable criticisms or adequately develop your theories to the point they could be taken seriously by people with minimal levels of knowledge. All this while betraying a host of behaviors that make it extremely difficult to attribute good-faith to your efforts or writing. Past a certain point people are entitled to draw conclusions and you lose the ability to appeal to the spirit of charity and principles of open debate without being laughed at. People are being incredibly charitable by still engaging with you at all. This isn't a permanent state of affairs, but you've exhibited no signs that you have any real understanding of the problem or intent to approach things differently. I have a really hard time faulting anyone for assuming that the latest iteration of an idea that heretofore has been indistinguishable from crankish nonsense dressed up in a veneer of academic jargon, will continue to be indistinguishable from said nonsense. Humans aren't beings of pure logic with infinite time to consider all possibilities- at some point practical heuristics take over.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:but it's just hyperbolic and obstinate to claim, like Obdicut does, that I've done no work whatsoever, especially given how half-assed his own work in these threads are. I have done a lot of work in all these areas, and its completely uncharitable to claim otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:There's two sense of work, one is that you've expended energy. I think everyone agrees that you've expended a nonzero amount of energy, so by that definition you've done work. Gold star! The other sense comes from physics, in physics work is force (dot product) displacement. This means if you've somehow move something without applying force, you are doing no work (despite things happening), or if at the end of the movement the displacement is zero, you have also done no work (despite expending potentially large amounts of energy). By that definition, I think it's pretty clear you've done no work (as proof, please see that you are arguing over whether the word "unification" should apply to four certain dead people or not). To break this down even further, the guy's just spinning his wheels and acting like he's actually getting somewhere. e: 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I did do these things, though. My main argument is that there is no sense in which the 'unification' of Newton (in which he explicity, adamantly was NOT unifying physics, since he refused to consider the origin of motive forces) is similar to the 'unification' of Kant, in which he actually was attempting a complete, coherent, and total philosophy of the mind. There is also not a sense in which Darwin 'unified' biology with the other sciences, this part is difficult to argue because it is just a fact that's not true. You've now shifted from claiming that Darwin unified stuff to the idea that the modern synthesis did, which is a puzzling argument because it points out the truth that Darwin did not unify biology with other sciences, but instead created a new, interesting area that later had to be unified with another aspect of biology, one that did depend on other sciences. Newtonian science unified celestial and terrestial mechanics. Kant was inspired by Newton's (narrow, scientific unification) to develop his transcendental idealism, which was a comprehensive philosophical anthropology. Darwinian science unified biological evolution with a mechanical (Newtonian) world. Marx was inspired by Darwin's (narrow, scientific unification) to develop his dialectical materialism, which was also a comprehensive philosophical anthropology. Some mistakes you keep making: - Newton's was a unifying project in fundamental physics, even if Newton himself thought it wasn't the whole story. - A theory doesn't need to be a comprehensive theory of mind to be a unifying theory. - Darwin unified biological and mechanical explanations. That's different than explaining biology with Newtonian mechanics. He only showed that a completely mechanical description of the world (including biology) was possible. - The relevant analogies are between Newton and Darwin, and between Kant and Marx, not between Newton and Kant. Newton's scientific unification inspired Kant's philosophical unification. Both are unifying projects but of radically different scope. You want to say they aren't unifying projects at all, but you are simply wrong. These are all unifying theorists, even though their theories are all radically different.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were having this conversation in some sort of medium, something like a greek "forum," you know, where people could say things all together all at once; but one where many statements could be presented simultaneously by multiple people, akin to, I don't know, "posts" on some sort of public "board." That way—you know, assuming we were having a discussion on such a futuristic medium—it would be entirely possible for Eripsa to simply filter out the purposeless troll "posts" and focus only on the ideas of those who ARE acting charitably towards him, as these are his ideas, and he is the driver of the ship. Alas, this is a literal shouting match, and Eripsa is obliged only to answer the ad hominem attacks with which he disagrees, rather than the sundry substantive criticisms that he himself has buried in the froth of his own pedantry in an attempt to shout down other, more knowledgable posters about things like ants or Darwin—things which, unfortunately, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his stated purpose of creating a game slash financial system slash new economy slash architectonic paradigm slash just some poo poo he cobbled together slash the new chemistry slash gently caress you dad slash die statist scum. If only it were possible for him to ignore the shitposts, and focus on the ones that have, apparently, made these threads a really valuable experience for him. Oh well. Shame we don't live in that world, and Eripsa doesn't CHOOSE to roll around in his own vomit and filth, he is FORCED to by the malign forces marshaled by the dark general Obdicut and his foul cronies.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
LGD posted:lol People are bullying me for having an idea, and you are arguing that I deserve the bullying and I'm lucky to to get it. I've given plenty of responses to reasonable criticism, and I've developed significant aspects of the theory to accommodate the discussions in these threads. Obdicut's criticism aren't demonstrating a good faith attempt with minimal knowledge, he's demonstrating deliberate trolling with the only intention of watching me fail. Most of the criticism in this thread are of this sort, and I'd be a complete fool to conclude from these criticisms that I've demonstrated some basic failure in my work. Of course people must rely on heuristics. The heuristic in this thread is to bandwagon the hostility and jump on any error I might make, ignoring anything substantive I say, and looking for any confirmation of the caricature the thread's already settled on. The post about digital philosophy and network theory is a substantive elaboration of a view to make clear the theoretical motivations to a general audience, and aside from this useless evolution derail no one has said anything about the thesis.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:People are bullying me for having an idea, and you are arguing that I deserve the bullying and I'm lucky to to get it. No, people are not bullying you. They're exasperated that you utterly refuse to listen to legitimate criticisms of your idea and your apparent inability to address huge flaws in your proposals that stem from a basic ignorance of the fields you attempt to speak about.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:If only it were possible for him to ignore the shitposts, and focus on the ones that have, apparently, made these threads a really valuable experience for him. Here's how this thread works: Substantive Eripsa post on issue C troll troll insult/character attack/question of basic sanity insult that points to an important issue A completely clueless misunderstanding Eripsa responds to A troll character attack whine from some poster about being ignored Independent recognition of the importance of A troll whine criticism of A by way of character attack character attack insult raising relatively unimportant issue B Eripsa responds to issue B troll complaints about changing subject from A to B complaints about about Eripsa not knowing anything about A and B complaints about Eripsa not knowing anything about unrelated issue Q derail about Q troll complaint that Eripsa hasn't dealt with Q substantive Eripsa post continuing to deal with issue A troll substantive criticism of issue B confused post insult Eripsa post trying to turn the conversation back to C troll about goal posts whine about being ignored complaint about basic comprehension troll that indicates general confusion about the disucssion smug bandwagon posts about how A and B and Q show Eripsa is stupid Eripsa post about discursive charity troll troll troll troll troll whine troll confused post about Q
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Substantive Eripsa post on issue C Show me one of these.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
So leave. Go back to Hacker News, or wherever it is you hang out when you want people to go along with the delusion that you're an academic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Such slings and arrows a misunderstood genius like you must endure to bring your light to us ungrateful plebs, Eripsa. How ever do you manage it?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:
This isn't true. I criticized that 'thesis', mainly for not actually being a thesis. Edit: Also, according to your little martyr list of how the thread has gone, nobody has ever offered substantial criticism, like noting that you were using 'linear' wrong, or that you think attention isn't fakable.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Substantive Eripsa post Figure a. Substantive Eripsa post in its natural habitat 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Here's how this thread works: You again totally ignored my question about what branch of Science are you claiming to have knowledge in , and where did you get this knowledge from ? As far as you have shared you have spent years doing an arts degree , so why do you feel confident making pronouncements about formal maths theory, economics, psychology, biology , physics etc etc etc. Terry Pratchett has a good line about how universities steal knowledge from the people who attend them because students come in knowing everything and leave realising they know nothing. People who actually have knowledge tend not to make an arse of themselves by skim reading wikipedia and then trying to speak like an expert on the subject. If you actually had any formal science training you would realise how pathetic the appeals to "Charity" are. If its science you should be able to prove your assertion, or at the very least not be making unfounded ludicrous claims and then asking others to prove you wrong. You should stick to philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
RA, honest to god, you need help. You are not thinking clearly. You constantly ping-pong back and forth from claiming that we're all horrible, uncharitable trolls that are dead set on bullying you, to claiming that we're providing helpful trial by fire criticism that is genuinely improving your debating skills and giving you new ideas to work with. You are constantly going off on long diatribes that make sense only to you, and you get angry and accuse people of being uncharitable when they don't understand what you said. You consider yourself an academic, but you fail to grasp even the most remedial of things like the tragedy of the commons. You get horrible anxiety when you're proven demonstrably wrong; you've said yourself that the nonlinear thing caused you hours of grief and a growing sense of dread upon the realization that you might have been mistaken. The entire attention economy thread is clear proof that you simply don't understand how people actually work, your comparison of cyborg rights to LGBTQ discrimination shows that don't grasp what real persecution actually is, and the fact that you always blame other people for not being able to understand you shows that you can't accept your faults. I'll go out on a limb here and say that you're genuinely afraid of being out in the real world, which is why you've desperately been trying to stay within academia for as long as possible. This is not healthy behavior. Please, for the love of god, see a therapist.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Here's how this thread works: Absolutely nothing that has been posted in this thread since calvinball ascended to mod heaven has been substantive: you've been feeding trolls because it's easier than addressing criticisms like "you're trying to measure the impact on a network where none of the networked nodes have any reason to interact with one another." When you do "address" a criticism, it's with an outright unfounded denial. You are the captain of this ship. If you want to talk about a thing, absolutely nobody without a blue or red star next to their name can prevent you from talking about it. If all of these posts are trolls, then why the gently caress are you still responding to them instead of addressing any of the serious, pervasive issues with your idea(s)? They're far from complete, there are a profusion of unanswered questions (as in "unresolved," not "you never posted about them"). This is why I pushed in the last thread for the "updated spec." You continuously claim to have changed your mind without demonstrating any of it at all. Shouting "I've changed! I've changed!" isn't going to save you from criticism when you haven't actually changed what's being criticized. If you are so goddamned butthurt about people pointing out that your terrible half-baked sci fi plot is unrealistic and infeasible, then maybe you should stop posting about it until you've adequately addressed the criticisms they've raised and incorporated those changes into your ideas?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Show me one of these. quote:A sourced guide to my empty philosophical views, by Eripsa Philosophy is not an "arts" degree. As a graduate student in philosophy I've taken (for credit) graduate courses in psychology, computer science, and mathematics. I'm most able to defend the philosophy of science issues, which are plentiful in the theory I'm offering, but there are other issues at stake particular to other disciplines, some of which I've studied and others I haven't.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
It's ironic and fitting that, in the end, you're more concerned with your reputation on the dungeons and dragons section of an internet comedy forum than the integrity and quality of the ideas you are purportedly passionate about. I don't know whether it's narcissism or its opposite that leads you to incorporate defense against ad hominem attacks into defense of your ideas, and focus on these worthless ad hominems instead of the ideas they are making fun of you for not being capable of describing, much less defending. But either way, it's not particularly elucidating, except (again, completely tangentially to the intended content of these threads) where your character is concerned. VVV Oh, but don't you understand? We, the simple plebian rabble, would be incapable of comprehending a more complex, definitive source! VVV
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Hey Eripsa there are wikipedia links in your list of sources.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
quote:Philosophy is not an "arts" degree. As a graduate student in philosophy I've taken (for credit) graduate courses in psychology, computer science, and mathematics. I'm most able to defend the philosophy of science issues, which are plentiful in the theory I'm offering, but there are other issues at stake particular to other disciplines, some of which I've studied and others I haven't. Philosophy is an Arts degree because in most places it is offered by the Faculty of Arts. I took undergraduate electrical engineering courses , sure as gently caress doesn't make me an engineer and I wouldn't spout forth on the internet about analogue circuit design because I did a level 2 course in it 10 years ago. Philosophy of Science is not science, its philosophy. quote:I've taken (for credit) graduate courses in psychology, computer science, and mathematics. So what ? You've made really basic mistakes in these disciplines in the deceased thread. The point of the Pratchett quote which you've missed is that you start out ignorant of the breadth of knowledge which exists and have a false sense of your ability. By the time you leave university you've more insight and are humbled by this and realise how little its possible for one person to know. Thinking that because you did a couple of 8 week courses in a subject it makes you capable of debating it with people here who specialised in a subject is a sign that you've not learned anything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Philosophy is not an "arts" degree. As a graduate student in philosophy I've taken (for credit) graduate courses in psychology, computer science, and mathematics. I'm most able to defend the philosophy of science issues, which are plentiful in the theory I'm offering, but there are other issues at stake particular to other disciplines, some of which I've studied and others I haven't. So what? I took economics, astronomy, art history, and geology courses for credit and none of them qualified or enabled me to speak with any kind of authority whatsoever in those fields. Hell, there's huge parts of my own field (history) that I have no qualifications in or useful knowledge of whatsoever. For instance, I know jack poo poo about the Ottoman empire apart from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:05 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
This is like watching the grad student version of Erikson's "integrity vs. despair"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
This was the other story in my notepad that didn't get a chance to be published in the Strangecoin thread. I was saving it in case the other thread was revived, since it pertained to the Strangecoin discussion directly. So it goes. quote:"I think we have everyone together so I'm going to get started. Welcome, everyone, to the second quarterly report meeting of the Northwest Consolidated Paper Org. I'm Templeton Peck, currently acting as root node for NCPO, and I'm joined by H.M. Murdock, the Chief Organizing Hub, and Bosco Baracus, who is taking minutes and streaming this meeting across the Federated Meshnet. John Smith, who usually leads these meetings, regrets that he couldn't be in attendance. We're also joined on the Meshnet by representative nodes from Northwest Hemp and Lumber Org, the Industrial Chemicals Distribution subnet, the Global Reuse Initiative, Machinists Local 98 and District 24 and Teamsters Local 583, and a number of key independent printing, packaging, and supply outfits that represent some of our most important coupling partners. I'm glad everyone could be in attendance and want to thank everyone for the work we've done and will continue to do. See you all next thread everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:See you all next thread everyone. The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:This was the other story in my notepad that didn't get a chance to be published in the Strangecoin thread. I was saving it in case the other thread was revived, since it pertained to the Strangecoin discussion directly. So it goes. No one gives a gently caress about your fanfics about how Ron Paul and Isaac Asimov had a gay-baby that brought upon the glorious cyborg utopia. Posts like these are why you have worn out your welcome and no longer deserve any charity is discussions.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No one gives a gently caress about your fanfics about how Ron Paul and Isaac Asimov had a gay-baby that brought upon the glorious cyborg utopia. Posts like these are why you have worn out your welcome and no longer deserve any charity is discussions. You're just a hater though. His stories are usually the most readable of his posts.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're just a hater though. His stories are usually the most readable of his posts. That's damning with faint praise if I've ever heard any.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're just a hater though. His stories are usually the most readable of his posts. Whatever blend of pills and liquor you're taking that let you post this with a straight face, I want some of it too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Whatever blend of pills and liquor you're taking that let you post this with a straight face, I want some of it too. No really, look at it. He still doesn't know how to talk like people, but when he voices a character you can tell he's trying at least.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 01:42
|
|