Activity Feed
#4586·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoNo. You’re polluting Veritula with incoherent ramblings. Veritula is meant for serious philosophical work, not navel-gazing.
We have a rule (#4460) against behavior that sabotages debate and progress. Your ramblings are derailing debate. The amount of posts in such a short amount of time is also borderline spammy.
Take a break for a day or two. Be selective about what you respond to. Keep your posts short. And stop rambling.
Enjoy your crystal clearness.
There's a lot of meaning for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?
Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?
There's a lot of meanings for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?
Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?
#4584·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days ago[T]here's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics.
This is induction, see Popper.
There's a lot of meaning for this word: mathematical (structural), logical induction, epistemological one (anti-unification aka generalization, abduction). BTW it's interesting: how do you see the abduction: do you have a precise definition in mind?
Could you refer something specific for a brief introduction to the Popper's conclusions, which ones most interesting and important from your perspective?
#4581·Yurii Pytomets, 5 days agoIn an "ideal" world with unlimited sources and time.
Real-world cognition model must handle resource (time, computation, available energy, logistic, complexity, influence) bounds as an explicit manageable constraints, presented for the conscious.
If rationality and peace required unlimited resources and time, you’d be at war all the time, because resources and time are always limited. But you’re not at war all the time. So rationality and peace can’t require unlimited resources and time.
They require things like openness to debate, creativity, freedom of association, etc.
#4585·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoThere's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
Do you not see the blatant contradictions in your own writing?
I haven't advocating the consistency. But could you be more specific, which one?
No. You’re polluting Veritula with incoherent ramblings. Veritula is meant for serious philosophical work, not navel-gazing.
We have a rule (#4460) against behavior that sabotages debate and progress. Your ramblings are derailing debate. The amount of posts in such a short amount of time is also borderline spammy.
Take a break for a day or two. Be selective about what you respond to. Keep your posts short. And stop rambling.
#4571·Yurii Pytomets revised 5 days agoleads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
Do you not see the blatant contradictions in your own writing?
#4574·Yurii Pytomets revised 5 days agoPretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.On other hand, it's way more refreshing to accept a few years of existence as an unique gift and value the possibility to enjoy it.
[T]here's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics.
This is induction, see Popper.
#4581·Yurii Pytomets, 5 days agoIn an "ideal" world with unlimited sources and time.
Real-world cognition model must handle resource (time, computation, available energy, logistic, complexity, influence) bounds as an explicit manageable constraints, presented for the conscious.
And so for real-world rational subject there inevitable appears necessity of competition, ability to lie, on addition to the cooperation.
#4541·Yurii Pytomets, 5 days agoMost ridiculous are takes about so-called Turing test, which, AFAIK, originally was just a bad misogynic joke. Some kind of evolutionary psychology experiments, which people already have set up to study limits of different animals cognitive abilities and abilities to make judgements (e.g. role-playing, like: what ones know about other know about them, and vice versa), or a development of infant children's abilities to interpret concepts like geometry of space, cause and consequence -- would be way better criteria for the AGI system metrics evaluation.
What do you think about such acts as an example of manifestation of the intelligence, abilities to:
- Perceive
- Ask
- Lie
- Joke
- Change
#3922·Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 months agoVeritula implements unanimous consent …
This notion also maps onto Ayn Rand’s idea that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.” (From The Virtue of Selfishness.)
There’s a reason rationality means lack of conflict.
In an "ideal" world with unlimited sources and time.
Real-world cognition model must handle resource (time, computation, available energy, logistic, complexity, influence) bounds as an explicit manageable constraints, presented for the conscious.
#4564·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoIs prejudgment and conformism any good?
I’m not advocating conformism.
Okay, it looks like, counter-argumenting isn't enough to make a more interesting model by eliminating contradictions, let's try to find a common ground constructively, and use them as a fruitful source of improvement possibilities, I hope you do not perceive my, a bit informal way of express counter-arguments, personally, but as a valuable opportunity to test and improve worldview, as so do I, or just because of curiosity, anyway there's no reason to protect any fragile theory, except for a practice and for a cognitive workout purpose. So, back to the point: how your worldview model deals with Kuhn's stance of epistemic's non-monotonic nature? Do you have some formal semantic/logic in mind? Intuitionistic/nonmonotonic/relevance/modal, in particular epistemic/doxastic/temporal logics? There's pretty interesting matching and reachability logics: http://www.matching-logic.org . The https://cis.temple.edu/~pwang/NARS-Intro.html model looks promising. But there's a lot of opportunities to improve/overcome computation complexity issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion), and probably re-imagining, what computers are -- could be the key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer). I agree with the take that only proofs counts which possible to run on the computer. But at the end, any computer or any person -- are just phenomenons at reality, not available for the direct observation and verification, so, after all, at the end -- it's all just vibes around the silent essence.
The certainty that one able to know something in advance.
The root of all kind of discriminations and profanity, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
#4563·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoWhat you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.
Agree, you right, accepting the mistake.
Would you like to tell more what you found important from the Popper's work?
Pretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.
Pretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.
On other hand, it's way more refreshing to accept a few years of existence as an unique gift and value the possibility to enjoy it.
Pretty confident takes as for a person who isn't going to sell you something useless :)
I would prefer to doubt a possibility to avoid death, there's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics. But I believe you.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention for the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambitious goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention for the own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that an existential disaster -- to not live.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that's an existential disaster -- to not live.
#4552·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoWhat's bad in being irrational?
Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.
leads to stasis, unhappiness
And for that matter: excessive load of irrelevant cognitive work, like overcoming ambition goal for the sake of rationalizations of rationalizations of rationalizations, paying time and sacrificing attention to own emotions, e.g. very actual reality of being here and now on regular basis -- that's what actually could lead to unhappiness. There's nothing bad in death. But that an existential disaster -- to not live.
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, 5 days agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
prejudgment
Unclear what this means.
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, 5 days agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
Is prejudgment and conformism any good?
I’m not advocating conformism.
#4557·Yurii Pytomets, 5 days agoIt’s bad
Is prejudgment and conformism any good? Popper is famous for his theory of scientific revolutions, de-facto theory of accepting a fact that you have only merely a "current paradigm", that inevitable ignores observational facts in the name of infrastructural and logistical cost of maintenance more-or-less consistent consensus tradition. And readiness to throw it all away as soon as there will be just enough black swans around. Wouldn't it be more honest and humbly just to accept the inconsistency as a basis?
What you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.