Search Ideas

I see no perspective in communication with ones who found it discomfortable to retrospect frames of own perspective.

That isn’t what’s happening here. There are dozens of examples on V of me being self-critical.

You’re being passive aggressive, which further sabotages debate. You also ignored my request to take a break for a day or two, and to be less spammy (I just opened V to 16 new notifications from you after a short amount of time), contrary to your own statement that you see no point in discussing with me – which makes no sense.

I’m locking your account for a week. You may return in 7 days. If you then continue disregarding the forum rules, I will ban you permanently. Review them here: #4460

freedom of association

It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it. If you are ready to pay the price, and have the resources.

freedom of association

It doesn't appears out of nowhere. Freedom is the consequence of an ability to withstand, the power, resources to elaborate and protect such consensus, and maintain it.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains are still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). Also, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). Also, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains are real and the space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). And, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). And, each consensus have a price to be established, and an infrastructural tax to work.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But constrains is still here locally (e.g. limited time and cognitive/computational complexity/energy). And, each consensus have a price.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on the perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But anyway, each consensus have cost.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory. But there's, definitely, a threshold, above which cooperation and synergy -- brings more on the long-term perspective, than costs. But anyway, each consensus have cost.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely on available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory.

But you’re not at war all the time.

It's depend on perspective and viewpoint. We are at war, literally, and pretty often -- figuratively, each of us. So the constrains is real and space for creativity and "freedom" rely of available resources, that would be naïve to ignore them in your theory.

Enjoy your crystal clearness. Feel free to remove my account, please, since I see no such option. I see no perspective in communication with ones who found it discomfortable to retrospect frames of own perspective.

Enjoy your crystal clearness.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

[T]here's 4B years of pretty reliable statistics.

This is induction, see Popper.

And so for real-world rational subject there inevitable appears necessity of competition, ability to lie, on addition to the cooperation.

What do you think about such acts as an example of manifestation of the intelligence, abilities to:
- Perceive
- Ask
- Lie
- Joke
- Change

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.

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.