I agree about the value of hard work, that autonomy and independence are spectacular... winter time makes me particularly thankful.

I don't know what Question should do though, I think that he's going to do what he wants unless forced to do otherwise, all the while punishing himself for not wanting the things he wished he wanted. That's what I'ma do at least.

Witty, all worked up and frustrated from the constant blue balls of intellectual discourse (he was gay for philosophy, you see), after failing to find some suitable fascists to obliterate, got a job as a porter.

Not only did he like to tell students that they ought to go out and find real jobs, he apparently asked Russell if his dissertation was good, or if he should go become a porter.

Become a porter.

Who has figured out how to control children except through physical punishment, threats, lies, bribery, restraint, or sedation? Can't reason with them, they don't know anything, and respond "I don't know" to "why'd you do that", because their executive functions are not developed, and they're impulsive.

Teaching is a conceit, people can only learn.

My sister told me that she thought that I had ADHD. I probably have all of them, all of the disorders. I do like chaos.

Trust, faith, confidence... that's the most valuable resource in the world, by a wide margin.

Here are my test results from that one.

It would be a shorter drive to Mexico.

I've never understood the dream argument... I barely remember my dreams, and they're always incoherent. People that find that interesting must just already be super fab at having vivid dreams.

...and countless cases in which being loyal would lead to immortality. — Sapientia

That doesn't sound so bad.

Depends on what we're talking about. If talking about the probability of him having the cards that he actually does, then it is 100%, he already has them. If we're talking about the probability of him having this or that card, based on what we know, then we're really just saying that we know of no biases, or reasons to go one way or the other, so all things being equal, any guess is as good as any other.

Of course that's why you need a poker face, to keep all things equal.

I'm definitely no mathematician, I learned probability from magic finding. I remember once mfing this dragon pet that had a 1 in 6000 chance of dropping. I was farming the area, when I saw someone else doing the same, and they told me that they didn't want to sign out, because they thought that it would reset their probability, and they've already killed like a thousand!

That's not how it works, each and every kill has a 1 in 6000 chance of dropping the pet. You could get it on your first kill, or your one millionth, but given a massive sample size, the rate is roughly 1 in 6000.

There is of course a sense in which the more you kill, the more likely you are to get it, but this isn't in a strictly probabilistic sense, as it includes variables that can't be known.

Similarly, surely if every raven is black, then the chances of any raven you encounter being black is 100% (minus albinos, or whatever). It can only be otherwise if there is a chance that the ravens could be any other color, but what kind of meaningful "probability" could this be other than just your own disposition of confidence in the face of not knowing an important variable?

I don't understand this idea of increasing probability either. The probability of two coins landing on heads is .25 because with two coins four things can happen. It's .5 with one coin because only two things can happen, whereas the probability of having gotten heads twice after the fact is 100%, as only that can happen, because it already happened. Did the probability change because I changed the variables?

If I keep moving things around it certainly is going to seem so, but it really isn't.

The evidence thing I already destroyed. It doesn't count as evidence because not everything counts as evidence, particularly not to a scientific approach. Evidence has to be of a special, difficult to produce kind.

Remains the same... if you also calculate the probabilities as sets, and compare them to each distinct throw then you get different things... yeah.

Let say that instead of eggs, I'm standing there in each egg hole dealy flipping coins. The first one lands on heads, the second one lands on heads, the third one on heads. Does the probability of the next "egg" being heads increase each time? Decrease each time? Or remain the same?

We already knew that ravens were black... But why would all ravens be black? That isn't based on having saw a lot of black ravens, and obviously can't be.

That has to be based on a theory that predicts that all ravens will be black that you encounter for a reason that causes their being black that we were not aware of. Because they have a certain gene configuration say, so that albino ravens would be predicted, and the non-black raven proves the theory that all ravens are black. You know... except for the disgusting mutants.

There's no paradox because that isn't really how evidence works. Like I said, anyone can weave any tale to retroactively explain the facts, but a good hypothesis predicts something that we didn't know, and then we look for it and find it. That doesn't bolster the logical necessity of the theory being true or anything, it could as well just be a coincidence, but it sure as hell is damned impressive, and bolsters confidence. We then keep the hypothesis, use it in more general theories, keep trying to make new predictions, which keep bolstering confidence for as long as they keep working out, until we're all but certain of them.

That's how it really works out, we aren't super logical machines, we're impressed by the predictive power, the explanation that allows for it, and the control over phenomena that this inevitably leads to. There is still the possibility that it is partially, or entirely wrong, and things have just been working out, but that seems unlikely when it keeps working, and keeps saying new stuff that keeps working out.

The reason that Popper "dissolved the problem of induction" was because he denied that theories were inferential at all, but were logical, and necessary. A theory purports a cause or reason for an event thing or outcome, so that the prediction of its prevalence, or necessity is not based upon observations of past events, but on a theory that purports to explain why things occurred as they did, and how they will occur later.

The evidence is falsification, but more than that, a theory needs to be able to make a novel falsifiable prediction. The theory needs to do more than merely ad hoc an explanation to an observation, or rely entirely on the information given in experience, but must be able to predict something is the case, or will be the case based on the implications of the theory.

I don't trust them fuckers. Behaviorism, and introspection are not reliable enough. Multiple different causes can manifest the same symptoms. Think about all of the things that could cause you to be worried, and how little you could infer beyond symptoms based on their behavior. We can then ask people why they're worried, and they can be wrong, or lying. Not that I don't think that anything interesting comes out of there, but just as a supposed medical profession, they should be looking for physical causes, and things they can reliably check, and prove.

As a system of formalized morality, not at all based on any supposed or even speculated upon physical abnormalities, but entirely based upon social, or spiritual causes, which are nearly impossible to confirm or deny.

I wasn't suggesting that neurological disorders don't exist, just that psychologists aren't helpful. Or at least aren't needed, though therapeutic they may be, like listening to music, or a brisk stroll.

I prefer Jung, though by his own suggestion, he was an artist.

I think though, that the moment you give anyone more authority over your experiences, you've created a recipe for being gas lighted. Driven insane by being made to deny your own intuitions and accept someone else's about your own experiences.

I won't say "maybe I'm paranoid, because it is a certainty -- but besides offer perspectives and such, or as a consultant, I don't think that you should ever hold anyone as an authority over your own experiences. Psychologists are the only doctors that don't know anything about the organ they're supposed to be treating too. Neurological disorders can manifest in many different arrays of symptoms, and only neurologists can diagnosis what kind of treatment or medication would be appropriate. I also think that if the neurologists can't find anything wrong with you, then there isn't.

Ha, I was there like ten years ago, 2007 I believe. Think March maybe.

Antonio Damasio thinks that every single living thing is intentional. Every single living thing moves towards nutrition and growth, and away from harm and danger in a dynamic and adaptive way, at a much greater rate than can be attributed to chance. Even if this can be entirely reduced to physical biology or whatever, emotion, motive, intention are fundamental and univocal in all living things.

It's rainin' meninism.

Everyone sex stuff is weird as shit except for mine.

There's a dark side to every fetish.

Don't say that in Germany, you'll get arrested.

You know that you can't show Nazi's or Nazi iconography in Germany? That's like half of all of the bad guys in video games and movies! Wtf do they do over there?

Schopenhauer thought that all geniuses were sexually deviant in some sense at least, as a normal sexuality just wouldn't do for them. I feel like he said that with some remorse and guilt at himself for such a pedestrian maid fetish.

Kant liked to deflect away from himself and personal questions, and only ever gave vague, dismissive comments about his personal life. He definitely was ashamed of something. Like the least was wrong with him from what I could tell. Why so obsessed with being good? Why books over people?

He also was interested in religious quacks of his time. That guy that wrote about the near death experience that was popular a few years ago because he was a famous neuroscientist, Kant would definitely be following that story.

Only off by 62%? That ain't bad.

Women have too much sense for philosophy... literally, twice as many nerve receptors.

It doesn't make any difference to me about the words being used, but I do think that there is a clear difference between propositions and reality, even though they cannot be easily separated on the one end.

I mean it in a sense like "can be come upon". I can come across untrue statements or unfactual statements even (if you like), but I cannot come across untrue things, or counter-factual things. Do you agree?

Facts and truths can be distinguished conceptually through negation, as I suggested. Both true and untrue statements obtain, whereas only facts obtain, non-facts do not. One cannot say, or point out, or think a factual thing without invoking a true thing. They cannot be distinguished on that end, but we all know that too many false statements obtain, but not too many counter-factuals do.

In Canada red is Liberal.

Facts as states of affairs, or what make true statements true, can only hold an ontological distinction between facts and true statements, and not an epistemic one. As you can't actually distinguish the two in practice, let alone say what, in what way, or what is the nature of the relationship between them.

We require this ontological distinction though, to make sense of counter-factuals, fantasy, and to distinguish between words themselves, and what those words are about. Again, the relationship between the two is not obvious.

That there is a distinction though, and that these are separate things that somehow relate in important consistent ways is difficult to doubt though, and all but required for meta-discourse on the subject.

Obviously machines, or A.I.s aren't physically identical to people... I didn't realize that it was a physically identical world.

I don't think that it's controversial that we have a private qualitative experience that others don't have access to. That we can't even imagine what it would be like for a bat. At the same time, we do imagine that it is similar to other people, because they are physically similar, and behaviorally similar to ourselves, whereas bats differ in ways that suggest differing qualitative experience.

Even the behaviorists that assure you that all intentions can be read in behavior, and micro-expressions are impossible to conceal and all that -- even those that write the books on it cannot actually demonstrate an ability to discern whether or not someone is lying with a success rate higher than chance in controlled trials.

I don't think that I wholly infer from behavior or physicality that others are conscious, or sentient alone. I imagine that I have same nugget of a priori disposition for this, so that as long as a piece of it doesn't come from experience, then it doesn't come entirely from my observations of the behaviors, and physicalities of others. So I think that it is both conceivable, and this indeed does imply in itself, that the puzzle isn't wholly completed with behavior and physical structure. Even if we could reduce this missing piece to physicality, it still wouldn't change that that inference isn't how I'm aware of it.

I should have been able to vote for Trump.

That's probably why. I could understand if your name was Joey, you could be nick named Jewy,