The waters are muddied somewhat by
1) The vote was close
2) There are many ways to leave, but that was barely an issue at the time, so vague was the wording.
3) Leaders of the winning side announced before the result that they would be seekinganother referendum if they lost
4)the 52-48 has become 47-53 ... and decreasing

Democratic honour does need to be satisfied, but it is not clear where the honour lies. I guess a very soft Brexit would be fairest, but I can certainly see that a second referendum would be almost as fair, with the added bonus of the possibility of remaining - which would be a far better economic outrcome.

Perhaps a second referendum would have to be STV from 3 or 4 options ranging from no deal to remain. I am sure there is a cognitive bias to select a non-extreme option so this second referendum would be a little biased against remain (and no deal), but this could be seen as a "fair" compensation to leavers given that the first referendum did produce a win for "leave" (whatever that means!)

I'm tempted to say, for a cheap thrill, that objectivity is an illusion too, as illustrated by the intangible quantum world which will forever be out of our understanding. But I won't because Mr Dennett would hotly object I'm sure.

Dennett attempts to sidestep the problem by denying there is any such thing as subjective experience in the first place. — Joshs

Wouldn't he put it more like " there is the illusion of subjective experience"? Also that this illusion can be faintly present - as in primitive creatures - or strongly so.- as in humans. The more complex the brain, the stronger is the illusion. Whereas it wouldn't make sense to say that some sort of magical subjectivity can occur in varying quantities.

[quote="Edward;d5427"
Due to the nature of the subject of consciousness, we affect our analysis by "looking" at our own process.

Decision making can be affected by an analysis of the decision making process.

[/quote]
As writen these two issues involve a single recursive step. Is another way of saying it is that as soon as we understand consciousness we lose our understanding because our consciousness has become one step higher, and is no longer the thing we were trying to understand?. If we repeat once morethen we are still no better off... so we can never experience understanding consciousness?

Perhaps the experience of consciouness arises from contemplating this infinte recursion, or somehow having this infinte recursion as a (possibily unconscious) possibilty in our "wiring"?

Many people have some quite rigid ideas about this subject so you’re certainly in a better position if you have a decent idea about brain function and don’t get caught up in “quantum” mumbo-jumbo (an area many turn to for a easy “explanation”. — I like sushi

Daniel Dennett would be a good writer to read in order about the nature of consciousness I would imagine. I have only read his "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and very recently, but he's got me hooked, even if not "skyhooked".

It is possible to feel that one know all things at once though.

Only sudden realisations seem powerful - often overwhelming.

Gradual build up is for pussies.

Miaow!

This book "The Happiness Hypotheisis" by Jonathan Haidt examines ten pieces of wisdom handed down through various "ancients" and discusses their usefulness in attaining various states of "happiness" in modern society, in the context of our knowledge of evolutionary psychology and general human psychology.

Haidt's conclusion is that the ancients were onto something, but they were a bit inflexible and didn't get it right enough. In particular, a modest amount of comfort and ease in the external world can boost happiness a lot.

It depends how you define "game". If you include actual date, time, place and players then a game must always exist by definition. I think my definition would be better, and then if you add your data it would be a "game session". Then "sessions" would always exist, but not all "games" would belong to a session.

I was suggesting a core curriculum for schooling rather than a purpose of education. I think there are many possible purposes for education in general. Anyways, I guess Pinker's idea of the curriculum is to teach how to use our rationality well, bearing in mind that a lot of our natural tendencies are known not to be rational, as are those of society also. The scope of this use of rationality would be to undersatnd ourselves and society better, and how we can make decisions that please us more in the long run. So the short answer to your question is "both".

The hope would be to produce happier, smarter individuals and a "better" society - where "better" includes more rational.

To clarify - thiough we have innate rational ability through cognitive process, we need to be trained how to apply it to our own situations and society because being rational does not come easy to us.

Stupid can be gradually trained away, not booted away, according to modern pyschological theory - our consciousness represents a weak rider guiding a lumbering subconscious elephant. The latter can be gently coaxed into different habits and trained over the long term, but not dictated to. Hence CBT.

I think AIs do play proper games when training themselves otherwise the exercise is pointless. Whether they glean strategic insight that is relatable to human thinking is debatable though, I would say. The information they hold is all about network weightings, but all power to the AIs. I never liked chess anyway!

The constructivist answer would be no, only the games that have been played exist. — Marchesk

What about if a game has only existed as part of an AI playing against itself?

The rules do not allow repeat configurations (beyond 2), so such games would not be legal games. — noAxioms

The rules allow it to happen, but a player can claim a draw if it does happen... see the threefold repetition rule.

But my definition was incomplete. Revised defintion of a complete game of chess...including draws of two types and resignations

A complete game of chess is an ordered sequence of board configurations that ends in either stalemate or checkmate or a forced draw or an agreed draw or a resignation, with the next configuration in the forward direction being rules-of-play compatible with its predecessor. There are a finite number of them if you disallow repeat configurations.

A game of chess is an ordered sequence of board configurations that ends in either stalemate or checkmate, with the next configuration in the forward direction being rules-of-play compatible with its predecessor. There are a finite number of them if you disallow repeat configurations.
In the sense that each game can be perfectly described they exist.

The most reasoned argument for a curriculum approach I have come across is that offered by Stephen Pinker in his book "The Blank Slate". He suggests that given our brains are essentially those of hunter gatherers, but with runaway high cognitive ability as a sort of interloper bolted on, and the environment of a complex modern culture we have not evolved to deal with, then the most important things to teach are how to use our rationality to understand ourselves and society. This is something our brains find naturally difficult - as opposed to interpersonal social interactions say - and something that only effortful training can achieve. He suggests that an understanding of evolutionary psychology, scientific method and a feel for statistics, for example should have first call on the curriculum - apart from the major interlopers literacy and numeracy. Seems sound to me.

May is playing chicken with the Irish border. From a game theroy point of view I think the EU should blink first and gain reputation.

God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life. — Devans99

Conway's life is very passive though - you wait for something unexpected to emerge.

If you put yourself in God's shoes, — Devans99

Not a problem! I've always fancied creating a more involved version of Conway's where one tweaks the rules in real time. Maybe your God tweaks the universal constants - though let's hope he does this by creating a universe per tweak, rather than changing them in established universes. Especially ours!

You can declare that anything is "Caused by God" but that never really explains much at all. As Dawkins wrote, its an explanatory gap being filled with a deity. See: Occassionalism. — Josh Alfred

I think it might be fun though, to link God's personality to the method of creation He chose. @Devans99's God is very lazy, if you ask me.

I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time. — karl stone

Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output?

With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling?

"It is equally interesting to discuss matters sexually, rather than to discuss sexual matters."

How would that work ... everything would be sexual innuendo!

Going through hard times will either break you or make you stronger. No cliche intended.
To make this happen, you need to experience both comforts and ''hard times'' otherwise your whole focus will be directed at the tough things and have no time to reflect. — erik2

But if there are no tough times there is no need to reflect!

is it even possible to reflect "logically" on one's life?

His spelling etc was OK I think?

Living your whole life with only pleasure would make you spoiled and not appreciate life in general. Goin through hard times make you more ”enlightened” as a person and makes you being able to reflect on your life more logically — erik2

You desctibe the physiological condition of humans only. We physically cannot experience continual ecstasy, or even mere beaming pleasure. But I see no reason to call the state of being in conitunual pleasure "spoiled". Would you create hard times , I wonder, for "enlightenment"?

There is an objective meaning of life - spread your DNA (in time, not just space lol)!

It is more interesting, IMO, to discuss matters philosophically, rather than to discuss philosophical matters.

Well they are different discussions so I suppose a preference is inevitable. One is harder to engage with I guess, but worth the effort no doubt.

Re school attendance prizes - I think they encourage the spreading of germs frankly.

What are the implications of "existence is infinite"?

Perhaps philosophy is the art of trying to ignore oneself?

We're British! We play by no rules!

Leave means cleave basically! There are two tribes and their makeup is largely predicted by their personalities IMO. The leavers are largely introverts and the remainers extroverrts.

I am tempted to define people who are rarely bored as "wise".

If you ask instead "is the universe meaningless?" the answer is a bit harder to come by. For a start we don't really understand it. Trying to understand it - either scientifically or philosophically - or both - can give you a sense of "meaning".

Love the cherubum idea! All else pales.

Two ways
1) Learn that the world of human affairs is not very structured in general, but that we tend to impose narrative on it. Conspiracy often occurs of course, but it is between a small number of people with very clear and simple goals - such as financial gain in exchange for illicit favour, and they are often found out. Large conspiracies cannot exist. Large false narratives can but such narratives are fed by group intransigence - "THEY do this evil to US" etc.

2) Devise a new conspiracy and sell it to the person, then expose it as your invention.

For me, intelligence is the ability to see structure rather than content. Some call it pattern-recognition I think. — TheMadFool

The quest for "pattern" can be taken too far though. Our brains love a good narrative. Although narration is a sort of intelligence I guess - historians and good essay writers have a high "NQ" as it were.

Are there not painters whose medium is poop?!

Would I be correct to say that nobody knows whether 4D "space" is a meaningful concept beyond extending the mathematics by a dimension?

How does one "comprehend" any dimension? I have no problem comprehending 4 dimensions if one of them is time. I could comprehend a fourth dimension in other ways. For example, I could see a 3D space and put on spectacles of a continuum of various hues from rose to shit. The scene is "flat" (static) until I put on the spectacles.