I started writing an essay but, mercifully, I think a summary might work better.
Quote from: Enki on July 19, 2009, 05:21:17 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 19, 2009, 05:06:21 AM
Apart from fun/new experiences, is there any point to mindfucking oneself once you've bootstrapped yourself to a certain level of awareness?
Assignment #1: write an essay on the point of a mindfuck.
I see two broad categories of mindfuck - one which works with large memesets/tropes and seems more of a scattershot approach, like leaving tracts (http://www.chick.com/default.asp) around a city - I see its impact as either accumulative or direct (lightning-bolt inspiration), but either way it increases receptivity if done in a way which doesn't actively make people turn off. The chick-tracts seem to have this memetic fault, although in that case it might just be built into the business model.
The second category of mindfuck involves the internal thought processes/memes, which tend to be significantly more nimble and dynamic. Especially when they camouflage themselves - the evolution aspect gives a strong expectation that your bad habits will find other ways to express themselves, rather like a game of hungry hungry hippos. So meta-programming requires an individual to become aware of their own thought processes/triggers and debug them, sometimes with the luxury of foresight, but often with the associated complexities of doing this in real time.
The social mindfuck does not seem strictly required to push an individual into self-mindfucking/meta-programming, but it probably helps. This sub-culture for instance, seems geared towards that, and does appear more effective at it than mainstream culture - which reflects the respective motivations.
You could try to scribble a third mindfuck category out - that of the group-mind as a tangible form of consciousness. I can't think of any examples of mind-fucks at that level - societies tend to happily march themselves into disaster without a second thought - but perhaps it can be found in individuals escaping the sinking ship of any ideology?
So it seems cleaner to think of it in various recursions as societies and individuals influence each other with increasing levels of sophistication. If so, the point of any mindfuck would be to increase intelligence - we are the universe exploring itself, etc.
This may be kicked in the shins with "No - a mindfuck is just for fun". This construct doesn't disagree with that, but unfortunately can't do so without appearing smug.
Quote from: Enki on July 19, 2009, 05:21:17 PM
Quote
By which I mean - if there are literally endless ways to mindfuck yourself, and countless reality tunnels to explore - then a totally random exploration of them will be interesting but will stand a terrible chance of being 'big I' illuminating in any way.
Assignment #2: rewrite assignment #1 to answer this question.
It still seems valid to me.
Quote from: Enki on July 19, 2009, 05:21:17 PM
Quote
I.e. Is it possible to use the scientific method to map out the problem space towards the end of recognising the "ultimate mindfuck" (of the current selection) which leads to the most robust reality tunnel currently known? Is there any evidence that the appearance of multiple "truths" is not itself an illusion?
Assignment #3: do assignments #1 and #2 if you still think this paragraph makes sense.
I'm failing these assignments, since I did and I do. The existence of multiple realities does not grant them equality.
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
Humans have had a lot of success by assuming that there's one big Reality, with all of us getting a fairly accurate impression of the area close to ourselves, allowing for instinctive and learned bias and limitation of the senses.
What do you seek? The Truth? Truth? truth?
"Robustness" is probably a subjective idea. If you want a good subjective metric for reality tunnels, use "pleasurable" or "fun". They won't do you wrong. If you want an objective metric, "contributory to a long life, possibly with high reproductive chances" approximates the default setting. It was good enough for some of your ancestors, almost certainly...
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 01:48:17 PM
I started writing an essay but, mercifully, I think a summary might work better.
damn
and I was expecting a five paragraph essay with an introduction and conclusion
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Humans have had a lot of success by assuming that there's one big Reality, with all of us getting a fairly accurate impression of the area close to ourselves, allowing for instinctive and learned bias and limitation of the senses.
What, exactly, are pointing at when you use the word "success"? The accidental set of reality tunnels we observe the universe from, were we haven't quite destroyed ourselves yet in a variety of amusing ways, is the anthropic principle 101.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
What do you seek? The Truth? Truth? truth?
What have you got?
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
"Robustness" is probably a subjective idea. If you want a good subjective metric for reality tunnels, use "pleasurable" or "fun". They won't do you wrong.
So, given the choice, you'd happily plug yourself into the matrix if it gave you a program which guaranteed that for you?
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
If you want an objective metric, "contributory to a long life, possibly with high reproductive chances" approximates the default setting. It was good enough for some of your ancestors, almost certainly...
Flinging shit with bare hands, and hanging around in a zoo all day, is seemingly good enough for my ancestors. They'd be pissed if they thought I'd willingly settle for such an existence. Not to mention my DNA which sacrificed many fleshy robots to get to where it is today - it wants progress.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Flinging shit with bare hands, and hanging around in a zoo all day, is seemingly good enough for my ancestors.
Did you just diss yourself? That would have to be some really really recent evolution. Or... Ota Benga was your grandpa?!?!?!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ota_Benga_1904.jpg)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
Of course there is no evidence... unless you consider this crazy shared hallucination that every single hallucination of a person on the hallucinatory planet seems to generally share... or at least we hallucinate that its shared... For all we know, right this second we could all be typing things like
OH GOD PLEASE SAVE ME FROM THIS INSANE HUMAN AND THEIR MAD HALLUCINATIONS THAT ALL OF THIS EXISTS... AND ALSO FROM BAD PHILOSOPHICAL SOPHISTRY ON THE INTERNETS
and someone might be typing back:
NO, SUCK IT
But all we see are these masochistic petty ramblings of humans desperate to find some other humans to relate to because thats the shared hallucination.
Damn hallucinations.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 21, 2009, 12:58:36 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Flinging shit with bare hands, and hanging around in a zoo all day, is seemingly good enough for my ancestors.
Did you just diss yourself? That would have to be some really really recent evolution. Or... Ota Benga was your grandpa?!?!?!
If we share ~99% of our DNA with chimps, that doesn't seem so far away as to not consider them ancestors.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:30:06 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 21, 2009, 12:58:36 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Flinging shit with bare hands, and hanging around in a zoo all day, is seemingly good enough for my ancestors.
Did you just diss yourself? That would have to be some really really recent evolution. Or... Ota Benga was your grandpa?!?!?!
If we share ~99% of our DNA with chimps, that doesn't seem so far away as to not consider them ancestors.
only if you consider you cousins ancestors
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 01:38:31 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:30:06 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 21, 2009, 12:58:36 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Flinging shit with bare hands, and hanging around in a zoo all day, is seemingly good enough for my ancestors.
Did you just diss yourself? That would have to be some really really recent evolution. Or... Ota Benga was your grandpa?!?!?!
If we share ~99% of our DNA with chimps, that doesn't seem so far away as to not consider them ancestors.
only if you consider you cousins ancestors
Huh?
primates and chimps share a common ancestor
they aren't our ancestors
just like you and cousins share a common ancestor
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 01:49:05 AM
primates and chimps share a common ancestor
they aren't are ancestors
Oh - oops - fair point.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
But logically speaking, there is no flaw. There is, from a physics perspective, ample evidence that this reality exists. There is no evidence that multiple realities exist. Therefore, the existence of multiple realities is speculation, but the existence of a single reality (this one) is not.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 02:12:41 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
But logically speaking, there is no flaw. There is, from a physics perspective, ample evidence that this reality exists. There is no evidence that multiple realities exist. Therefore, the existence of multiple realities is speculation, but the existence of a single reality (this one) is not.
If that's true, then I was wrong.
Back to the original point though, the OP didn't mention quantum effects, nor require them implicitly.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Zen_motorcycle.jpg)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 20, 2009, 11:34:37 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 01:48:17 PM
I started writing an essay but, mercifully, I think a summary might work better.
damn
and I was expecting a five paragraph essay with an introduction and conclusion
TITCM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 02:12:41 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
But logically speaking, there is no flaw. There is, from a physics perspective, ample evidence that this reality exists. There is no evidence that multiple realities exist. Therefore, the existence of multiple realities is speculation, but the existence of a single reality (this one) is not.
If that's true, then I was wrong.
Back to the original point though, the OP didn't mention quantum effects, nor require them implicitly.
You are the first person in this thread to use the word "quantum." Hopefully, the word won't be used again after this post. The same reality, holds several reality tunnels.
I meant speculation as opposed to the kind of truth you have to live with, every day. Sometime, when you're feeling on top of the world, ask TGRR about the horrible truth.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
What do you seek? The Truth? Truth? truth?
What have you got?
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
"Robustness" is probably a subjective idea. If you want a good subjective metric for reality tunnels, use "pleasurable" or "fun". They won't do you wrong.
So, given the choice, you'd happily plug yourself into the matrix if it gave you a program which guaranteed that for you?
The tao bit comes from the Tao Te Ching. Discordia inherits from Zen which inherits from Taoism. Or at least, they can when they want to.
You aren't the cops! I don't have to tell you what I do or do not have. Sounds like you're itching for The Works, though.
We all plug into the matrix for a few hours now and then. It's fun, but like some games, the
fun stops being so fun eventually. It may not even have been that fun to begin with.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
I meant speculation as opposed to the kind of truth you have to live with, every day.
Ah, I think I see what you mean now. I'm not sure I can draw the distinction quite as clearly. Once I can predict the barstool then to a certain degree the model seems to work, if not, the model needs work.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
Sometime, when you're feeling on top of the world, ask TGRR about the horrible truth.
Gifted with an imagination not imaginative enough to imagine any "horrible truth", I'm sceptical that caution is required. Does that qualify as feeling on top of the world?
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
The tao bit comes from the Tao Te Ching. Discordia inherits from Zen which inherits from Taoism. Or at least, they can when they want to.
You wouldn't believe the occult library I have behind me right now, and I've read barely a scratch - you might find that part more believable. I did start reading the Tao Te Ching, after about 20 pages my amusement turned to intense dislike, and I can't remember why, nor find the copy..
Found it - I disliked that it didn't actually come out and say what it meant. I know that sounds like a terribly unsophisticated critique, but if you could literally spend your entire life on that metaphysical kaleidoscope - and still not be able to predict a barstool - then what more is it than a beautiful poetic wanky mindfuck?
What functional purpose has it served other than to set up a system of masters and students who can smugly share insights, and point to "hidden meanings"? What is the point of insight if you can't apply it outside your own head?
And the thing which
really pisses me off, is that it sets up this whole system of thought that we're saddled with now where we have this expectation that you have to sacrifice and toil pointlessly to see any benefit from a spiritual endeavour. Yeah, because I power my computer with an array of gerbils in hamster wheels instead of plugging it into the wall. Of course, it doesn't help that on the other end of the spectrum you have people like Oprah who exploit little tidbits of eastern philosophies just so that some bored housewife can say to herself "oooh - that sounds like a great idea", only to forget it by the time the commercial breaks are over, which just tends to reinforce the paradoxical belief that you really must apply a great protestant work ethic to "get anything" from an eastern religion, which no-one is doing anyway because we only have one lifetime and that's not nearly long enough to extract value from something we just kinda assume actually contains it in spades, if only someone somewhere could goddam find it.
And fuck Feng Shui - there, I said it - if you've never tripped over subtly moved furniture that you've just spent An Entire Weekend Rearranging back to almost-but-not-quite the same positions at the concerned behest of your wife, then I don't expect you to feel this one. Yes dear, I'm so glad that the non-existent fucking energy flows so wonderfully through our home now, but how exactly is the chi affected by all this blood slowly congealing upon the floor?
Fuck that shit Lao Tzu - tldr. If you can't just come out and tell me what you have to say because I haven't had some mystical revelation that you can't even be sure wasn't your brain fucking with itself then maybe - just maybe - you're full of shit and need to start listening to some outside voices instead of those crammed inside your head pulling the strings.
If anyone can figure out why just reading the first few pages of the Tao Te Ching makes me this pissed off, I'd appreciate the enlightenment.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
You aren't the cops! I don't have to tell you what I do or do not have. Sounds like you're itching for The Works, though.
Sorry - didn't mean to sound demanding. Yes I want The "Works". Who wouldn't? As long as I don't have to wear a silly hat afterwards, I'm down with whatever "The Works" may bring. I'm serious about the hat though - I took a quick look through spagbook and that was the closest I've been so far to any "horrible truth".
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
We all plug into the matrix for a few hours now and then. It's fun, but like some games, the fun stops being so fun eventually. It may not even have been that fun to begin with.
That makes sense to me, but why then would you suggest to follow that which seems "fun" or "pleasurable"? I'm not down on these things, but given that we have some measure of control over what activities we pin those labels to, surely there is a more intelligent approach we can take instead of just finding new excuses for gratification?
Feng shui and the Tao Te Ching have little to do with one another, aside from both being Chinese in origin. Of course, a lot of the Tao Te Ching consists of references to obscure meditation practices that we don't have a clue about.
I'm not really sure how that's relevant to anything, or what this thread is about.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 02:12:41 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
But logically speaking, there is no flaw. There is, from a physics perspective, ample evidence that this reality exists. There is no evidence that multiple realities exist. Therefore, the existence of multiple realities is speculation, but the existence of a single reality (this one) is not.
If that's true, then I was wrong.
Back to the original point though, the OP didn't mention quantum effects, nor require them implicitly.
What do you mean, "if that's true?"? Do you mean that you don't have a scientific background and did not research your statement before you made it?
The main problem here is burden of proof
If your arguing for this existence of this reality there really isn't any burden of proof there, we more or less know this reality exists through laws and experience, ect. there are always really weird ideas way out in left field that say even this reality is nonexistent and they really can't be disproven, but have no evidence in support so therefore can be more or less rejected for now.
If your arguing for multiple realities then first you have to prove it is indeed possible (and from what I read this is still debatable) but even then, possibly does not mean existence.
In other words the burden of proof is on multiple realities not on a singular reality.
...which is pretty much what Nigel said
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 07:01:04 AM
If anyone can figure out why just reading the first few pages of the Tao Te Ching makes me this pissed off, I'd appreciate the enlightenment.
(http://www.petbrick.com/brick.jpg)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
"Robustness" is probably a subjective idea. If you want a good subjective metric for reality tunnels, use "pleasurable" or "fun". They won't do you wrong.
So, given the choice, you'd happily plug yourself into the matrix if it gave you a program which guaranteed that for you?
Hell yes, what do you think I am doing on the internet?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:30:06 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 21, 2009, 12:58:36 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Flinging shit with bare hands, and hanging around in a zoo all day, is seemingly good enough for my ancestors.
Did you just diss yourself? That would have to be some really really recent evolution. Or... Ota Benga was your grandpa?!?!?!
If we share ~99% of our DNA with chimps, that doesn't seem so far away as to not consider them ancestors.
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
I will kill a motherfucker.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 02:12:41 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
But logically speaking, there is no flaw. There is, from a physics perspective, ample evidence that this reality exists. There is no evidence that multiple realities exist. Therefore, the existence of multiple realities is speculation, but the existence of a single reality (this one) is not.
If that's true, then I was wrong.
Back to the original point though, the OP didn't mention quantum effects, nor require them implicitly.
What do you mean, "if that's true?"? Do you mean that you don't have a scientific background and did not research your statement before you made it?
No - you've got me - I didn't research the statement where I argue for the existence of multiple realities at all. Unfortunately for me though, I don't exist in the universe where the original parent to this thread makes any reference or mention of multiple realities - and that part is really confusing me.
What puzzled me before is the double-slit experiment, which I've always seen described in terms of waveform collapse, as that would seem to imply the existence of multiple universes - at _least_ for a brief period of time. I didn't research the discrepancy,, and I wasn't entirely convinced, but I gave you a technical point with an "if that's true" primarily because it's not relevant to anything I've been saying at all.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "scientific background".
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 08:55:00 AM
The main problem here is burden of proof
If your arguing for this existence of this reality there really isn't any burden of proof there, we more or less know this reality exists through laws and experience, ect. there are always really weird ideas way out in left field that say even this reality is nonexistent and they really can't be disproven, but have no evidence in support so therefore can be more or less rejected for now.
If your arguing for multiple realities then first you have to prove it is indeed possible (and from what I read this is still debatable) but even then, possibly does not mean existence.
In other words the burden of proof is on multiple realities not on a singular reality.
...which is pretty much what Nigel said
The burden of proof rests upon you - show me where I argue for the existence of any reality schema in the OP.
Quote from: Anton on July 21, 2009, 08:13:46 AM
Feng shui and the Tao Te Ching have little to do with one another, aside from both being Chinese in origin. Of course, a lot of the Tao Te Ching consists of references to obscure meditation practices that we don't have a clue about.
I'm not really sure how that's relevant to anything, or what this thread is about.
Just ranting against mysticism in general, especially the tendency to imbue it with more meaning that it actually can be shown to contain, when this thread started off discussing tangible and measurable things.
Are occasional rants acceptable here?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 02:01:30 PM
Quote from: Anton on July 21, 2009, 08:13:46 AM
Feng shui and the Tao Te Ching have little to do with one another, aside from both being Chinese in origin. Of course, a lot of the Tao Te Ching consists of references to obscure meditation practices that we don't have a clue about.
I'm not really sure how that's relevant to anything, or what this thread is about.
Just ranting against mysticism in general, especially the tendency to imbue it with more meaning that it actually can be shown to contain, when this thread started off discussing tangible and measurable things.
Are occasional rants acceptable here?
Mysticism is in short finding the sacred (whatever that might be to you) in everyday life and ordinary things, direct experience rather than through some intermediary. You can layer maps on top of that definition but thats all it is really beneath the symbols. Because of this, you can give things as much or as little meaning as you desire.
QuoteWhat puzzled me before is the double-slit experiment, which I've always seen described in terms of waveform collapse, as that would seem to imply the existence of multiple universes - at _least_ for a brief period of time. I didn't research the discrepancy,, and I wasn't entirely convinced, but I gave you a technical point with an "if that's true" primarily because it's not relevant to anything I've been saying at all.
Please to search for LMNO and "quantum" for great understanding of above.
Also, please don't talk about evolution again. Statements like "If we share ~99% of our DNA with chimps, that doesn't seem so far away as to not consider them ancestors" are the reason so many others are confused about this stuff; you act like you know what you're talking about but you don't know shit.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 02:51:15 PM
Mysticism is in short finding the sacred (whatever that might be to you) in everyday life and ordinary things, direct experience rather than through some intermediary. You can layer maps on top of that definition but thats all it is really beneath the symbols. Because of this, you can give things as much or as little meaning as you desire.
Isn't it all maps and symbols? If it's just about finding and experiencing the sacred in everything, then surely _any_ religion will do?
Once you start saying "that's the way it is because that's the way it is" then you've just given progress a hefty kick to the crotch.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 02:51:15 PM
QuoteWhat puzzled me before is the double-slit experiment, which I've always seen described in terms of waveform collapse, as that would seem to imply the existence of multiple universes - at _least_ for a brief period of time. I didn't research the discrepancy,, and I wasn't entirely convinced, but I gave you a technical point with an "if that's true" primarily because it's not relevant to anything I've been saying at all.
Please to search for LMNO and "quantum" for great understanding of above.
Search came back with pages and pages of metafap, still not sure of what you're trying to say.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 02:51:15 PM
Also, please don't talk about evolution again. Statements like "If we share ~99% of our DNA with chimps, that doesn't seem so far away as to not consider them ancestors" are the reason so many others are confused about this stuff; you act like you know what you're talking about but you don't know shit.
If we take our ancestors, as the original poster did, as a barometer of what we should consider "valid choices" then please explain to me how the reference to the amount of genetic material we share is an irrelevant point. Putting aside my mistake with ancestry/cousins - the DNA is the agent of replication, not the host.
And I'll talk about evolution until I get it right. Emergence seems to be one of the most important features of the universe, I'm not going to stop trying to understand more about it just because you choose to get sanctimonious on my ass. Educate me, please.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Kurt Gödel, for one.
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Kurt Gödel, for one.
Enough with the symbolism? Mathematics paints a pretty picture and religion makes nice rhyme, within a hundred years Gödel will be proved wrong, should we just sit around twiddling our thumbs in the meantime?
If you explain your first principles, I'll do the same with mine with my knowledge regarding Mr Gödel. Although the latter is not really relevant to the question I asked.
Dude, the entirety of communication is symbolism.
This very sentence is a series of symbols of agreed-upon concepts.
I'd like to know how you expect to either receive or transmit knowledge without symbolism.
When you can describe a non-symbolic means of communication, we can continue.
Also, you seem to enjoy the symbolism of "first principles."
But I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: Purposes and goals of mindfucks
I can speak only for myself here.
Some people claim that they are not very gullible. They say they are hard to manipulate, hypnotize, or influence. It turns out that these people are actually the most susceptible to hypnosis. They put too much trust in their own brain and are therefore blind to intrusions upon it.
I kind of view the mindfuck as a reminder that I don't necessarily have it all figured out.
A good mindfuck produces confusion. Through that confusion, we're able to examine the components of our reality tunnels in a different light than when we were certain.
I'm reminded of a prank I pulled on my roommate in which I had him convinced that dozens of people were all having dreams about him shitting his pants. He couldn't figure out how anyone could have orchestrated all these unconnected people from his past to contact him out of the blue like that. He didn't realize the prank instructions were in his AIM profile, and was how people he hadn't seen in 10 years seemed to be in on it. Due to the Law of 5s, he started seeing shit everywhere. He didn't know what to do. On one hand, it could be a prank, but he couldn't fathom how. On the other hand, he had a existential crisis - he thought this was the universe's way of telling him something -- but what? The lens of introspection came out. In the end, a good time was had by all and I only got punched in the stomach once.
In more traditional usage, the mindfuck is a tool, like any other, to provoke certain types of introspection. For many Discordians, it's a rewarding activity in of itself. But more traditionally, it's just a form of prank or culture jam.
I'm going to try and say the next part without opening a big can of worms -- there's a certain poster who will remain nameless. He didn't have a very good reputation on this board. But he wanted to participate. Or mindfuck us. Maybe both. So the person in question made up a new identity and used it to release an Intermittens issue (on mindfucks, of all things). This is a mindfuck on a few levels:
1. He mindfucked his target audience by proving he could communicate within the forum as long as he was willing to sacrifice some of his old identity. Now that the jig is up, some people are saying, "Alright, he wasn't that bad."
2. Acting within this new identity prompted him to question assumptions he had previously made about this forum and his involvement with Eris. In the end, pretending to be a stranger made him a stranger to himself -- which afforded him a growth opportunity. (I may be off-base on this because I can't speak for the poster in question.. but this is my gist)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
I meant speculation as opposed to the kind of truth you have to live with, every day.
Ah, I think I see what you mean now. I'm not sure I can draw the distinction quite as clearly. Once I can predict the barstool then to a certain degree the model seems to work, if not, the model needs work.
Please explain or clarify or expand upon the phrase "predict the barstool". It's pretty much nonsense to me.
Furthermore, I'd like to make sure some of your vocabulary gets straightened the fuck out:
A
theory is a statement that explains all or most of the existing evidence/data, and doesn't contradict any good data.
A
hypothesis is an idea about how things are or how things will happen, which can be tested. Example: "My hypothesis that the sun rises every 30 hours is in error: the sun is rising now, and last rose 24 hours ago. I may have to adjust my sleep schedule accordingly."
(Someone who knows more, please point out if I'm off here.)
Use the search function in the forum, for posts by LMNO containing "quantum". It's probably at the top-right of the page.
Quote from: Twilightgirl on July 21, 2009, 07:25:33 PM
1. He mindfucked his target audience by proving he could communicate within the forum as long as he was willing to sacrifice some of his old identity. Now that the jig is up, some people are saying, "Alright, he wasn't that bad."
2. Acting within this new identity prompted him to question assumptions he had previously made about this forum and his involvement with Eris. In the end, pretending to be a stranger made him a stranger to himself -- which afforded him a growth opportunity. (I may be off-base on this because I can't speak for the poster in question.. but this is my gist)
What about a third possibility? That he couldn't become a productive member of the community because of the communities memory of his reputation - so that when he was ready to make that growth, the only avenue open to him was to pretend to be a stranger. Or is that already implied in 1+2? Given that the community seems to believe that I'm four different sock-puppets already, I know I'm on thin ice, but I don't think that changes the observation.
Quote
Isn't it all maps and symbols? If it's just about finding and experiencing the sacred in everything, then surely _any_ religion will do?
Yes, thats what I'm saying. In fact, there are mystic branches to all of the mainstream religions. The Quakers, the Sufis, Jewish Mysticism, Hindu Vedanta, Zen Buddhism (particularly engaged buddhism ala Nhat Hanh), many Unitarian Universalists...I think I've captured a bit of all the big ones. There are certainly mystics in Catholicism, though there isn't really a mystic branch. Hm (something to look into).
Quote
Search came back with pages and pages of metafap, still not sure of what you're trying to say.
You don't know what you're talking about. LMNO knows what he's talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics. He's covered many topics including the double slit experiment in this forum. All you have to do is use the search engine.
Quote
If we take our ancestors, as the original poster did, as a barometer of what we should consider "valid choices" then please explain to me how the reference to the amount of genetic material we share is an irrelevant point. Putting aside my mistake with ancestry/cousins - the DNA is the agent of replication, not the host.
1) why should we take from our ancestors "valid choices"? 2) Its not irrelevant. You just shouldn't talk about it because the sort of shit you were saying is why people are damn confused in the first place, and its honestly up to biologists (like me) and other scientists (like Thurnez the paleontologist) to try to sort the public out. Hearing the "we came from chimpanzees" line for the 1000 time just about boils my gray matter. So please, just don't talk about it. Read, learn, don't talk till you actually know what you are talking about.
QuoteAnd I'll talk about evolution until I get it right. Emergence seems to be one of the most important features of the universe, I'm not going to stop trying to understand more about it just because you choose to get sanctimonious on my ass. Educate me, please.
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: That's not what this was about. What this was about is you doing it wrong just like thousands of other people I've heard talk about evolution aka descent with modification aka transmutation of species. You are nobody special in that regard. Unfortunately for you I'm sick of hearing things like "we came from chimpanzees". Fortunatly (or unfortunatly if you liked it) I'm actually kinder than I used to be. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=12120.0)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:43:45 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 02:12:41 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:19:42 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 01:01:13 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
Existence of multiple realities is a matter of speculation in physics.
By that measure, so is a single reality.
Are you saying that there is no evidence that this reality exists?
No, I was just pointing out the pointlessness of the original premise.
But logically speaking, there is no flaw. There is, from a physics perspective, ample evidence that this reality exists. There is no evidence that multiple realities exist. Therefore, the existence of multiple realities is speculation, but the existence of a single reality (this one) is not.
If that's true, then I was wrong.
Back to the original point though, the OP didn't mention quantum effects, nor require them implicitly.
What do you mean, "if that's true?"? Do you mean that you don't have a scientific background and did not research your statement before you made it?
No - you've got me - I didn't research the statement where I argue for the existence of multiple realities at all. Unfortunately for me though, I don't exist in the universe where the original parent to this thread makes any reference or mention of multiple realities - and that part is really confusing me.
What puzzled me before is the double-slit experiment, which I've always seen described in terms of waveform collapse, as that would seem to imply the existence of multiple universes - at _least_ for a brief period of time. I didn't research the discrepancy,, and I wasn't entirely convinced, but I gave you a technical point with an "if that's true" primarily because it's not relevant to anything I've been saying at all.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "scientific background".
:genius:
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:43:45 PM
What puzzled me before is the double-slit experiment, which I've always seen described in terms of waveform collapse, as that would seem to imply the existence of multiple universes - at _least_ for a brief period of time. I didn't research the discrepancy,, and I wasn't entirely convinced, but I gave you a technical point with an "if that's true" primarily because it's not relevant to anything I've been saying at all.
How the hell did I miss that?
Some of the later theories attribute the "apparent" (not "actual") collapse of the function to
decoherence, which when simplified, says that the function only
appears to collapse when it interacts with the environment.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 08:55:00 AM
The main problem here is burden of proof
If your arguing for this existence of this reality there really isn't any burden of proof there, we more or less know this reality exists through laws and experience, ect. there are always really weird ideas way out in left field that say even this reality is nonexistent and they really can't be disproven, but have no evidence in support so therefore can be more or less rejected for now.
If your arguing for multiple realities then first you have to prove it is indeed possible (and from what I read this is still debatable) but even then, possibly does not mean existence.
In other words the burden of proof is on multiple realities not on a singular reality.
...which is pretty much what Nigel said
The burden of proof rests upon you - show me where I argue for the existence of any reality schema in the OP.
I don't know what to say other then your wrong.... I'm not arguing any point, only asking for an argument for a point you made
and if you're too stupid to see that... I don't know what to tell you man
Actually, it was yhmnz (or whatever the fuck his name is) who brought up multiple universes.
ficpuss was talking about reality tunnels.
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 08:08:04 PM
Actually, it was yhmnz (or whatever the fuck his name is) who brought up multiple universes.
ficpuss was talking about reality tunnels.
true enough
I kind of lost track of that part
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 20, 2009, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: Enki on July 19, 2009, 05:21:17 PM
Quote
I.e. Is it possible to use the scientific method to map out the problem space towards the end of recognising the "ultimate mindfuck" (of the current selection) which leads to the most robust reality tunnel currently known? Is there any evidence that the appearance of multiple "truths" is not itself an illusion?
Assignment #3: do assignments #1 and #2 if you still think this paragraph makes sense.
I'm failing these assignments, since I did and I do. The existence of multiple realities does not grant them equality.
Emphasis added. Yes, I probably came out misinterpreting it, I may even have been agreeing in a very indirect matter. But fictionpuss is the first to use the phrase "multiple realities" ITT. I was going to say, "speculation in physics and magick," but thought better of it.
Perhaps we should ask why the seemingly misguided are using certain words certain ways, or at least to explain what they think those words mean.
"Mutiple realities", in terms of the OP, seems to be referencing multiple reality tunnels, not the Multiple Universe theory in quantum mechanics.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 05:14:51 AM
I meant speculation as opposed to the kind of truth you have to live with, every day.
Ah, I think I see what you mean now. I'm not sure I can draw the distinction quite as clearly. Once I can predict the barstool then to a certain degree the model seems to work, if not, the model needs work.
Please explain or clarify or expand upon the phrase "predict the barstool". It's pretty much nonsense to me.
Pretty much this (http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=7323). If your model cannot be used in a practical way which fits in with existing models, then you either need to improve your model or ditch it. If the kids at the bar were on the right track, then eventually they could use their fantastical knowledge to construct a model of the universe whereby they could avoid being hit over the head.
The analogy pretty much breaks at that point because two individuals are unlikely to make such significant progress within their lifetimes.
Are you saying that a "good" model of reality takes into account the existence of things outside your own mind?
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. LMNO knows what he's talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics. He's covered many topics including the double slit experiment in this forum. All you have to do is use the search engine.
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing my ability to find it since I don't know exactly what I'm looking for.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
Quote
If we take our ancestors, as the original poster did, as a barometer of what we should consider "valid choices" then please explain to me how the reference to the amount of genetic material we share is an irrelevant point. Putting aside my mistake with ancestry/cousins - the DNA is the agent of replication, not the host.
1) why should we take from our ancestors "valid choices"?
I don't think we should. It was the person I was responding to who claimed that. Same way that an individual should feel no obligation to serve societies wishes, a person should feel no obligation to serve the "wishes" of their DNA.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
2) Its not irrelevant. You just shouldn't talk about it because the sort of shit you were saying is why people are damn confused in the first place, and its honestly up to biologists (like me) and other scientists (like Thurnez the paleontologist) to try to sort the public out. Hearing the "we came from chimpanzees" line for the 1000 time just about boils my gray matter. So please, just don't talk about it. Read, learn, don't talk till you actually know what you are talking about.
How do I know when I actually know what I'm talking about? I'm not trying to play word games because, the chimpanzee slip aside, I think I do know what I'm talking about. Or rather - I'm not a biologist, and I don't know nearly as much as you about the details and how those details impact the whole, but I think I know pretty much as much I'm going to need to know.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
QuoteAnd I'll talk about evolution until I get it right. Emergence seems to be one of the most important features of the universe, I'm not going to stop trying to understand more about it just because you choose to get sanctimonious on my ass. Educate me, please.
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 08:49:22 PM
Are you saying that a "good" model of reality takes into account the existence of things outside your own mind?
No, I'm saying that a "bad" model of reality is one that only takes into account things inside your own mind, which may exist or not. The difference in emphasis determines the direction you take.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 09:14:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
? I see emergence as the ability of the universe to create order from disorder - a solar system is "neater" than a massive cloud of interstellar dust. I see evolution as the way emergence acts on the level of species. I guess the super- or sub- set definition is relative, but that is the level of my understanding as it is.
I haven't read the hundreds of thousands of posts on this forum, and if I'm mixing up my terms then it might be easier to just correct me than to just assume that I'm trying to piss you off.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 09:14:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
Yeah....he's either A) trolling or B) doesn't know wtf he's talking about or C) both
Where to begin.....Emergence, as a phenomenon, can be summed up by the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". In other words, when you have close knit systems of similar bits and pieces in interaction with each other, there is a certain level of interaction that yields higher structure and properties than that of the individual parts. These higher systems are not reduceable; they have their own set of rules while not violating the rules below. For example, biology is an emergent system from chemistry; it doesn't violate rules of chemical action but it also has it's own set of rules. That emergent creativity and complexity is a feature of nucleic acid chains and protiens, both of which are long sequences of relatively simple parts put in close interaction which ends up building something far more complex than individual interactions.
Evolution is not a subset of Emergence. I'm assuming you're using the word in the biological sense and not the general sense for this (and if you are using the general sense, the whole thing is different but similar). Bio-evolution, also known as descent with modification (the term C Darwin preferred) or transmutation (the term I prefer as evolution comes with the connotation of "unrolling" onto perfection, which isn't the real case) is composed of two parts. How much each of these things are in play and important to transmutation is an argument that continues.
The first part is the random aspect. You could call this the Emergence aspect. This is random mutation, creative emergence of new sequences by random events. This is also genetic drift, the change in population gene frequencies over time simply due to randomness. Again, many scientists dissagree how important genetic drift is to transmutation, but all will agree that mutation is important for creating varation. That's where creative emergence is in transmutation (ignoring ecology and other higher Emergence systems for the space of this; models filter reality for our sake, so we don't go nuts trying to hold it in concept all at once, break it into parts), in the new and different sequences of ammino acids that come out as novelity.
The second part is Selection. When you have variation in a continuum, the environment will play selectively on that variation, as some will be more suited to continuing under the conditions than others. Darwin stated it as such 1) Variation exists [ie Emergence creates variation] 2) Some of that variation is inheritable [the variation exists in a continuum] 3) there is overproduction of offspring [there is more variation than will continue; obviously, or there wouldn't be anything, or the universe would be static] 4) there are selective deaths [the environment whatever that may be works selectively on the variation and some of that does not continue]. Therefore, through successive generations, species change over time. That's transmutation, which includes both Emergence and Selection in function.
Actually, using the brackets above you can apply the Emergence/Selection paradigm to any non static process in the universe (is there a such thing as a static process? O.o). Emergence, complexity and creativity arising from interactions between parts, leads to variation in a continuum, and the interactions with the environment lead to the continuation of some of that variation and the discontinuation of others. At the same time, Emergence continues with creativity. Therefore the universe didn't just wink out of existence in self annihilation, and isn't a static featureless place; change is constant.
I hope the above doesn't fall on deaf ears.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 08:49:22 PM
Are you saying that a "good" model of reality takes into account the existence of things outside your own mind?
No, I'm saying that a "bad" model of reality is one that only takes into account things inside your own mind, which may exist or not. The difference in emphasis determines the direction you take.
How is what LMNO just said any different than what you just said? If a bad model of reality only takes into account things inside your mind, and whats left over after "inside your mind" is "outside your mind", then via deduction wouldn't it stand that the opposite GOOD model of reality would include things outside your mind? FFS
This could be also he's very clumsy way of asking a question
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. LMNO knows what he's talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics. He's covered many topics including the double slit experiment in this forum. All you have to do is use the search engine.
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing my ability to find it since I don't know exactly what I'm looking for.
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION AVAILABLE IN THIS VERY FORUM, AT THE TOP-RIGHT OF EVERY PAGE, THIS ONE INCLUDED.
Quote
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
Quote
If we take our ancestors, as the original poster did, as a barometer of what we should consider "valid choices" then please explain to me how the reference to the amount of genetic material we share is an irrelevant point. Putting aside my mistake with ancestry/cousins - the DNA is the agent of replication, not the host.
1) why should we take from our ancestors "valid choices"?
I don't think we should. It was the person I was responding to who claimed that. Same way that an individual should feel no obligation to serve societies wishes, a person should feel no obligation to serve the "wishes" of their DNA.
My thrust was more memetic than genetic: People used to do X, and they got away with it. You're biologically equipped similarly to them, so you might get away with it, too. Nobody can compel you to take good advice, or to tell good advice from bad. I was suggesting the keeping of tradition (in so many words) as a way to survive. It's everyone's choice as to whether or not they want to survive that way.
Quote
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
2) Its not irrelevant. You just shouldn't talk about it because the sort of shit you were saying is why people are damn confused in the first place, and its honestly up to biologists (like me) and other scientists (like Thurnez the paleontologist) to try to sort the public out. Hearing the "we came from chimpanzees" line for the 1000 time just about boils my gray matter. So please, just don't talk about it. Read, learn, don't talk till you actually know what you are talking about.
How do I know when I actually know what I'm talking about? I'm not trying to play word games because, the chimpanzee slip aside, I think I do know what I'm talking about. Or rather - I'm not a biologist, and I don't know nearly as much as you about the details and how those details impact the whole, but I think I know pretty much as much I'm going to need to know.
Well, maybe you've been playing them with yourself so long that you have to try to
not play word games.
I noticed many very close by usages of the word "model" in the same, shortish paragraph. I hypothesize that you're experiencing things (possibly weird or annoying to yourself), that you could talk about at much greater length. Otherwise, it looks increasingly like you're just a schmuck with some pet phrases.
Edit: The varying font size looks terrible. Just doing my part to make this the worst forum on the internet, or :?.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 09:14:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
? I see emergence as the ability of the universe to create order from disorder - a solar system is "neater" than a massive cloud of interstellar dust. I see evolution as the way emergence acts on the level of species. I guess the super- or sub- set definition is relative, but that is the level of my understanding as it is.
I haven't read the hundreds of thousands of posts on this forum, and if I'm mixing up my terms then it might be easier to just correct me than to just assume that I'm trying to piss you off.
Nice edit, fictionpuss. I put back what you edited out, which is where Kai says "You obviously don't know anything about me
if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence." which you followed up with "I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution.
What bothers you about it?"
That was clumsy. Your cover is blown, troll over.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 09:14:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
Yeah....he's either A) trolling or B) doesn't know wtf he's talking about or C) both
Dingdingdingdingding
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 10:11:18 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 09:14:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
? I see emergence as the ability of the universe to create order from disorder - a solar system is "neater" than a massive cloud of interstellar dust. I see evolution as the way emergence acts on the level of species. I guess the super- or sub- set definition is relative, but that is the level of my understanding as it is.
I haven't read the hundreds of thousands of posts on this forum, and if I'm mixing up my terms then it might be easier to just correct me than to just assume that I'm trying to piss you off.
Nice edit, fictionpuss. I put back what you edited out, which is where Kai says "You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence." which you followed up with "I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?"
That was clumsy. Your cover is blown, troll over.
I routinely snip older quotes as I think they get ugly and don't help clarity. I didn't understand why you thought what I had said there was indicative of a troll, which is why I asked for clarification. If I had understood what you were meaning, then why would I purposefully try to "hide" the "evidence", the removal of which would be "proof" that you were right?
It seems like you already made up your mind before I posted. Are you still upset about me putting your avatar in that picture yesterday? It was just for fun, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 09:54:40 PM
I hope the above doesn't fall on deaf ears.
Thanks - I appreciate it. I think my problem is that I've been conflating "emergence" with the "workings of the universe". As in, the universe as a system which is more than the sum of its parts, in which case, my incorrect definition of Emergence would make it a superset of Evolution, but also become a meaninglessly broad brush in the process?
But my biggest fallacy in that case would be to use the same term for an observable phenomenon (i.e. the role of emergence in evolution), with that of a hypothetical role - the workings of the universe?
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 08:49:22 PM
Are you saying that a "good" model of reality takes into account the existence of things outside your own mind?
No, I'm saying that a "bad" model of reality is one that only takes into account things inside your own mind, which may exist or not. The difference in emphasis determines the direction you take.
How is what LMNO just said any different than what you just said? If a bad model of reality only takes into account things inside your mind, and whats left over after "inside your mind" is "outside your mind", then via deduction wouldn't it stand that the opposite GOOD model of reality would include things outside your mind? FFS
I'm probably being pedantic about which way the filters should point, and perhaps meaninglessly so, but I'm currently on a kick where I'm trying to expunge "insight" that I cannot use in any practical nuts'n'bolts way. I hope that makes some sense.
I don't know about fallacies. You're biggest downfall is using many big words and difficult concepts in awkward ways, using a completely different language set than your audience, and expecting them to understand.
Emergence simply happens (for whatever reason; maybe because It's required for anything to exist). Evolution is what happens in a nonstatic universe.
You haven't defined your terms. What is "the working of the universe"? What is "insight"? You use words in ways that are unfamiliar and you give no context for their meaning. When a reader fails to come to terms with the author, that is, when the reader fails to understand the terms (be they words or phrases) the author uses with the author's intended meaning, there is no common ground for the reader and author to work from.
bigs words make you sund smrat
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 11:08:29 PM
bigs words make you sund smrat
And the people that count will know you don't know how to use them properly.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 10:32:35 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 10:11:18 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 09:14:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence.
I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?
:lulz: If anyone was still doubting that this guy is trolling...
? I see emergence as the ability of the universe to create order from disorder - a solar system is "neater" than a massive cloud of interstellar dust. I see evolution as the way emergence acts on the level of species. I guess the super- or sub- set definition is relative, but that is the level of my understanding as it is.
I haven't read the hundreds of thousands of posts on this forum, and if I'm mixing up my terms then it might be easier to just correct me than to just assume that I'm trying to piss you off.
Nice edit, fictionpuss. I put back what you edited out, which is where Kai says "You obviously don't know anything about me if you think I'm bothered by talk of Emergence." which you followed up with "I wasn't trying to bother you at all. I only mentioned Emergence because I see it as a superset of Evolution. What bothers you about it?"
That was clumsy. Your cover is blown, troll over.
I routinely snip older quotes as I think they get ugly and don't help clarity. I didn't understand why you thought what I had said there was indicative of a troll, which is why I asked for clarification. If I had understood what you were meaning, then why would I purposefully try to "hide" the "evidence", the removal of which would be "proof" that you were right?
It seems like you already made up your mind before I posted. Are you still upset about me putting your avatar in that picture yesterday? It was just for fun, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Didn't even see it. And yes, you are a clumsy troll, it's true. It was a nice, if transparent, attempt at baiting Kai.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 11:06:46 PM
I don't know about fallacies. You're biggest downfall is using many big words and difficult concepts in awkward ways, using a completely different language set than your audience, and expecting them to understand.
I had been trying to get at that, but you just said it the best.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 11:06:46 PM
I don't know about fallacies. You're biggest downfall is using many big words and difficult concepts in awkward ways, using a completely different language set than your audience, and expecting them to understand.
Understood. Over time I hope to improve on this.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 11:06:46 PM
Emergence simply happens (for whatever reason; maybe because It's required for anything to exist). Evolution is what happens in a nonstatic universe.
You haven't defined your terms. What is "the working of the universe"? What is "insight"? You use words in ways that are unfamiliar and you give no context for their meaning. When a reader fails to come to terms with the author, that is, when the reader fails to understand the terms (be they words or phrases) the author uses with the author's intended meaning, there is no common ground for the reader and author to work from.
By "the workings of the universe" I meant the singular force/property which makes things happen, over time, in the way they do. As I said, it is an awfully big umbrella.
By "insight" I meant an understanding of how two or more things are related.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 11:12:13 PM
Didn't even see it. And yes, you are a clumsy troll, it's true. It was a nice, if transparent, attempt at baiting Kai.
Your proof that I am a troll is not convincing. I'm only responding to you because last time I ignored a comment that I was some alt, and then within days I was apparently four different alts! Paranoia needs strangling. It's self-destructive.
If you gave a shit, you could prove easily that I am not a troll/alt. If you don't give a shit, why are you so concerned about me?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 11:21:28 PM
By "the workings of the universe" I meant the singular force/property which makes things happen, over time, in the way they do.
:spittake: :facepalm::1fap:
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 11:21:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 11:06:46 PM
I don't know about fallacies. You're biggest downfall is using many big words and difficult concepts in awkward ways, using a completely different language set than your audience, and expecting them to understand.
Understood. Over time I hope to improve on this.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 11:06:46 PM
Emergence simply happens (for whatever reason; maybe because It's required for anything to exist). Evolution is what happens in a nonstatic universe.
You haven't defined your terms. What is "the working of the universe"? What is "insight"? You use words in ways that are unfamiliar and you give no context for their meaning. When a reader fails to come to terms with the author, that is, when the reader fails to understand the terms (be they words or phrases) the author uses with the author's intended meaning, there is no common ground for the reader and author to work from.
By "the workings of the universe" I meant the singular force/property which makes things happen, over time, in the way they do. As I said, it is an awfully big umbrella.
By "insight" I meant an understanding of how two or more things are related.
1) Ahh, so this is about First Cause. Sorry, can't help you there. I usually go with Emergence being the metaforce behind creativity but I don't know about the First Cause, whatever that might have been. You could say that I believe Emergence came with the First Cause, but what the first cause was (energy interacting with energy?) I have no clue.
2) Why would you want to throw /that/ out?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 11:27:26 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 11:21:28 PM
By "the workings of the universe" I meant the singular force/property which makes things happen, over time, in the way they do.
:spittake: :facepalm::1fap:
:-)
I know it's not a popular notion, but it does bring us back to an earlier point - how to prove that there isn't such a force?
and it goes back what I keep saying and your too dense or stupid to realize
the burden proof is not on nonexistence but on existence
and if you think otherwise I have a magic, invisible unicorn in a mason jar I wish to sell you
Fictionpuss, I for one don't care whether you're a troll. But either way, your posts really
are half-incomprehensible.
Quote from: Twilightgirl on July 21, 2009, 07:25:33 PM
I'm reminded of a prank I pulled on my roommate in which I had him convinced that dozens of people were all having dreams about him shitting his pants. He couldn't figure out how anyone could have orchestrated all these unconnected people from his past to contact him out of the blue like that. He didn't realize the prank instructions were in his AIM profile, and was how people he hadn't seen in 10 years seemed to be in on it. Due to the Law of 5s, he started seeing shit everywhere. He didn't know what to do. On one hand, it could be a prank, but he couldn't fathom how. On the other hand, he had a existential crisis - he thought this was the universe's way of telling him something -- but what? The lens of introspection came out. In the end, a good time was had by all and I only got punched in the stomach once.
:mittens:
Brilliant!
Also first cause just assumes that there was nothing before the expansion of the universe, nothing within the singularity...
well what comes before time and space? Can there be something?
I don't know
and I sincerely doubt you do
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 11:33:52 PM
Also first cause just assumes that there was nothing before the expansion of the universe, nothing within the singularity...
well what comes before time and space? Can there be something?
I don't know
and I sincerely doubt you do
I certainly don't. The Beginning is the Void to me.
Saint Thomas Aquinas just rang.
He wanted to let you know the First Cause is in fact THE LORD God, and you heathens are going to hell unless you repent and allow Jesus to save your souls.
Also Richard J Gott III wants to know whats North of the North Pole, while you're all here.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 21, 2009, 11:31:48 PM
and it goes back what I keep saying and your too dense or stupid to realize
the burden proof is not on nonexistence but on existence
and if you think otherwise I have a magic, invisible unicorn in a mason jar I wish to sell you
JUST $29.99
AND IF YOU ACT NOW
I'LL THROW IN THIS LUCKY PENNY, FOR FREE....
JUST PAY SEPARATE SHIPPING AND HANDLING
/
/
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/ThornIs/zombiemays.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on July 21, 2009, 11:42:17 PM
Saint Thomas Aquinas just rang.
He wanted to let you know the First Cause is in fact THE LORD God, and you heathens are going to hell unless you repent and allow Jesus to save your souls.
Also Richard J Gott III wants to know whats North of the North Pole, while you're all here.
:lulz:
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 11:26:18 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 11:12:13 PM
Didn't even see it. And yes, you are a clumsy troll, it's true. It was a nice, if transparent, attempt at baiting Kai.
Your proof that I am a troll is not convincing. I'm only responding to you because last time I ignored a comment that I was some alt, and then within days I was apparently four different alts! Paranoia needs strangling. It's self-destructive.
If you gave a shit, you could prove easily that I am not a troll/alt. If you don't give a shit, why are you so concerned about me?
You misunderstood what Roger was saying. He didn't say you were four different alts, he said that he called those users as trolls when they first arrived and he was calling you, too. And he was right.
Who said I don't give a shit? Giving shit is what I
do. :lulz:
Now, why don't you use your own logic and prove that you're not a troll?
Although, stylistically I am seeing a lot in common with DK. The transparent attempt to bait Kai by blatantly misconstruing that post was clumsier than what I'd expect from DK though.
I like to think of new users as precious and unique snowflakes. It would be unfair to compare them to people they will never meet.
Either that, or it'll just give them ideas.
its more of an architype than a comparison he is not a dk or arifelis but has similar poster/troll personality type
Oh wow, I'd forgotten about arifelis!
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 21, 2009, 11:50:14 PM
Although, stylistically I am seeing a lot in common with DK. The transparent attempt to bait Kai by blatantly misconstruing that post was clumsier than what I'd expect from DK though.
I'm not as easily baited as I used to be though. I understand how stupid drama makes me, these days.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 07:15:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Kurt Gödel, for one.
Enough with the symbolism? Mathematics paints a pretty picture and religion makes nice rhyme, within a hundred years Gödel will be proved wrong
Do you also think that Pythagoras' a
2+b
2=c
2 will be proven wrong? Or the quadratic formula?
How about Turing's proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PMI think I know pretty much as much I'm going to need to know.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/440883025_2aa807412d_m.jpg)
thanks for playing.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2009, 12:51:14 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 07:15:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Kurt Gödel, for one.
Enough with the symbolism? Mathematics paints a pretty picture and religion makes nice rhyme, within a hundred years Gödel will be proved wrong
Do you also think that Pythagoras' a2+b2=c2 will be proven wrong? Or the quadratic formula?
How about Turing's proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem?
Honestly, I was just trying to goad a response which explained yhnmzw's statement in terms I could understand with the least amount of abstraction and self-referential symbolism. If you start with the assumption that Gödel is wrong, can it still be explained? If so, how?
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2009, 01:07:15 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PMI think I know pretty much as much I'm going to need to know.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/440883025_2aa807412d_m.jpg)
thanks for playing.
That's a contextual misquote. I think I know pretty much as much as I'm going to need to know about stamp-collecting, and cheese shops in Belgium. I feel the same way about evolution, but not emergence. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
That isn't to diss any of those subjects, it's just a simple statement to the fact that I, personally, do not see any additional value from studying in those areas at the moment. If I did, I would.
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 09:54:40 PMWhere to begin.....Emergence, as a phenomenon, can be summed up by the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". In other words, when you have close knit systems of similar bits and pieces in interaction with each other, there is a certain level of interaction that yields higher structure and properties than that of the individual parts. These higher systems are not reduceable; they have their own set of rules while not violating the rules below. For example, biology is an emergent system from chemistry; it doesn't violate rules of chemical action but it also has it's own set of rules. That emergent creativity and complexity is a feature of nucleic acid chains and protiens, both of which are long sequences of relatively simple parts put in close interaction which ends up building something far more complex than individual interactions.
Evolution is not a subset of Emergence. I'm assuming you're using the word in the biological sense and not the general sense for this (and if you are using the general sense, the whole thing is different but similar). Bio-evolution, also known as descent with modification (the term C Darwin preferred) or transmutation (the term I prefer as evolution comes with the connotation of "unrolling" onto perfection, which isn't the real case) is composed of two parts. How much each of these things are in play and important to transmutation is an argument that continues.
The first part is the random aspect. You could call this the Emergence aspect. This is random mutation, creative emergence of new sequences by random events. This is also genetic drift, the change in population gene frequencies over time simply due to randomness. Again, many scientists dissagree how important genetic drift is to transmutation, but all will agree that mutation is important for creating varation. That's where creative emergence is in transmutation (ignoring ecology and other higher Emergence systems for the space of this; models filter reality for our sake, so we don't go nuts trying to hold it in concept all at once, break it into parts), in the new and different sequences of ammino acids that come out as novelity.
The second part is Selection. When you have variation in a continuum, the environment will play selectively on that variation, as some will be more suited to continuing under the conditions than others. Darwin stated it as such 1) Variation exists [ie Emergence creates variation] 2) Some of that variation is inheritable [the variation exists in a continuum] 3) there is overproduction of offspring [there is more variation than will continue; obviously, or there wouldn't be anything, or the universe would be static] 4) there are selective deaths [the environment whatever that may be works selectively on the variation and some of that does not continue]. Therefore, through successive generations, species change over time. That's transmutation, which includes both Emergence and Selection in function.
Actually, using the brackets above you can apply the Emergence/Selection paradigm to any non static process in the universe (is there a such thing as a static process? O.o). Emergence, complexity and creativity arising from interactions between parts, leads to variation in a continuum, and the interactions with the environment lead to the continuation of some of that variation and the discontinuation of others. At the same time, Emergence continues with creativity. Therefore the universe didn't just wink out of existence in self annihilation, and isn't a static featureless place; change is constant.
I hope the above doesn't fall on deaf ears.
It didnt.
However, I kind of wonder, why do you call the random/mutation aspect Emergence, and the selection aspect as its own category?
The way (and the why) selection happens and
even the "simple" fact that it happens is determined by a complex process that is (in a sense) larger than its parts, so IMO it is just as much part of the Emergence process as mutation is.
However, it isnt really that I think either of them are "part of" Emergence. You called it a meta-process, which is probably the best way to describe it, not a "part of" relationship, but more something above, underneath, and in between the things, but not quite really. I might go as far as to call it Astral Lube, even ;-)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 01:11:38 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2009, 12:51:14 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 07:15:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 21, 2009, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 20, 2009, 11:32:32 PM
The Tao you can discuss is not the true Tao. (Alternate forms: replace Tao with System, Way, or Chao)
Who says?
Kurt Gödel, for one.
Enough with the symbolism? Mathematics paints a pretty picture and religion makes nice rhyme, within a hundred years Gödel will be proved wrong
Do you also think that Pythagoras' a2+b2=c2 will be proven wrong? Or the quadratic formula?
How about Turing's proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem?
Honestly, I was just trying to goad a response which explained yhnmzw's statement in terms I could understand with the least amount of abstraction and self-referential symbolism. If you start with the assumption that Gödel is wrong, can it still be explained? If so, how?
might I add this unicorn also uses rainbows to clean your room and will protect your home from invaders
$29.99
ACT NOW
(http://www.kitchen-biodiesel.com/images/balljar.jpg)
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9184/wordoftheday.jpg) (http://img31.imageshack.us/i/wordoftheday.jpg/)
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 01:30:41 AM
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9184/wordoftheday.jpg) (http://img31.imageshack.us/i/wordoftheday.jpg/)
:mittens:
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2009, 01:19:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 09:54:40 PMWhere to begin.....Emergence, as a phenomenon, can be summed up by the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". In other words, when you have close knit systems of similar bits and pieces in interaction with each other, there is a certain level of interaction that yields higher structure and properties than that of the individual parts. These higher systems are not reduceable; they have their own set of rules while not violating the rules below. For example, biology is an emergent system from chemistry; it doesn't violate rules of chemical action but it also has it's own set of rules. That emergent creativity and complexity is a feature of nucleic acid chains and protiens, both of which are long sequences of relatively simple parts put in close interaction which ends up building something far more complex than individual interactions.
Evolution is not a subset of Emergence. I'm assuming you're using the word in the biological sense and not the general sense for this (and if you are using the general sense, the whole thing is different but similar). Bio-evolution, also known as descent with modification (the term C Darwin preferred) or transmutation (the term I prefer as evolution comes with the connotation of "unrolling" onto perfection, which isn't the real case) is composed of two parts. How much each of these things are in play and important to transmutation is an argument that continues.
The first part is the random aspect. You could call this the Emergence aspect. This is random mutation, creative emergence of new sequences by random events. This is also genetic drift, the change in population gene frequencies over time simply due to randomness. Again, many scientists dissagree how important genetic drift is to transmutation, but all will agree that mutation is important for creating varation. That's where creative emergence is in transmutation (ignoring ecology and other higher Emergence systems for the space of this; models filter reality for our sake, so we don't go nuts trying to hold it in concept all at once, break it into parts), in the new and different sequences of ammino acids that come out as novelity.
The second part is Selection. When you have variation in a continuum, the environment will play selectively on that variation, as some will be more suited to continuing under the conditions than others. Darwin stated it as such 1) Variation exists [ie Emergence creates variation] 2) Some of that variation is inheritable [the variation exists in a continuum] 3) there is overproduction of offspring [there is more variation than will continue; obviously, or there wouldn't be anything, or the universe would be static] 4) there are selective deaths [the environment whatever that may be works selectively on the variation and some of that does not continue]. Therefore, through successive generations, species change over time. That's transmutation, which includes both Emergence and Selection in function.
Actually, using the brackets above you can apply the Emergence/Selection paradigm to any non static process in the universe (is there a such thing as a static process? O.o). Emergence, complexity and creativity arising from interactions between parts, leads to variation in a continuum, and the interactions with the environment lead to the continuation of some of that variation and the discontinuation of others. At the same time, Emergence continues with creativity. Therefore the universe didn't just wink out of existence in self annihilation, and isn't a static featureless place; change is constant.
I hope the above doesn't fall on deaf ears.
It didnt.
However, I kind of wonder, why do you call the random/mutation aspect Emergence, and the selection aspect as its own category?
The way (and the why) selection happens and even the "simple" fact that it happens is determined by a complex process that is (in a sense) larger than its parts, so IMO it is just as much part of the Emergence process as mutation is.
However, it isnt really that I think either of them are "part of" Emergence. You called it a meta-process, which is probably the best way to describe it, not a "part of" relationship, but more something above, underneath, and in between the things, but not quite really. I might go as far as to call it Astral Lube, even ;-)
Because Emergence is addition and Selection is subtraction. Of variation I mean. Emergence by itself leads to an incoherent unorganized mass of variation. Selection by itself leads to stasis. The two together lead to creative refinement. You could argue that selection is just a metaproperty of the metaforce of Emergence (you need variation before it can be selected upon, and the selection is caused by the environment which is yet more variation to be selected upon), but I'm not sure I'm ready to delve into that particular spiritual circular loop right this moment. ;) KE Peters called the universe a sacred dance between Emergence and Selection. I thought that was a pretty apt metaphor until just now.
Okay, maybe you can help me wrap my head around the feedback loop of Emergence/Selection, as of Selection as a metaproperty of Emergence. Would you mind doing that? I'm just having a bit of trouble making a symbolic map right now. :)
Selection makes more sense to me as promotion, rather than subtraction. It doesn't destroy variation in the same sense that Emergence creates it.
Selection is more in tune with subtraction as Kai said... the driving force is extinction
plus...
YOULL BE SAYING HOLY FUCK BALLS EVERYTIME
/
/
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a139/ThornIs/unicorn.jpg)
I probably have a different idea of Emergence than KE Peters. maybe mine's wrong though.
to me, Emergence is exactly that thing that makes the whole more than the sum. you can't really grasp it, because it's more obvious than common sense, it's just the way things work.
Like what Douglas Adams once said "That which survives, survives."
Emergence is a tautology.
And the whole mutation/selection feedback loop is just one example of it happening. (Maybe a pretty important one, though)
Emergence doesn't actively cause the mutation/selection feedback loop to happen (it does that by itself, after all it's a feedback loop), but if you were to ask, why does this feedback loop even exist? Why is it that order and disorder have the tendency to separate themselves out of chaos? The answer is Emergence.
It is for me anything that, just for the reason that smaller parts or gears work and interact the way they do, creates a "ghost", a structure in the larger system that cannot be expressed in terms that make sense to these smaller gears.
And in that view, mutation and selection are sort of on the same level for me. They are more like a between step from bio/chemical matter to a symbolic level where mutation and selection happens, and on top of that you have all this beautiful creativity and novelty.
And the whole stack, but maybe especially the top, is "powered by" Emergence.
maybe it's because you're biologist, in my studies of Machine Learning I found that different sciences have very different ways of thinking (maybe especially biologists vs computer scientists :-P), but when simulating evolutionary algorithms on the computer, the bio/chemical level is (of course/usually) skipped and the mutation/selection level is just a question of a few lines of code.
viewed in that way, the mutation/selection thing is just yet another gear, yet another step to facilitate Emergence happening. and in computers, we can skip the lower level steps, but still you cannot force Emergence, all you can do is to create circumstances upon which it will act. (though of course the same circumstances will produce the same results, but it is trial and error a lot of it).
I dunno if this helps explain anything, Kai :)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 03:42:49 AM
Selection makes more sense to me as promotion, rather than subtraction. It doesn't destroy variation in the same sense that Emergence creates it.
Actually, yes, it exactly does. Selection refers to the unsuccessful variations dying off.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 22, 2009, 04:09:39 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 03:42:49 AM
Selection makes more sense to me as promotion, rather than subtraction. It doesn't destroy variation in the same sense that Emergence creates it.
Actually, yes, it exactly does. Selection refers to the unsuccessful variations dying off.
YOU DARE QUESTION HIS SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE!!
HIS WRATH.... WHAT ABOUT HIS WRATH?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 03:42:49 AM
Selection makes more sense to me as promotion, rather than subtraction. It doesn't destroy variation in the same sense that Emergence creates it.
Go back up and read my summary of Darwin's Natural Selection. Selection is removal, deletion. The reason you can separate species and they don't all look like some blob with blending variation in between is because of extinction. The intermediate varities are lost, extinct or absorbed. That variation no longer exists. Lineages go exinct and the remaining lineages are more easily defined through the spaces left.
Edit: the best way I can think to visualize it is like this bush, with many many branches, very thick in some places, very thin in others. The branches are not all the same length, most are dead at the tips stopping far from the crown. The uncountable number of branches, thats Emergence. The similarly uncountable number of dead stems with the few that slip through still green, thats Selection.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2009, 04:09:26 AM
I dunno if this helps explain anything, Kai :)
I'll read through it in the morning. My third circuit is shot when I get tired. Thanks for answering in any case. :)
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 04:26:00 AM
Edit: the best way I can think to visualize it is like this bush, with many many branches, very thick in some places, very thin in others. The branches are not all the same length, most are dead at the tips stopping far from the crown. The uncountable number of branches, thats Emergence. The similarly uncountable number of dead stems with the few that slip through still green, thats Selection.
That actually makes a lot of sense - thanks.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 22, 2009, 04:11:36 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 22, 2009, 04:09:39 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 03:42:49 AM
Selection makes more sense to me as promotion, rather than subtraction. It doesn't destroy variation in the same sense that Emergence creates it.
Actually, yes, it exactly does. Selection refers to the unsuccessful variations dying off.
YOU DARE QUESTION HIS SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE!!
HIS WRATH.... WHAT ABOUT HIS WRATH?
Actually, I think I've been quite open about my lack of expertise and how much reading/research I haven't done. But I can state my premises, flimsy as they are, and I am happy to admit when I find out I am wrong.
I mean, don't let that get in the way of a good joke or anything, but if you think you can humiliate me.. then you're gonna have to come up with something better than my emo-wank songs I posted links to a few posts back mixing failed relationships with bubblegum metaphysics. I play guitar with all the finesse of a coma patient reacting spasmodically to a cattleprod, and I can't even reach half the notes. You know, it's
like I just don't care about all the scars scorn brings.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2009, 04:09:26 AM
I probably have a different idea of Emergence than KE Peters. maybe mine's wrong though.
to me, Emergence is exactly that thing that makes the whole more than the sum. you can't really grasp it, because it's more obvious than common sense, it's just the way things work.
That's why I usually refer to Emergence as a metaforce. Its not real in the sense that Electromagnetism is real. Its an afterforce (or beyond force, depending on how you think of it), that exists only by its effects. The effects are real but Emergence itself is a nebulous metaforce, a map, a concept.
QuoteLike what Douglas Adams once said "That which survives, survives."
Put a different way, "nature's creed is 'whatever works'". Put yet another way, what is here is fit, because if it /wasn't/ fit, it wouldn't be here.
QuoteEmergence is a tautology.
I actually would say that Emergence plus Selection is a tautology, but since you are posing Selection as an aspect of Emergence, I'll give you that.
QuoteAnd the whole mutation/selection feedback loop is just one example of it happening. (Maybe a pretty important one, though)
Please give other examples.
QuoteEmergence doesn't actively cause the mutation/selection feedback loop to happen (it does that by itself, after all it's a feedback loop), but if you were to ask, why does this feedback loop even exist? Why is it that order and disorder have the tendency to separate themselves out of chaos? The answer is Emergence.
Emergence leads to Emergence. Heh, there is no First Cause. Emergence is the Cause of Emergence.
I just said it, I've actually said it before, but it's damn hard for me to wrap my head around the above. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by " order and disorder have the tendency to separate themselves out of chaos".
QuoteIt is for me anything that, just for the reason that smaller parts or gears work and interact the way they do, creates a "ghost", a structure in the larger system that cannot be expressed in terms that make sense to these smaller gears.
This ghost is what I call an "emergent system". I think we mean the same thing.
QuoteAnd in that view, mutation and selection are sort of on the same level for me. They are more like a between step from bio/chemical matter to a symbolic level where mutation and selection happens, and on top of that you have all this beautiful creativity and novelty.
And the whole stack, but maybe especially the top, is "powered by" Emergence.
So, you are saying that Mutation (emergence of creativity and novelity) and Selection (culling/discontinuing some of that variation while other variation continues) are all aspects of the inbetween step, the step of Emergence between emergence systems (or ghosts, as you called them).
Quotemaybe it's because you're biologist, in my studies of Machine Learning I found that different sciences have very different ways of thinking (maybe especially biologists vs computer scientists :-P), but when simulating evolutionary algorithms on the computer, the bio/chemical level is (of course/usually) skipped and the mutation/selection level is just a question of a few lines of code.
viewed in that way, the mutation/selection thing is just yet another gear, yet another step to facilitate Emergence happening. and in computers, we can skip the lower level steps, but still you cannot force Emergence, all you can do is to create circumstances upon which it will act. (though of course the same circumstances will produce the same results, but it is trial and error a lot of it).
Yes, a computer is somewhat simpler in that respect. It can produce novelity from a combination of on and off switches on a silicon surface. However, it can't self activate. Biochemistry provides for self activation and teleos. But yes, I agree you can't force Emergence (as Emergence is creativity and you can't force creativity), you can only provide conditions from which it can act. In many cases, these conditions are simply placing many similar bits together in close proximity and constant interaction. These really are the only requirements of basic emergence systems. A) close proximity (as close as needed) B)of similar bits (units, parts, whatever; they need to be similar to facilitate C) Constant interaction. If these things aren't satisfied, Emergence can't work. If the parts are too far apart, they can't interact with each other, and if they are too dissimilar, the interactions won't fall into any ordered network. And if the interactions won't happen at all, then how can Emergence work? You look at some things, and there seems to be no real emergence system that can come out of it (like inert gases, for example) but then you talk about water, a dipolar molecule that forms weak hydrogen bonds all over the place, and you get fluid dynamics and surface tension and all sorts of emergent properties.
QuoteI dunno if this helps explain anything, Kai :)
I understood it a helluva lot better than I did last night. Thanks :)
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 21, 2009, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. LMNO knows what he's talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics. He's covered many topics including the double slit experiment in this forum. All you have to do is use the search engine.
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing my ability to find it since I don't know exactly what I'm looking for.
USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION AVAILABLE IN THIS VERY FORUM, AT THE TOP-RIGHT OF EVERY PAGE, THIS ONE INCLUDED.
I was saying that I did, but that out of all the responses returned, none of them seemed relevant and I gave up after looking at a dozen or so results. For example "lmno double slit" returns only this post.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 10:00:20 PM
Quote
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
Quote
If we take our ancestors, as the original poster did, as a barometer of what we should consider "valid choices" then please explain to me how the reference to the amount of genetic material we share is an irrelevant point. Putting aside my mistake with ancestry/cousins - the DNA is the agent of replication, not the host.
1) why should we take from our ancestors "valid choices"?
I don't think we should. It was the person I was responding to who claimed that. Same way that an individual should feel no obligation to serve societies wishes, a person should feel no obligation to serve the "wishes" of their DNA.
My thrust was more memetic than genetic: People used to do X, and they got away with it. You're biologically equipped similarly to them, so you might get away with it, too. Nobody can compel you to take good advice, or to tell good advice from bad. I was suggesting the keeping of tradition (in so many words) as a way to survive. It's everyone's choice as to whether or not they want to survive that way.
So.. not forgetting how to talk once you've learned how to shout? Or walk once you learn how to run? I'd go one step further and suggest that if our predecessors had failed in that message then we wouldn't be here to debate whether they had.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 10:00:20 PM
Quote
Quote from: Kai on July 21, 2009, 07:46:45 PM
2) Its not irrelevant. You just shouldn't talk about it because the sort of shit you were saying is why people are damn confused in the first place, and its honestly up to biologists (like me) and other scientists (like Thurnez the paleontologist) to try to sort the public out. Hearing the "we came from chimpanzees" line for the 1000 time just about boils my gray matter. So please, just don't talk about it. Read, learn, don't talk till you actually know what you are talking about.
How do I know when I actually know what I'm talking about? I'm not trying to play word games because, the chimpanzee slip aside, I think I do know what I'm talking about. Or rather - I'm not a biologist, and I don't know nearly as much as you about the details and how those details impact the whole, but I think I know pretty much as much I'm going to need to know.
Well, maybe you've been playing them with yourself so long that you have to try to not play word games.
It's entirely possible. For the last five years I have been devoid of almost any form of external intellectual interaction. Not having anyone call you on your bullshit is not as pleasant as it sounds, and coming face-to-face with my delusions is somewhat blissful.
Quote from: yhnmzw on July 21, 2009, 10:00:20 PM
I noticed many very close by usages of the word "model" in the same, shortish paragraph. I hypothesize that you're experiencing things (possibly weird or annoying to yourself), that you could talk about at much greater length. Otherwise, it looks increasingly like you're just a schmuck with some pet phrases.
Well put it this way. I think a lot of the shit-flinging in my direction is a natural/predictable response to my braindead introduction thread and my asinine tone as my ego became increasingly invested in not backing down. I'm still vulnerable to that, which is why I changed my signature to remind me.
But I also think I've learned enough in the last week, such that I could pull a 'sheered volva', and come back in a new guise and seek humble goals of interaction with my reputation a clean slate. However, I think that would be doing us all a disservice - I didn't earn this new sense of humility, it's a gift the community has given to me and I'm not going to just throw that away.
To be honest, you're taking it quite well. I might regret saying this, but stick around for a while.
Also, the thread you may be looking for could be this one: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21476.0
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 22, 2009, 04:11:36 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 22, 2009, 04:09:39 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 03:42:49 AM
Selection makes more sense to me as promotion, rather than subtraction. It doesn't destroy variation in the same sense that Emergence creates it.
Actually, yes, it exactly does. Selection refers to the unsuccessful variations dying off.
YOU DARE QUESTION HIS SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE!!
HIS WRATH.... WHAT ABOUT HIS WRATH?
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
Surely, you mean orange or Orangina?
Well, I'd say Discord is the original given definition: "lack of concord or harmony between persons or things"
While Discordia is the Roman name of Eris, and/or the standard realm of action in which Discordianism takes place.
Emergence is a concept that Kai really digs, and can explain best himself.
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
Well, if we tack from "Creative Disorder/Creative Order" Emergence might fit.
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think I'm just flat out confused.
It seems to be stemming from an incomplete understanding of Emergence, I'm guessing.
I can see the metaphor of how environmental "discord" can prompt evolutionary changes, but I'm not making the jump to Emergence.
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think I'm just flat out confused.
What I wrote makes perfect sense to me, but it's more likely that I'm confused since I can't remember a time when I wasn't.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think I'm just flat out confused.
What I wrote makes perfect sense to me, but it's more likely that I'm confused since I can't remember a time when I wasn't.
No, I think I'm just out of map-making spoons for the moment. I'll get back to you this evening.
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 08:02:13 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think I'm just flat out confused.
What I wrote makes perfect sense to me, but it's more likely that I'm confused since I can't remember a time when I wasn't.
No, I think I'm just out of map-making spoons for the moment. I'll get back to you this evening.
But Kai...
THERE IS NO SPOON!
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 22, 2009, 08:03:48 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 08:02:13 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think I'm just flat out confused.
What I wrote makes perfect sense to me, but it's more likely that I'm confused since I can't remember a time when I wasn't.
No, I think I'm just out of map-making spoons for the moment. I'll get back to you this evening.
But Kai...
THERE IS NO SPOON!
shhh....trying to make a point about defining your terms and not assuming your audience just automatically knows what you're talking about ;)
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 08:05:25 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 22, 2009, 08:03:48 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 08:02:13 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:55:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think I'm just flat out confused.
What I wrote makes perfect sense to me, but it's more likely that I'm confused since I can't remember a time when I wasn't.
No, I think I'm just out of map-making spoons for the moment. I'll get back to you this evening.
But Kai...
THERE IS NO SPOON!
shhh....trying to make a point about defining your terms and not assuming your audience just automatically knows what you're talking about ;)
Ah - sorry - too subtle for me :-)
Emergence:Quoteas a phenomenon, can be summed up by the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". In other words, when you have close knit systems of similar bits and pieces in interaction with each other, there is a certain level of interaction that yields higher structure and properties than that of the individual parts.
Discord:Quote"lack of concord or harmony between persons or things"
The definition of discord does not state that there is total and absolute disharmony "?", but states only that absolute harmony/concord/stasis "!" is not present. Discordia itself seems to delight from what you can create when you play in between those two (absolute/non-existent?) states, and eschews stasis. It can be applied to any domain, but is usually taken to refer to our physical universe.
The definition of emergence implies, but does not require, a linear timeline and can be applied to multiple domains. It assumes that there is not absolute harmony "!", nor absolute disharmony "?", as it loses all meaning at those singularities. It does not, and can not, predict the outcome of the interactions, but neither does it care to, because it is in of itself comprised of the interplay between "!" and "?".
I think I love emergence, I just don't understand it. Or rather, I think it may be possible to gain an understanding of its individual components (if they are "!" and "?"), but that says nothing about being able to automatically gain insight into its interactions.
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 22, 2009, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 22, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Apologies for the newbie question, but what is the difference between Discord and Emergence? Or is it an apples/oranges thing?
Discord, or Discordia?
This. Also, I don't see how one could confuse Emergence and Discord, or Emergence and Discordia.
In the sense that a lack of concord or harmony between different persons or things could be determined as the state which allows those persons or things to express their creative individuality.
Or am I mixing domains?
I think you are. Emergence, while compatible with Discordianism, is a separate philosophical/religious idea. Kai is working it out into a more religious direction, and we found out that some people on this forum have very similar thoughts about the origin of complexity (creation), but it's not really related to Discordianism ... yet.
I mean, we can probably draw all sorts of parallels and work them into eachother, but as we haven't got a very fine grasp on Emergence (it's quite mind boggling IMO), I don't really feel the need to go there yet :)
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
That thing you do, where you hotlink a word in your post so that in order to pick up context or a joke one have to break one's chain of thought and tediously follow an external link, which 99% of the time turns out to be either stupid or pure laziness on your part for not including the context in your post... where did you pick up that odious habit?
I wish I were the professor of PD.com so I could flunk you for doing it.
I don't mind the hotlinking (http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html), but it bothers me when people pick (http://www.internationalschooltoulouse.net/y8/term3/arch/student_quiz/quizpaulandnacho/pickaxe.jpg) apart metaphors (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/15900.html) and then take one bit literally (http://www.literalonline.com/images/literal1.gif), merely to try to "prove" the metaphor doesn't apply to them (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/).
Then the argument turns to the metaphor, and not the meaning behind it.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
That thing you do, where you hotlink a word in your post so that in order to pick up context or a joke one have to break one's chain of thought and tediously follow an external link, which 99% of the time turns out to be either stupid or pure laziness on your part for not including the context in your post... where did you pick up that odious habit?
I wish I were the professor of PD.com so I could flunk you for doing it.
All I was saying above is that I find one particular model useful as it seems to quite accurately categorise two methods of evaluation. I linked to that model because the terminology is not going to make much sense if are unfamiliar with it in that context. I think the model is useful because it basically says "you're both right, but in different ways, and towards slightly different types of problem"
I'm not sure how this is odious. Would you flunk wikipedia, and tvtropes too, and the rest of the internet?
To break it down:
NotARealFurby's post was a metaphor using "map" as a poetic term.
You decided to ignore the metaphor, and discuss radial vs cartesian mapping systems.
You then linked to an essay that used the two kinds of maps in a completely different way metaphorically.
Nigel (Lord Om Fuck) got annoyed.
The end.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 24, 2009, 01:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
That thing you do, where you hotlink a word in your post so that in order to pick up context or a joke one have to break one's chain of thought and tediously follow an external link, which 99% of the time turns out to be either stupid or pure laziness on your part for not including the context in your post... where did you pick up that odious habit?
I wish I were the professor of PD.com so I could flunk you for doing it.
All I was saying above is that I find one particular model useful as it seems to quite accurately categorise two methods of evaluation. I linked to that model because the terminology is not going to make much sense if are unfamiliar with it in that context. I think the model is useful because it basically says "you're both right, but in different ways, and towards slightly different types of problem"
I'm not sure how this is odious. Would you flunk wikipedia, and tvtropes too, and the rest of the internet?
This is, theoretically, a conversation, not research hour at the library. Write clearly, explain yourself as you go, and AS WITH AN ESSAY, the correct way to annotate your references is to footnote them within your post and cite your source. Linking WITHIN YOUR FOOTNOTE is an acceptable way to cite your source. Hotlinking a word to its definition (especially a borderline irrelevant one) is NOT an effective way to communicate. It requires your reader to essentially stop and do external research in the middle of reading your post, in order to make up for your inability to provide adequate context within your post. That is a failure on your part.
However, some of the rest of us don't mind as much.
I want to find the origin of the new habit of hotlinking words within posts in order to provide context for the post, and burn it down. I will fucking quit the internet if this bullshit becomes prevalent. It's half-assed, it's lazy, it's a hindrance to communication, and whenever I see a hotlinked word in the middle of a sentence that does not itself provide adequate context for the hotlink, I think "FUCK YOU" and I see no reason to continue conversation with the kind of intellectually underdeveloped lazy communicator who employs such a mentally slothful cop-out to actually explaining their point literately.
Oh, lighten up (http://msp153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg).
Plus, almost every time the hotlink leads to something that is either largely irrelevant, attempts to redefine terms being used in a way that defies general consensus, or that the poster thinks is fucking FUNNY and isn't relevant to the post in any meaningful way, thereby completely wasting my fucking time and causing me to write them off as an asshole and not bother with anything else they post.
At least when reference links are left unmasked, I can look at the URL and decide whether I want to waste my time on it.
Quote from: LMNO on July 24, 2009, 06:23:45 PM
Oh, lighten up (http://msp153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg).
No, you. (http://rockandrollreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/flipping-the-bird.jpg)
Hi everyone (http://www.aww-kittah-aww.com/up/files/794/hairisabird.jpg)
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 06:21:02 PM
I want to find the origin of the new habit of hotlinking words within posts in order to provide context for the post, and burn it down. I will fucking quit the internet if this bullshit becomes prevalent. It's half-assed, it's lazy, it's a hindrance to communication, and whenever I see a hotlinked word in the middle of a sentence that does not itself provide adequate context for the hotlink, I think "FUCK YOU" and I see no reason to continue conversation with the kind of intellectually underdeveloped lazy communicator who employs such a mentally slothful cop-out to actually explaining their point literately.
i blame TV tropes for the habit, they probably didn't start it but their entire site is based on hotlink trolling their readers, because every fucking definition is made up using other hot-linked words leading to definitions made up of hot-linked words :argh!: if their dam site wasn't interesting as hell it would need to be burned to the ground
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 24, 2009, 01:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
That thing you do, where you hotlink a word in your post so that in order to pick up context or a joke one have to break one's chain of thought and tediously follow an external link, which 99% of the time turns out to be either stupid or pure laziness on your part for not including the context in your post... where did you pick up that odious habit?
I wish I were the professor of PD.com so I could flunk you for doing it.
All I was saying above is that I find one particular model useful as it seems to quite accurately categorise two methods of evaluation. I linked to that model because the terminology is not going to make much sense if are unfamiliar with it in that context. I think the model is useful because it basically says "you're both right, but in different ways, and towards slightly different types of problem"
I'm not sure how this is odious. Would you flunk wikipedia, and tvtropes too, and the rest of the internet?
All I'm saying here is that a forum post (http://smouch.net/lol/) is not a reference site (http://smouch.net/lol/) and shouldn't be full of hotlinks to help the author explain something they're too lazy to spell out concisely.
If I had t
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 24, 2009, 01:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
That thing you do, where you hotlink a word in your post so that in order to pick up context or a joke one have to break one's chain of thought and tediously follow an external link, which 99% of the time turns out to be either stupid or pure laziness on your part for not including the context in your post... where did you pick up that odious habit?
I wish I were the professor of PD.com so I could flunk you for doing it.
All I was saying above is that I find one particular model useful as it seems to quite accurately categorise two methods of evaluation. I linked to that model because the terminology is not going to make much sense if are unfamiliar with it in that context. I think the model is useful because it basically says "you're both right, but in different ways, and towards slightly different types of problem"
I'm not sure how this is odious. Would you flunk wikipedia, and tvtropes too, and the rest of the internet?
This is, theoretically, a conversation, not research hour at the library. Write clearly, explain yourself as you go, and AS WITH AN ESSAY, the correct way to annotate your references is to footnote them within your post and cite your source. Linking WITHIN YOUR FOOTNOTE is an acceptable way to cite your source. Hotlinking a word to its definition (especially a borderline irrelevant one) is NOT an effective way to communicate. It requires your reader to essentially stop and do external research in the middle of reading your post, in order to make up for your inability to provide adequate context within your post. That is a failure on your part.
Dude. It was two sentences. Each small enough to fit on the same line. The hot-linked word was the fourth word.
That this utterly destroyed your concentration was a failure on my part?
Explain how the definition was (in any way) irrelevant when that was the original source for me picking up the definition that I was using.
You don't always need a map to get somewhere useful, sometimes you can just point to the nearest hill and say "let's take another look from there". Doesn't matter if it's a local maxima as long as you don't say on your little hill forever.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 06:34:56 PM
On second thought, if it becomes popular convention it will be a great opportunity to bring back goatse.
You know, I've managed to never see goatse. For a while I thought I was just incredibly fortunate, but now I just kind of assume that it can't be all that bad.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 24, 2009, 06:54:53 PM
Dude. It was two sentences. Each small enough to fit on the same line. The hot-linked word was the fourth word.
That this utterly destroyed your concentration was a failure on my part?
Explain how the definition was (in any way) irrelevant when that was the original source for me picking up the definition that I was using.
You don't always need a map to get somewhere useful, sometimes you can just point to the nearest hill and say "let's take another look from there". Doesn't matter if it's a local maxima as long as you don't say on your little hill forever.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 06:34:56 PM
On second thought, if it becomes popular convention it will be a great opportunity to bring back goatse.
You know, I've managed to never see goatse. For a while I thought I was just incredibly fortunate, but now I just kind of assume that it can't be all that bad.
It didn't "destroy my concentration", you utter retard (http://web.archive.org/web/20030623201150/http://goatse.cx/).
It wasted my time. The fact that you hotlinked to make your point in a post so short it wasn't even worth reading just makes it even more stupid and lazy.
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/standards.png)
what the fnord (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/WhatTheFnord) is going on here...
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 24, 2009, 01:51:42 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 24, 2009, 07:20:57 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 22, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: NotARealFurby on July 22, 2009, 10:39:23 PM
Quote from: Blacksaber on July 22, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
It bothers me when people make unequivocal statements about easily-verifiable things without first doing any research to make sure they are actually right.
i think the little geotia's point was
if you dont know where you are on the map,
you dont know where to start
Speaking from a radial (http://many.corante.com/archives/2005/03/09/one_world_two_maps_thoughts_on_the_wikipedia_debate.php) perspective, I disagree completely. But I'm not married to that perspective, it's just a useful model.
That thing you do, where you hotlink a word in your post so that in order to pick up context or a joke one have to break one's chain of thought and tediously follow an external link, which 99% of the time turns out to be either stupid or pure laziness on your part for not including the context in your post... where did you pick up that odious habit?
I wish I were the professor of PD.com so I could flunk you for doing it.
All I was saying above is that I find one particular model useful as it seems to quite accurately categorise two methods of evaluation. I linked to that model because the terminology is not going to make much sense if are unfamiliar with it in that context. I think the model is useful because it basically says "you're both right, but in different ways, and towards slightly different types of problem"
I'm not sure how this is odious. Would you flunk wikipedia, and tvtropes too, and the rest of the internet?
All I'm saying here is that a forum post (http://smouch.net/lol/) is not a reference site (http://smouch.net/lol/) and shouldn't be full of hotlinks to help the author explain something they're too lazy to spell out concisely.
Yeah! Fucking motorcycle! Lo5 in yo FACE!
I just want to say, Nigel, that the above links are probably the best rickroll scheme I have ever seen.
Got stuck there for nearly 5 minutes, laughing the whole time, finally did a force kill. :lulz:
Ah, so that's what it was! I never click links without taking at least a cursory look at the url.. noticing that they were both the same, I figured it was a trick and didn't bother - a bit lazy - but since such things tend to bring down my X Server and lose me hours of work, I'm glad I avoided it.
if you risk hours of work cause clicking a link might bring down your XServer, you might want to do your important work in a bit more stable environment, or keep "fun" things such as this forum outside that fragile environment. just saying, because some day there will be a link you click without thinking. and no matter how convient this XServer setup you have going is now, I bet it doesnt match up to a very real chance of losing hours of work.
Quote from: Kai on July 25, 2009, 03:23:59 PM
finally did a force kill. :lulz:
at the end of the song it closes itself :fnord:
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 06:57:07 PM
if you risk hours of work cause clicking a link might bring down your XServer, you might want to do your important work in a bit more stable environment, or keep "fun" things such as this forum outside that fragile environment. just saying, because some day there will be a link you click without thinking. and no matter how convient this XServer setup you have going is now, I bet it doesnt match up to a very real chance of losing hours of work.
I get what you're saying. Thing is, I'm stuck for now with an ATI card in a dual-head configuration (I can't go back to single-screen), and I have a work-related need for 3d acceleration. I'll have two konsoles up on each window with about 10 tabs, most with 'unlimited' history, all with various command histories and references. So it's not like actual data gets lost, but rather things like remembering out how I performed a various series of commands last month takes time when I can't just search and find it in context. That said, X has been a lot more stable for me with the latest kernels with the open radeon driver - I haven't crashed in a few months, but I'm still a bit wary.
ah I see. what kind of work do you do that requires 3D acceleration cards?
also, if you find yourself doing "arrow-up" a lot to go through your history, it means you ought to write yourself some bash (or python or perl) scripts. i know it's a bit of a drag to do (especially if you're like me and you spend way too much time on making them all generic and shit), but once you got them, it's totally worth it. also once you got a few, most new scripts will just be variations on the old ones, so it really pays off.
and when I finally move into my new house, I'm SO gonna get myself a dual screen, hell yeah
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 08:49:41 PM
ah I see. what kind of work do you do that requires 3D acceleration cards?
Gov. contract R&D. Can't be more specific, and the topics change frequently and unpredictably. More and more software requires 3D acceleration now - a few years ago having 3d acceleration was a frivolity, now I couldn't do without it!
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 25, 2009, 08:49:41 PM
also, if you find yourself doing "arrow-up" a lot to go through your history, it means you ought to write yourself some bash (or python or perl) scripts. i know it's a bit of a drag to do (especially if you're like me and you spend way too much time on making them all generic and shit), but once you got them, it's totally worth it. also once you got a few, most new scripts will just be variations on the old ones, so it really pays off.
and when I finally move into my new house, I'm SO gonna get myself a dual screen, hell yeah
I've been too lazy to do the proper scripting for a while now, or maybe I just know that I've got genericitus too so I avoid it. Not sure which is truthier, but it doesn't matter as konsole has handy search functions. Anyway, mostly it's just the results of a command that ran a few weeks ago that I'm unexpectedly interested in. Crashes used to be worse before I installed session manager on firefox e.g. I have 7 windows and >100 reference tabs open - losing that workflow was a pain.
You haven't coded until you have an entire screen to code in, and an entire screen as reference/api/etc. I tried triple-screen for a while, but I prefer two, and couldn't go back to one. Actually, when I code in java, I like to use eclipse over two screens, so I guess I could use a third for reference.. but anyway.. yeah - can't recommend two screens enough.
I abhor Java, but it works for other subjects too :)
can't you be any more specific? I used to be demoscene (up until 2000, just before 3D accell really hit off) and did my masters (unfinished as yet) in computational science & visualisation, so I wonder. It's only partly true that "more and more software requries 3D accell", only software on particular subjects that already have to do with 3D graphics.
and I assume you're not coding games for the government, or screensavers, nor does your work absolutely require you to run Beryl window manager or other fancy 3D stuff :)
is your employer really that tight you can't say anything about it? like, back when I was doing my final masters thesis I was researching Learning Vector Quantization, a machine learning technique first developed by Kohonen (ALL HAIL KOHONEN). now you go.
Well in the last year, and in no particular order, I've had contractual requirements for 3d acceleration involving: OpenModelica, UT2004, Emergent, Blender, Google Earth, and a bunch of others. Since 3d visualisation is getting easier to support, the requirement for acceleration keeps cropping up in unexpected places.
ok, I still have no idea what you actually do, but it sounds like you have a pretty cool job.
Quote from: Kai on July 25, 2009, 03:23:59 PM
I just want to say, Nigel, that the above links are probably the best rickroll scheme I have ever seen.
Got stuck there for nearly 5 minutes, laughing the whole time, finally did a force kill. :lulz:
I should warn you now that I am spending the rest of my time here attempting to goatse fictionpuss.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 26, 2009, 12:31:53 AM
I should warn you now that I am spending the rest of my time here attempting to goatse fictionpuss.
Sigh. What did I do to get onto your shit list? Sorry for whatever that was! How about I save everybody some time and effort and just click upon your previous attempt which had goatse.cx in the URL..
..oh. Is that it? Yup - I've seen that around. For some reason I was expecting something much much worse.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 26, 2009, 12:59:35 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 26, 2009, 12:31:53 AM
I should warn you now that I am spending the rest of my time here attempting to goatse fictionpuss.
Sigh. What did I do to get onto your shit list? Sorry for whatever that was! How about I save everybody some time and effort and just click upon your previous attempt which had goatse.cx in the URL..
..oh. Is that it? Yup - I've seen that around. For some reason I was expecting something much much worse.
You're not on it. If you were on it, you'd know.
im still waiting for the five paragraphs with thesis and conclusion
Quote from: έχουν νόημα on July 26, 2009, 08:53:14 AM
im still waiting for the five paragraphs with thesis and conclusion
Really? Sorry - I assumed that was sarcasm since the OP could be stretched to fit that description. Which parts of the OP are not clear or self-explanatory as-is?
Quote from: έχουν νόημα on July 26, 2009, 08:53:14 AM
im still waiting for the five paragraphs with thesis and conclusion
:lulz:
fictionpuss, it's an injoke. You had to be there.
Quote from: Kai on July 26, 2009, 02:14:21 PM
fictionpuss, it's an injoke. You had to be there.
Ah, well this isn't the first principles thread, so I guess I'll let it pass ;-)
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 26, 2009, 12:31:53 AM
I should warn you now that I am spending the rest of my time here attempting to goatse fictionpuss.
For clarity, you should restate the question or prompt in your response. For example:
The purpose and goal of all my mindfucks will be to goatse fictionpuss.
Quote from: Cainad on July 26, 2009, 06:06:25 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 26, 2009, 12:31:53 AM
I should warn you now that I am spending the rest of my time here attempting to goatse fictionpuss.
For clarity, you should restate the question or prompt in your response. For example:
The purpose and goal of all my mindfucks will be to goatse fictionpuss.
You know, the forum works surprisingly well using w3m.
Quote from: fictionpuss on July 26, 2009, 02:51:45 PM
so I guess I'll let it pass ;-)
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4993/fileasb.jpg) (http://img199.imageshack.us/i/fileasb.jpg/)
Quote from: Cainad on July 26, 2009, 06:06:25 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on July 26, 2009, 12:31:53 AM
I should warn you now that I am spending the rest of my time here attempting to goatse fictionpuss.
For clarity, you should restate the question or prompt in your response. For example:
The purpose and goal of all my mindfucks will be to goatse fictionpuss.
Yes, this.
Quote from: Able on July 26, 2009, 08:53:14 AM
im still waiting for the five paragraphs with thesis and conclusion