All Circular Reasoning is Linear

[TimeSeeker]

The topic has abso fucking lutely nothing to do with objective morality.

The fact that you can't recognise the assertion 'better' and 'worse' as a subjective value judgment is just your ignorance of decision theory.

You can't make ANY decisions without a system of values. This is the thought experiment of Burridan's ass. And so yes - when you assert that something is 'right' or 'wrong' all I am hearing from you is "I don't like it!". Which is, of course your prerogative - but I don't really have to give a shit about your likes and dislikes anymore than you have to give a shit about mine. Which is - information theory

So yes. It has abso-fucking-lutely everything to do with morality (subjective values).

And I'm not just saying that Eastern philosophy is different.

And I wasn't appealing to Completeness.

And I don't reject all models as equally incomplete, that would make zero sense.

And I'm placing concreteness into the conrete and abstractness into the abstract.

That's 0/5, anythin else you want to pull out of your ass?

So then where do YOU put concreteness ? Mr "I don't commit the reiffication fallacy"?

[Atla]

The fact that you can't recognise the assertion 'better' and 'worse' as a subjective value judgment is just your ignorance of decision theory.

You can't make ANY decisions without a system of values. This is the thought experiment of Burridan's ass. And so yes - when you assert that something is 'right' or 'wrong' all I am hearing from you is "I don't like it!". Which is, of course your prerogative - but I don't really have to give a shit about your likes and dislikes anymore than you have to give a shit about mine. Which is - information theory

So yes. It has abso-fucking-lutely everything to do with morality (subjective values).

Morality is one form of value judgement that is almost completely irrelevant here. Way off topic.
You don't understand what morality means? Are you amoral too? (I suspect you are, but just asking.)

So then where do YOU put concreteness ? Mr "I don't commit the reiffication fallacy"?

I explained that about 30 times. But you don't seem to understand the difference between the abstract and the concrete. Or maybe you don't want to understand it.

[TimeSeeker]

Morality is one form of value judgement that is almost completely irrelevant here. Way off topic.
You don't understand what morality means? Are you amoral too? (I suspect you are, but just asking.)

Are you triggered by the word morality, and do you object to me equating morality with subjective value judgments Mr I-don-t'think-in-English?
OK I promise I won't use the word "morality", so that you can focus on the issue at hand.

"Better" or "worse" are still subjective value judgments. I can just disagree with your assertion that my model is 'worse' than Eastern philosophy. Because it is just your opinion.

Until you provide some criteria for 'better' and 'worse' that we can BOTH agree to.

I explained that about 30 times. But you don't seem to understand the difference between the abstract and the concrete. Or maybe you don't want to understand it.

What are you on about. I understand and recognize the CONCEPTUAL difference that you are pointing out. I evaluated it - i didn't find it to be a useful tool in MY mental model of the world, so I just discarded it and kept "information". I made a CHOICE.

What I am asking now is where YOU (the individual talking to me) place concreteness so that YOU aren't guilty of the reification fallacy?

[Atla]

Are you triggered by the word morality, and do you object to me equating morality with subjective value judgments Mr I-don-t'think-in-English?
OK I promise I won't use the word "morality", so that you can focus on the issue at hand.

"Better" or "worse" are still subjective value judgments. I can just disagree with your assertion that my model is 'worse' than Eastern philosophy. Because it is just your opinion.

Until you provide some criteria for 'better' and 'worse' that we can BOTH agree to.

I don't care what you agree to. But equating morality with subjective value judgments is insane. morality is one form of subjective value judgments.

The criteria is obvious and was stated 30 times. Using the Reification fallacy, we get descritpions of the world that are highly inaccerate, or simply not true.

What are you on about. I understand and recognize the CONCEPTUAL difference that you are pointing out. I evaluated it - i didn't find it to be a useful tool in MY mental model of the world, so I just discarded it and kept "information". I made a CHOICE.

What I am asking now is where YOU (the individual talking to me) place concreteness so that YOU aren't guilty of the reification fallacy?

I have seen no sign that you actually understand and recognize the conceptual difference. You are still lying.

Otherwise you would understand that I don't really have to make choices about placing concreteness.

[TimeSeeker]

The criteria is obvious and was stated 30 times. Using the Reification fallacy, we get descritpions of the world that are highly inaccerate, or simply not true.

And I pointed a 100 times that this is the fallacy of gray. Some descriptions are more inaccurate, some descriptions are less inaccurate than others.

I do believe in objective morality (yes!) and so I do believe there is a way to make such decisions as to which description is bad and which description is less bad.

Flat earth vs round earth. If you think both of them are equally "highly inaccurate" - then your perspective is even worse than that of a flat-earther.

I have seen no sign that you actually understand and recognize the conceptual difference. You are still lying.

Otherwise you would understand that I don't really have to make choices about placing concreteness.

So if you don't place concreteness - would that be the same as saying that everything is conceptual?

[Atla]

And I pointed a 100 times that this is the fallacy of gray. Some descriptions are more inaccurate, some descriptions are less inaccurate than others.

There is no fallacy of grey. Your description is pretty inaccurate and sometimes downright wrong, so it's not particularly good for philosophy.

I do believe in objective morality (yes!) and so I do believe there is a way to make such decisions as to which description is bad and which description is less bad.

Flat earth vs round earth.

You don't seem to understand what morality is. No surprise there.

So if you don't place concreteness - would that be the same as saying that everything is conceptual?

I guess either everything is conceptual and the world doesn't exist, or nothing is conceptual an the mind doesn't exist. Or they both exist, but there is no abstraction and there is no abstract thinking. All of these are nonsense.

[TimeSeeker]

There is no fallacy of grey. Your description is pretty inaccurate and sometimes downright wrong, so it's not particularly good for philosophy.

That is an appeal to purity. I am busy doing philosophy and I am SHOWING you the fallacy: Is "flat earth" as incorrect a description as "round earth?

It is a yes/no question. 1 bit of information

You don't seem to understand what morality is. No surprise there.

And yet - you think you do. When you think "flat earth" and "round earth" are equally bad descriptions. I don't think you can say much on 'right' and 'wrong'.

I guess either everything is conceptual and the world doesn't exist, or nothing is conceptual an the mind doesn't exist. Or they both exist, but there is no abstraction and there is no abstract thinking. All of these are nonsense.

They are just systems of thought. Their utility matters

Those who make less bad and more good decisions survive longer. Those who have "true beliefs" and go extinct. Well - shame

P.S entropy may be abstract and it is also deadly.

So does it exist?

[Atla]

That is an appeal to purity. I am busy doing philosophy and I am SHOWING you the fallacy: Is "flat earth" as incorrect a description as "round earth?

It is a yes/no question. 1 bit of information

You throw around names of fallacies but it never makes any sense.
"Flat earth" is incorrect compared to "round earth". And reifying information is also incorrect compared to not reifying it.

And yet - you think you do. When you think "flat earth" and "round earth" are equally bad descriptions. I don't think you can say much on 'right' and 'wrong'.

You are accusing me of not seeing a difference between "flat earth" and "round earth", or "right or wrong".
You are an idiot. At this point you are making less sense than a 3-year-old.

They are just systems of thought. Their utility/correctness matters

Those who make less errors in decision-making - survive longer. Those who have "true beliefs" and go extinct. Well - shame

More lies. Utility doesn't really matter in philosophy.
Also, most people make errors and survive just as long, you too make many errors and are not yet dead. People with "true beliefs", like you with your belief in information, don't go extinct sooner. People who do most things right throughout their lives may live a little longer on average though.

[TimeSeeker]

"Flat earth" is incorrect compared to "round earth". And reifying information is also incorrect compared to not reifying it.

OK. So then how do you reconcile the fact that:
1. Entropy is just an abstraction (e.g it doesn't exist).
2. Therefore one should not reify entropy (because it is incorrect compared to reifying it)
3. Entropy will kill you.

How can an non-reified abstraction kill you?

You are accusing me of not seeing a difference between "flat earth" and "round earth", or "right or wrong".
You are an idiot. At this point you are making less sense than a 3-year-old.

I am accusing you of of drawing pointless distinctions! Like "abstract" and "concrete" when I am pointing out to you a (statistically) deadly abstraction.
What the fuck is more concrete than death for any human?

Also, most people make errors and survive just as long, you too make many errors and are not yet dead. People with "true beliefs", like you with your belief in information, don't go extinct sooner. People who do most things right throughout their lives may live a little longer on average though.

Fatal misunderstanding of ergodic theory! Exactly the same error as "flat earth" vs "round earth". If you make errors (conscious or unconscious) in your choices you are accumulating risk. Entropy takes care of the rest! Which is why somebody who makes conceited effort to make LESS ERRORS survives longer.

At ensamble level somebody who takes less risks is exactly as likely to die as somebody who takes more risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressio ... d_the_mean

Somebody who knows how to MANAGE risk will outlive them both!

You have been fooled by randomness. Entropy. An abstraction.
That is why philosophers have no place near mission-critical systems that deal with applied ethics! You are too stupid not to kill a lot of people through sheer ignorance!

You can start your education here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of ... 7bf41029d3

[Atla]

OK. So then how do you reconcile the fact that:
1. Entropy is just an abstraction (e.g it doesn't exist).
2. Therefore one should not reify entropy
3. Entropy will kill you.

How can an abstraction kill you?

I already explained. You are mixing together the entropy of information with the arrow of time, which are two different things. You cling to your refuted nonsense.
Besides humanity will be long gone before the arrow of time would kill us.

I am accusing you of of drawing pointless distinctions! Like "abstract" and "concrete" when I am pointing out to you a deadly abstraction to you.
What the fuck is more concrete than death for any human?

It's a very important distinction, which you failed to make to arrive at your wrong conclusion.
You are playing the concerned saint who will save humanity in 10+ billion years from now. But you are no saint, you are just an amoral little sack of shit who needs attention.

Fatal misunderstanding of ergodic theory! Exactly the same error as "flat earth" vs "round earth". If you make errors (conscious or unconscious) in your choices you are accumulating risk. Entropy takes care of the rest! Which is why somebody who makes conceited effort to make LESS ERRORS survives longer.

At ensamble level somebody who takes less risks is exactly as likely to die as somebody who takes more risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressio ... d_the_mean

Somebody who knows how to MANAGE risk will outlive them both!

You have been fooled by randomness. Entropy. An abstraction.
That is why philosophers have no place near mission-critical systems that deal with applied ethics!

You can start your education here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of ... 7bf41029d3

Complete pseudointellectual bullshit. You are basically saying that the arrow of time also works as some kind of supernatural karma system, where risk points are calculated. And then Mr. Entropy, the Bad Guy, comes and takes care of you when you have too many bad points.

This is really turning into a religion now

[TimeSeeker]

OK. So then how do you reconcile the fact that:
1. Entropy is just an abstraction (e.g it doesn't exist).
2. Therefore one should not reify entropy
3. Entropy will kill you.

How can an abstraction kill you?

I already explained. You are mixing together the entropy of information with the arrow of time, which are two different things. You cling to your refuted nonsense.
Besides humanity will be long gone before the arrow of time would kill us.

I am accusing you of of drawing pointless distinctions! Like "abstract" and "concrete" when I am pointing out to you a deadly abstraction to you.
What the fuck is more concrete than death for any human?

It's a very important distinction, which you failed to make to arrive at your wrong conclusion.
You are playing the concerned saint who will save humanity in 10+ billion years from now. But you are no saint, you are just an amoral little sack of shit who needs attention.

Fatal misunderstanding of ergodic theory! Exactly the same error as "flat earth" vs "round earth". If you make errors (conscious or unconscious) in your choices you are accumulating risk. Entropy takes care of the rest! Which is why somebody who makes conceited effort to make LESS ERRORS survives longer.

At ensamble level somebody who takes less risks is exactly as likely to die as somebody who takes more risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressio ... d_the_mean

Somebody who knows how to MANAGE risk will outlive them both!

You have been fooled by randomness. Entropy. An abstraction.
That is why philosophers have no place near mission-critical systems that deal with applied ethics!

You can start your education here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of ... 7bf41029d3

Complete pseudointellectual bullshit. You are basically saying that the arrow of time also works as some kind of supernatural karma system, where risk points are calculated. And then Mr. Entropy, the Bad Guy, comes and takes care of you when you have too many bad points.

This is really turning into a religion now

Yep. You are an IYI. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game

Now I can honour that ignore

Good luck (not that you understand probability theory and entropy - so you probably don't care). But you ARE going to need it.

Rationality is risk management. All other definitions are masturbatory.
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-ra ... 2e96dd4d1a

[Atla]

OK. So then how do you reconcile the fact that:
1. Entropy is just an abstraction (e.g it doesn't exist).
2. Therefore one should not reify entropy
3. Entropy will kill you.

How can an abstraction kill you?

I already explained. You are mixing together the entropy of information with the arrow of time, which are two different things. You cling to your refuted nonsense.
Besides humanity will be long gone before the arrow of time would kill us.

I am accusing you of of drawing pointless distinctions! Like "abstract" and "concrete" when I am pointing out to you a deadly abstraction to you.
What the fuck is more concrete than death for any human?

It's a very important distinction, which you failed to make to arrive at your wrong conclusion.
You are playing the concerned saint who will save humanity in 10+ billion years from now. But you are no saint, you are just an amoral little sack of shit who needs attention.

Fatal misunderstanding of ergodic theory! Exactly the same error as "flat earth" vs "round earth". If you make errors (conscious or unconscious) in your choices you are accumulating risk. Entropy takes care of the rest! Which is why somebody who makes conceited effort to make LESS ERRORS survives longer.

At ensamble level somebody who takes less risks is exactly as likely to die as somebody who takes more risks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressio ... d_the_mean

Somebody who knows how to MANAGE risk will outlive them both!

You have been fooled by randomness. Entropy. An abstraction.
That is why philosophers have no place near mission-critical systems that deal with applied ethics!

You can start your education here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-logic-of ... 7bf41029d3

Complete pseudointellectual bullshit. You are basically saying that the arrow of time also works as some kind of supernatural karma system, where risk points are calculated. And then Mr. Entropy, the Bad Guy, comes and takes care of you when you have too many bad points.

This is really turning into a religion now

Yep. You are an IYI. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game

Now I can honour that ignore

Good luck (not that you understand probability theory and entropy - so you probably don't care). But you ARE going to need it.

Rationality is risk management. All other definitions are masturbatory.
https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-ra ... 2e96dd4d1a

I use probability theory all the time, and studied computer sciences for years, but thanks.

Yes entropy is the Devil. It has an intention to kill you. Watch out!

Same kind of reasoning that's behind the idea of karma. Yes if you do the right things, make the right choices, most of the time, then usually you'll do better and live a little longer. That doesn't mean that there's a magical system working behind the scenes.

Now let's see if that ignore button breaks a second time too?

[TimeSeeker]

It will break one final time to point out this: Rather than strawmanning me (again) and personifying entropy as something autonomous that is coming for you (boohoo!), what might do you good is to recognize what else entropy measures. Your very own ignorance of the system that you are busy observing. The universe

The less variables you can PREDICT or CONTROL - the more ignorant you are of how a system works (entropic). The more information you have (knowledge!) the less entropic a system becomes (deterministic).

So I guess it is far more polite to say Entropy will kill you, than to say your own stupidity will kill you. But their phenomenology is exactly the same, so you know what I am saying

[Atla]

It will break one final time to point out this: Rather than strawmanning me (again) and personifying entropy as something autonomous that is coming for you (boohoo!), what might do you good is to recognize what else entropy measures. Your very own ignorance of the system that you are busy observing. The universe

The less variables you can PREDICT or CONTROL - the more ignorant you are of how a system works (entropic). The more information you have (knowledge!) the less entropic a system becomes (deterministic).

So I guess it is far more polite to say Entropy will kill you, than to say your own stupidity will kill you. But their phenomenology is exactly the same, so you know what I am saying

Ok so now the arrow of time, entropy of information, and human ignorance, all come together in a magical fashion. And they will kill you. Baad, bad entropy.

Entropy is the Antichrist.

Except most highly ignorant people live about as long, or almost as long, as less ignorant people. Yes, in the end human stupidity will probably finish us off, but that's more to do with too low average IQ. You don't need a religion of information to realize this.

Looks like the button broke again though.. called it.. and it might break again after this one final time too.

[TimeSeeker]

You did call it.

So how come you can’t call the fact that if we don’t get off this planet we will go the way of the dinosaurs?

Irrespective of how much “truth” and “knowledge” we acquire.

Because you are ignorant of ergodic theory.
Entropy - you see

If you can’t put it to practice your knowledge is worth nothing

Starting to think that whoever created a playpen n for herding philosophers (to keep them away from really important stuff) was a genius!