Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by -1- »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 9:31 pm
Atla wrote:He's just making the whole thing up to deceive people, he never formally studied computer sciences. ...
Then he's done a reasonable job as an autodidact.
He doesn't understand the difference between physical and Shannon information, ...
What's physical information?
he doesn't understand what bits are, ...
And by 'bits' you mean? But you'd have to show me where he demonstrates this.
he doesn't understand how computers are built, ...
And again.
he doesn't understand that the human brain/mind isn't a computer. ...
But human brains/minds appear able to do very large computations? Still, it all depends upon what you mean by a 'computer' as the CNS appears to be a massively distributed parallel processor.
He doesn't understand that current computers can't code meaning, ...
How do we 'code' meaning?
he doesn't understand how computer programs actually work, his Python examples are merely tricks that demonstrate nothing. ...
Apart from demonstrating that he knows how computer programs actually work?
just to mention a few
I haven't really been following your posts with him so if you get the time post up the relevant ones that support what you say please.
UK, you keep asking questions, "what is coding?", "human brains compute, don't they?", "what's physical information", etc.

So you lack the necessary academic background in computing to understand what Atla sees. This is no reflection on your abilities, only on your education in computer science.

You ask "what is this and how does Logic demonstrate he does not understand or conceptualize it well". This is a question that you'd best understand if you took an undergrad course in computer science. To be honest, I don't know what Shannon is, and I do have a degree in computer science.

So... your questions are honest, and they seem reasonable, but to answer them requires a much more in-depth knowledge into computing than to show here in a few words written for dilettantes (non-professionals) to describe properly where and how Logic's ignorance shines through.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Arising_uk »

Atla wrote:If you are really interested and sincere which I doubt of course, ...
Do you, why?
then you can read up my "conversations" with him on his Timeseeker account. ...
Not easy, I've tried cross-referencing your posts and his but the search function is not very good. So if you could just give me the titles of a couple of them where you say he has demonstrated what you claim and I'll read through them.
But I was basically just curious to figure out his particular braindamage, it's very rare to see someone with high IQ yet totally incapable of processing logic and meaning/context.
I'd have thought that pretty standard? But I have no idea how you know his IQ nor how you know he is brain-damaged as he seemed pretty coherent to me, philosophically that is.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Atla »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 9:52 pm
Atla wrote:If you are really interested and sincere which I doubt of course, ...
Do you, why?
then you can read up my "conversations" with him on his Timeseeker account. ...
Not easy, I've tried cross-referencing your posts and his but the search function is not very good. So if you could just give me the titles of a couple of them where you say he has demonstrated what you claim and I'll read through them.
But I was basically just curious to figure out his particular braindamage, it's very rare to see someone with high IQ yet totally incapable of processing logic and meaning/context.
I'd have thought that pretty standard? But I have no idea how you know his IQ nor how you know he is brain-damaged as he seemed pretty coherent to me, philosophically that is.
No offense but there is no way you could fully understand my comments, even if I spent a lot of time trying to explain everything. We are just worlds apart in several ways.
As for Timeseeker's information-religion, killer Entropy, computational complexity bullshit and computer brain etc. well you can use the search by typing Timeseeker as keyword and Atla as author or vica versa.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Arising_uk »

-1- wrote:UK, you keep asking questions, "what is coding?", "human brains compute, don't they?", "what's physical information", etc. ...
You appear to not be able to read. I asked how do we code meaning in response to the assertion that we do, I asserted that human brains can compute but I did ask what is meant by 'physical information', can you tell me?
So you lack the necessary academic background in computing to understand what Atla sees. This is no reflection on your abilities, only on your education in computer science. ...
Ah! Well, I better bin that Msc in Foundations of Advanced I.T. and forget all about the years spent working in the computer industry starting from being a mainframe computer operator before PC's were around.
You ask "what is this and how does Logic demonstrate he does not understand or conceptualize it well". This is a question that you'd best understand if you took an undergrad course in computer science. To be honest, I don't know what Shannon is, and I do have a degree in computer science. ...
Bully for you but it doesn't appear to have improved your reading comprehension and you should be slightly ashamed of not knowing 'what Shannon is' if you've done a degree in computer science.
So... your questions are honest, and they seem reasonable, but to answer them requires a much more in-depth knowledge into computing than to show here in a few words written for dilettantes (non-professionals) to describe properly where and how Logic's ignorance shines through.
Well the thing is that my paltry BA(hons) in Philosophy allows me to grade the philosophy bullshitters and Logik is at a pretty good grade compared to many here. "... or at least, if mine prove a castle in the air, I will endeavour it shall be all of a piece and hang together." John Locke. And Logik's Constructivist Logic, Epistemology and Ethics do seem to hang together or are at least consistent with his metaphysic of a finite Digital Universe and in my book that's pretty close to having a Philosophy and being a Philosopher, he just needs to get published now. :)
Last edited by Arising_uk on Thu May 02, 2019 12:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Arising_uk »

Atla wrote:No offense but there is no way you could fully understand my comments, even if I spent a lot of time trying to explain everything. ...
Well in my world that pretty much means you don't understand what you are talking about.
We are just worlds apart in several ways. ...
And you know this how?
As for Timeseeker's information-religion, killer Entropy, computational complexity bullshit and computer brain etc. well you can use the search by typing Timeseeker as keyword and Atla as author or vica versa.
Well I've done what you said and so far it just looks like you can't put up anything like the argument he does for his ideas and often just resort to the good old ad-hominem.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Sounds more like a detox for Philosophy Now, but okay.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8118
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Gary Childress »

Wait, did he follow his own steps, I wonder? No posts from him since the OP. :?
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 7:29 pmMost of what he writes about is concerned with computer science and its relationship to logic, metaphysics, maths and epistemology and by an' large he presents a fairly consistent philosophical position and makes a fair amount of sense with respect to his position on those subjects.
I think that's largely just you projecting all that onto to him, because him and his ilk have grossly molested the english language to a point that most of what he says doesn't have any concise meaning.

Let me just leave this idea, here: Timeseeker was an account Eodnhoj7 made so he could lick his own taint. As I don't have a year-to-year memory, I actually remember this is something that seemed extraordinarily obvious to me, in the beginning, because that's all he would do. As soon as 'TimeSeeker' was created - which was around the time people started to really dog on him - eodnhoj began posting far less, as well.

Anytime logik/timeseeker and john has ever gotten into a supposed 'argument,' it seems very cooked up to me, and reeks fowl of ingenuity. I think he does this to add plausible deniability, to try to give a perception of credibility to what he's saying, and also so he can actually bounce his ideas off someone, even if it's himself.

I don't know, I just don't buy it at all - because I guess I actually know how a real conversation with someone goes? It just doesn't sit right with me, like their discussions are somewhere in this uncanny valley of two cleverbots arguing with each other.
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by -1- »

It is hardest for me to do a comparative study on the activities of Timeseeker, JohnDoe7 and Logik, basically because I put Timeseeker on Iggi, then JohnDoe7, then Logic.

To me Logic and Timeseeker were very close in style and content (good style, good flair, faulty content in the sense that they argued for something, and then they turned around in the same thread and argued against it... Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)

Timeseeker and I had a long and very enjoyable conversation here, but his reversal left a bad taste in the mouth.

JohnDoe is a bit different, inasmuch as he attacks the old and tried and true tenets of logic and tries to prove their wrongness. Logik and Timeseeker did not go that far into dementia. None that I could see, anyhow. In fact, both have never demonstrated the like of the works of JohnDoe7, where JD7 would use his own undefined function symbols to prove his theorems.
Last edited by -1- on Thu May 02, 2019 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by -1- »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 10:15 pm
-1- wrote:UK, you keep asking questions, "what is coding?", "human brains compute, don't they?", "what's physical information", etc. ...
You appear to not be able to read. I asked how do we code meaning in response to the assertion that we do, I asserted that human brains can compute but I did ask what is meant by 'physical information', can you tell me?
So you lack the necessary academic background in computing to understand what Atla sees. This is no reflection on your abilities, only on your education in computer science. ...
Ah! Well, I better bin that Msc in Foundations of Advanced I.T. and forget all about the years spent working in the computer industry starting from being a mainframe computer operator before PC's were around.
You ask "what is this and how does Logic demonstrate he does not understand or conceptualize it well". This is a question that you'd best understand if you took an undergrad course in computer science. To be honest, I don't know what Shannon is, and I do have a degree in computer science. ...
Bully for you but it doesn't appear to have improved your reading comprehension and you should be slightly ashamed of not knowing 'what Shannon is' if you've done a degree in computer science.
So... your questions are honest, and they seem reasonable, but to answer them requires a much more in-depth knowledge into computing than to show here in a few words written for dilettantes (non-professionals) to describe properly where and how Logic's ignorance shines through.
Well the thing is that my paltry BA(hons) in Philosophy allows me to grade the philosophy bullshitters and Logik is at a pretty good grade compared to many here. "... or at least, if mine prove a castle in the air, I will endeavour it shall be all of a piece and hang together." John Locke. And Logik's Constructivist Logic, Epistemology and Ethics do seem to hang together or are at least consistent with his metaphysic of a finite Digital Universe and in my book that's pretty close to having a Philosophy and being a Philosopher, he just needs to get published now. :)
In the following, I quoted you in red font, to increase clarity.

I calls them as I sees them, UK.

You deny writing these, but these are direct quotes, of QUESTIONS you asked, two of which you outright deny having asked.

What's physical information?
But human brains/minds appear able to do very large computations?
How do we 'code' meaning?


You also wrote this:
You appear to not be able to read. I asked how do we code meaning in response to the assertion that we do, I asserted that human brains can compute but I did ask what is meant by 'physical information', can you tell me?

1. There was NO assertion that we can code meaning. You state there WAS, and deny asking how it is done. In fact, there was an assertion that we can't code meaning.

2. You did not assert human brains compute; you asked if human brains can do very large computations. You maybe, just maybe wrote what you did not want to, but I calls them as I sees them. I go by understanding that you are smart enough to write what you mean. If you write an interrogative, I shan't take it as an assertion.

I don't think you are fair by sluffing off your inability to put your thoughts into words precisely, as an inability in me to read English.

In other words, please don't blame my alleged "[appearance] to not be able to read" for your sloppy writing style or your expectation for people to understand in your text what you mean, not what you write.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by -1- »

I don't know Shannon information, UK, and I never will. It was not part of the curriculum that my lecturers put together. You blame me for that. And you shame me for not having profs who would put that in the curriculum.

It seems you are emotionally committed to put me down.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

-1- wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 3:24 amJohnDoe is a bit different
I agree, but like I said I think the differences are cooked up to add plausible deniability. When I dig a little deeper, I can still see very apparent parallels. Like how they all like to talk about people's 'word salads' and they see variables as 'extensions' and what not.

By the way, Logik is 100% TimeSeeker; He has flat-out admitted to this, but I think only after being pressed on it. I mean, I definitely remember times when he denied ever being associated with timeseeker.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Atla »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 11:40 pm
Atla wrote:No offense but there is no way you could fully understand my comments, even if I spent a lot of time trying to explain everything. ...
Well in my world that pretty much means you don't understand what you are talking about.
We are just worlds apart in several ways. ...
And you know this how?
As for Timeseeker's information-religion, killer Entropy, computational complexity bullshit and computer brain etc. well you can use the search by typing Timeseeker as keyword and Atla as author or vica versa.
Well I've done what you said and so far it just looks like you can't put up anything like the argument he does for his ideas and often just resort to the good old ad-hominem.
Tell me something I don't know, that's what it looks to you and I'm not on this forum to explain the basics that people should have figured out on their own 10+ years ago.
Last edited by Atla on Thu May 02, 2019 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 6677
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Atla »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Thu May 02, 2019 3:03 am
Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 7:29 pmMost of what he writes about is concerned with computer science and its relationship to logic, metaphysics, maths and epistemology and by an' large he presents a fairly consistent philosophical position and makes a fair amount of sense with respect to his position on those subjects.
I think that's largely just you projecting all that onto to him, because him and his ilk have grossly molested the english language to a point that most of what he says doesn't have any concise meaning.

Let me just leave this idea, here: Timeseeker was an account Eodnhoj7 made so he could lick his own taint. As I don't have a year-to-year memory, I actually remember this is something that seemed extraordinarily obvious to me, in the beginning, because that's all he would do. As soon as 'TimeSeeker' was created - which was around the time people started to really dog on him - eodnhoj began posting far less, as well.

Anytime logik/timeseeker and john has ever gotten into a supposed 'argument,' it seems very cooked up to me, and reeks fowl of ingenuity. I think he does this to add plausibility deniability, to try to give a perception of credibility to what he's saying, and also so he can actually bounce his ideas off someone, even if it's himself.

I don't know, I just don't buy it at all - because I guess I actually know how a real conversation with someone goes? It just doesn't sit right with me, like their discussions are somewhere in this uncanny valley of two cleverbots arguing with each other.
No they are definitely not the same person. But they are similar in some ways, both have high IQs, neither can comprehend the extremely important abstract-concrete distinction, both of them construct irrational systems and then view the world through that, instead of simply percieving the world as it is and describing it.

Neither of them seem to be able to use the anterior parts of the neocortex properly, but with the Johndoe the cause is probable more like psychosis and with the Timeseeker it's probably more like braindamage he was born with, or maybe a severe Narcissistic personality disorder that led to developmental problems.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Alright. We'll let that idea drift in limbo, then.
Post Reply