To me it sounds like you'd either be A. reading something you know is bs B. reading something you're p sure is BS but you can't really say exactly why and eventually you understand it enough to say, that's why it's BS C. Reading something you agree with, which is basically just repeating stuff you've already thought through
Even if I have an inclination that Argument-X is BS, it's rationally satisfying to understand how the argument is constructed, and why it fails.
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's about understanding the reasons for any given argument, and what conclusions those reasons and premises entail.
Yeah, I guess. B can be interesting. C would feel like a waste of time and A would be dreadful.
the problem there being that you have to study it aaaaaaallll and not just like, learn what you want to learn
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
@desc, i narrowly missed her but this time left a note in her box. An older lady came upstairs and asked what was up to the receptionist and I explained. She was so happy that I was there and that I offered to show the girl around town. I believe I was called a smooth devil.
Got a good feeling about this! Man. Nerves. Fucking nerves, doggs. What is the deal.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
So I guess I am glad she was not there and I left a note cause holy shit, I probably would've babbled like a damn fool.
philosophy as an undergraduate degree feeds into any number of "we want someone with enough discipline to graduate at a intellectually demanding subject" careers
nothing specific, though, and there one has to fight with people holding communications degrees but a lot of other stuff on their CV
Someone in [education].no does not like bioengineering because they have apparently taken care to mention handling urine as part of the common work tasks for a bioengineer
@desc, i narrowly missed her but this time left a note in her box. An older lady came upstairs and asked what was up to the receptionist and I explained. She was so happy that I was there and that I offered to show the girl around town. I believe I was called a smooth devil.
Got a good feeling about this! Man. Nerves. Fucking nerves, doggs. What is the deal.
You go, Desc!
Remember, worst-case scenario is she tells you to fuck off, and you're in the same place you were yesterday. No harm done.
So I guess I am glad she was not there and I left a note cause holy shit, I probably would've babbled like a damn fool.
It all makes sense until she says "hi." Then your brain shunts all blood away from itself and your extremities and you are told later by witnesses that you made a damn fool of yourself.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
My cinnamon cheesecake was a hit! Woo! One of my co-workers, a little waif of a girl that couldn't be more than 100 pounds soaking wet had four pieces of it. Man.
I also calculated the calorie count for it. It's a big springform pan that I make it in, so probably 15 servings, but it clocks in at 9,000 calories.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Thanatos is giving the credit to Desc.
Real low.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Two things I did today that pleased old people immensely... carried around big tables and put them away after the service and asked that girl out.
I like happy old people.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Some old people just want the kids to fuck, Castle.
You can't actually prove the coffee cup is definitely there.
You can, however, decide it doesn't matter if the coffee cup is there, what matters is you have the perception that it's there and that's enough to go on for your purposes.
Or try to construct probability statements regarding the existence of the cup.
If you don't mind an infinite regress.
Personally what I like is this:
You can't be certain there's an external reality, but you can be certain that there's consistency in the perceptions you are having. All of external reality could just be a really complicated simulation but who gives a fuck because you can still master the relationships between all the things you can perceive (so long as they stay consistent, which runs into the problem of induction, which I like to defeat using falsificationism).
I'm curious as to how you establish the certainty of consistency. You would need some means by which to be certain of the past that is taken to be consistent with the present. You can say there is consistency between T1 and T2, but presumably you are making that assessment at T3. So how do you know about T1 and T2 at T3?
And you'd need a means of knowing that relationships exist, and then a means of knowing the content of those relationships.
And you'd need to work out how perception works.
The assessment of consistency is taken only at that specific moment of time. My perception at T3 is not comparing T1 and T2, but instead current memory of T1 and T2 at T3, as my memory of T1 and T2 exist at T3. The "perception" in this instance that is being checked for consistency is the memory, which is current, not necessarily the events at T1 and T2 themselves.
Excuse my use of the word perception, by the way. What I mean to say is basically whatever information my consciousness is being fed.
As far as "knowing relationships exist" and "knowing the content of those relationships" the basic set up is: establish hypothesis, assume it is true, continue to check consistency of hypothesis until it is shown to be false, adopt new hypothesis.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
philosophy as an undergraduate degree feeds into any number of "we want someone with enough discipline to graduate at a intellectually demanding subject" careers
nothing specific, though, and there one has to fight with people holding communications degrees but a lot of other stuff on their CV
Pretty much.
It's a great 'I have a degree, and am p. clever, let me onto your graduate schemes or jobs of a non-descript nature'*.
But goodness will you never hear that over the bleating of 'my law degree means I can be a lawyer enjoy serving coffee bro '
8-)
*which unfortunately is becoming a necessity for any real job that's not a trade.
Genuinely curious because like, it's one of those studies that doesn't link to any profession at all
like, law => lawyer/jurist
reservoir engineering => reservoir engineer
anything with "culture" and "communication" in the title => low-level government bureaucrat
philosophy => ....
Teaching is the most common career. But, if you think about it, philosophy is about reading / understanding arguments, and discerning the structure of arguments. If a person is adept at that, they can pretty much do anything that relies upon some formal structure.
Also, there's the hubristic claim that philosophy encompases all human inquiry. So if one understand philosophy, one could do anything that falls under the context of philosophy...which would be everything humanity has ever done, ever.
I do not think that, when Nagel asked "what is it like to be a bat?" in 1974, he actually expected anyone to wave the flag of neurophilosophy and actually lay out what is known about the physiology of bats.
you know I think designing weapons systems would be really cool actually
not super politically correct but fuck it
I wanna make tomorrow's nuke
Design non-lethal weapons like sonic concussion blasters and shit. There, no ethical problems (you are actually saving lives by putting these where guns would normally be) and it's still super high tech and awesome.
The assessment of consistency is taken only at that specific moment of time. My perception at T3 is not comparing T1 and T2, but instead current memory of T1 and T2 at T3, as my memory of T1 and T2 exist at T3. The "perception" in this instance that is being checked for consistency is the memory, which is current, not necessarily the events at T1 and T2 themselves.
Excuse my use of the word perception, by the way. What I mean to say is basically whatever information my consciousness is being fed.
As far as "knowing relationships exist" and "knowing the content of those relationships" the basic set up is: establish hypothesis, assume it is true, continue to check consistency of hypothesis until it is shown to be false, adopt new hypothesis.
Ah, so you're an idealist, and you're just mucking about with establishing consistent paterns of ideas in your mind.
Keen!
I'm curious as to how you get from those ideas to the real world.
Genuinely curious because like, it's one of those studies that doesn't link to any profession at all
like, law => lawyer/jurist
reservoir engineering => reservoir engineer
anything with "culture" and "communication" in the title => low-level government bureaucrat
philosophy => ....
Teaching is the most common career. But, if you think about it, philosophy is about reading / understanding arguments, and discerning the structure of arguments. If a person is adept at that, they can pretty much do anything that relies upon some formal structure.
Also, there's the hubristic claim that philosophy encompases all human inquiry. So if one understand philosophy, one could do anything that falls under the context of philosophy...which would be everything humanity has ever done, ever.
Like, okay, you get philosophy? Great, then tell us the likelyhood of finding oil in this field here, as well as the likelyhood of where in this field and what kind of distribution of crude oil types we're gonna get
then do a structure analysis of this airplane
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Like, okay, you get philosophy? Great, then tell us the likelyhood of finding oil in this field here, as well as the likelyhood of where in this field and what kind of distribution of crude oil types we're gonna get
then do a structure analysis of this airplane
Well, first we have to establish that oil exists. And that might take a while.
you know I think designing weapons systems would be really cool actually
not super politically correct but fuck it
I wanna make tomorrow's nuke
Design non-lethal weapons like sonic concussion blasters and shit. There, no ethical problems (you are actually saving lives by putting these where guns would normally be) and it's still super high tech and awesome.
less-lethal
ain't no such thing as a non-lethal weapon
also, no, that's not necessarily true. It's not as if the police would just shoot everyone they couldn't beanbag, tase or spray. Having a less-lethal option also lowers the bar for using them.
Just like safety measures for cars making us drive worse because we are an essentially irrational species
Posts
Yeah, I guess. B can be interesting. C would feel like a waste of time and A would be dreadful.
the problem there being that you have to study it aaaaaaallll and not just like, learn what you want to learn
Got a good feeling about this! Man. Nerves. Fucking nerves, doggs. What is the deal.
guess I'll start writing when moving my fingers is less of a hassle
nothing specific, though, and there one has to fight with people holding communications degrees but a lot of other stuff on their CV
Remember, worst-case scenario is she tells you to fuck off, and you're in the same place you were yesterday. No harm done.
It all makes sense until she says "hi." Then your brain shunts all blood away from itself and your extremities and you are told later by witnesses that you made a damn fool of yourself.
edit: Well done though with the note! Classy first move!
I also calculated the calorie count for it. It's a big springform pan that I make it in, so probably 15 servings, but it clocks in at 9,000 calories.
Real low.
I like happy old people.
The assessment of consistency is taken only at that specific moment of time. My perception at T3 is not comparing T1 and T2, but instead current memory of T1 and T2 at T3, as my memory of T1 and T2 exist at T3. The "perception" in this instance that is being checked for consistency is the memory, which is current, not necessarily the events at T1 and T2 themselves.
Excuse my use of the word perception, by the way. What I mean to say is basically whatever information my consciousness is being fed.
As far as "knowing relationships exist" and "knowing the content of those relationships" the basic set up is: establish hypothesis, assume it is true, continue to check consistency of hypothesis until it is shown to be false, adopt new hypothesis.
We must make a new generation before we too shrivel and must go into the west.
Pretty much.
It's a great 'I have a degree, and am p. clever, let me onto your graduate schemes or jobs of a non-descript nature'*.
But goodness will you never hear that over the bleating of 'my law degree means I can be a lawyer enjoy serving coffee bro '
8-)
*which unfortunately is becoming a necessity for any real job that's not a trade.
Teaching is the most common career. But, if you think about it, philosophy is about reading / understanding arguments, and discerning the structure of arguments. If a person is adept at that, they can pretty much do anything that relies upon some formal structure.
Also, there's the hubristic claim that philosophy encompases all human inquiry. So if one understand philosophy, one could do anything that falls under the context of philosophy...which would be everything humanity has ever done, ever.
Also, chart: Salary Increase by Major
not super politically correct but fuck it
I wanna make tomorrow's nuke
They just want to trick you into having kids so you have to endure the hardships they did. Horrid buggers them elders be.
But what you want to learn will be related to what you're studying. It's not as if Heidegger has nothing to do with Leibniz.
Girl I'll get you wetter than October.
Design non-lethal weapons like sonic concussion blasters and shit. There, no ethical problems (you are actually saving lives by putting these where guns would normally be) and it's still super high tech and awesome.
Ah, so you're an idealist, and you're just mucking about with establishing consistent paterns of ideas in your mind.
Keen!
I'm curious as to how you get from those ideas to the real world.
What.
Do you like the smell of chloroform?
I said this before. Daxon said I was terrible and immoral and should dedicate my life to something that isn't evil.
Shouldn't you wait until April for that line, being that it portends much rain showers.
Satisfaction not guaranteed, I guess.
Every time I've said it in person it has made a girl laugh and smile big.
that's..... very, very, very hubristic.
Like, okay, you get philosophy? Great, then tell us the likelyhood of finding oil in this field here, as well as the likelyhood of where in this field and what kind of distribution of crude oil types we're gonna get
then do a structure analysis of this airplane
see this entire second line isn't showing up in posts for me
no one else? chrome with the old style style sheet thing
Girl, I'll moisten your lips better than chap stick.
GET IT?
Well, first we have to establish that oil exists. And that might take a while.
Oh, I did laugh and I do have a big smile.
But that's because that just sounds so...weird.
I'm also using Chrome, Old Style... working fine for me (albeit in OSX).
variable is a butt
less-lethal
ain't no such thing as a non-lethal weapon
also, no, that's not necessarily true. It's not as if the police would just shoot everyone they couldn't beanbag, tase or spray. Having a less-lethal option also lowers the bar for using them.
Just like safety measures for cars making us drive worse because we are an essentially irrational species
Are you wetting it with kisses or something else?