Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I think that PM uses almost any topic with the intent to shock other people and that he holds pretty much no beliefs of his own. I am pretty sure that PM is the walking embodiment of schadenfreude and lacks anything resembling the conceptualization of a soul. He is not worth even trying to shock, because he is incapable of so human an emotion. But thats just my opinion.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Brother Daniel

1
I think a bunch of trump's people came in actually believing the dumb conservative narratives about DC and the federal government being all pampered and decadent, and they assumed servants would wait on them and bureaucrats would throw money at them when they arrived.  hence all these bizarre stories about cabinet members being wasteful with public resources and acting entitled.

it's always projection with these shitheads on every level

Obama and co. must be a bunch of corrupt grifters because, hey, that's what they'd do if they were in power

it also fits well with their authoritarian hierarchy views of the world. others don't deserve this opulence, but it's only natural that they do
Similarly, they assume that the left accepts climate "alarmism" for purely political reasons, because after all their acceptance or rejection of any scientific conclusion is purely political.
2
Science / Re: Heh!
Hi Stevie!
4
Politics and Current Events / Re: Austin bombings
Of course, when the White House finally chimed in, this is what they fucking said:
Quote
The bombings in Austin did not appear to be linked to terrorism, White House spokesman Sarah Sanders said on Twitter on Tuesday.
How is indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets literally not fucking terrorism?
Maybe they're just trying to say that they don't have any information that makes it looks like a Muslim did it.
5
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
I like it.  I can half relate to that character*.  Lots of times I've gotten good work done that wasn't on my task list.  If you want to stop me from making progress on anything, just add it to the list of things I'm officially supposed to be working on.


[* I have the super ADD part, not the genius part obviously ]
6
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
This is why you dont get work done.
shut up Perseus

fake eta:  This isn't the reason; this is just a symptom
7
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
I can't help wondering whether propositions are even the right category for things to be believed.

Normally, when the propositions p and q are equivalent, you can substitute one for the other in any complex proposition that refers to them.  Clearly you can't do that when talking about belief.  Someone can believe p while failing to believe q even if p and q are equivalent:  (p↔q)∧(Bp)∧(¬Bq) is a possible state of affairs.

Moreover, the object of a person's belief may be so nonsensical that there is no corresponding proposition.  (Trinitarian theology may be an example here.)

I guess what I'm suggesting is that "belief" doesn't work on the space of propositions, but rather on the space of ... something else.  Let's call them "notions".

A notion may (or may not) correspond to a particular expression of a proposition, in which case belief in the former notion can loosely be described as belief in the latter proposition.

Now I'm not at all sure that this suggestion will really shed light on anything.  Just "thinking out loud" here.
8
the deeper I get, the more I'm convinced
That "increasingly" schtick again.
9
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
The wiki links to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6b%27s_theorem to explain why it should be true, and the theorem seems to fall into the same problem.
Specifically, to explain why it should be true that "any reflexive reasoner of type 4 is modest".  As I hinted earlier, I have even more trouble trying to grasp what doxastic phenomenon the descriptor "reflexive" is supposed to capture.
Quote
Also, it says that type 4 reasoners are modest, and implies that type 4 is pretty good ("increasing levels of rationality"), so
"modest" seems like a "good" descriptor.
Yes, I noticed that.

So (in decreasing order of probability) it seems that

(1) I'm being stupid

or

(2) Wikipedia screwed up

or

(3) The original ideas from Smullyan were put together sloppily.
10
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
I assume that the subject is intended to be clear from the context.

But yeah.  That's why I said
Presumably, if we have more than one person in view (say, X and Y), we could mark the belief operator to say which believer we're talking about.  So BXp would mean "X believes that p".
11
...except that that requires a great many abiogenesis events, and abiogenesis is notoriously difficult, so it's far more likely to have happened only once rather than the many times implied by the Orchard.
12
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
To make things weirder:  One of the headings within the article is "increasing levels of rationality".  It goes on to define "type 1", "type 1*", "type 2", "type 3", "type 4", and "type G".

Type 1 (I think) corresponds to "can handle basic logic".

Type 2 (I think) means being type 1 and believing that you're type 1.

Type 3 means being type 2 and also being "normal", where "normal" means
∀p:Bp→BBp
(i.e. if you believe something, then you believe that you believe it).

Type 4 means being type 3 and believing that you're "normal".

Type G means being type 4 and believing that you're "modest".  Which makes me suspect that being "modest" is intended to be a desirable thing.

But I've shown above (I think) that for anyone who is both "modest" and "type 1", we have
∀p:BBp)→Bp

And that means that for anyone who is "modest" and "type 1" and "normal", we have
∀p:BBp)→BBp

So such a reasoner cannot believe that he/she doesn't believe something, without then believing a contradiction.  By type 1, then,
∀p:¬BBp)
There is no proposition that such a person knowingly fails to believe!


Maybe the Wikipedia writers garbled something, and I should look to the sources.
13
Philosophy / Re: Help me understand doxastic logic
Fair enough.  So perhaps "modest" is intended to be one of the undesirable categories, like "inconsistent" or "peculiar" or "conceited".

But in the latter cases, I can match the category names to some easily understandable (but undesirable) doxastic phenomena.  Not so much with "modest".  I don't have an intuitive grasp of what the label "modest" is trying to convey here.
14
you can turn a brownshirt blue with enough rope.
♫ Don't it make my brownshirts blue ♫
15
Philosophy / Help me understand doxastic logic
Doxastic logic is concerned with beliefs.  The idea "it is believed that" is taken as a modal operator.

So for a proposition p, we could write Bp to mean "it is believed that p".

Presumably, if we have more than one person in view (say, X and Y), we could mark the belief operator to say which believer we're talking about.  So BXp would mean "X believes that p".

I've taken a look at the Wikipedia article on doxastic logic, and parts of it strike me as awfully weird.

A big chunk of the article is concerned with categorizations of different "reasoners" ("believers", I suppose), as defined by Raymond Smullyan.

For example, a reasoner is described as "accurate" if he/she never believes anything that is false:
∀p:Bp→p
and a reasoner is described as "consistent" if he/she never believes both a proposition and its negation:
∀p:Bp→¬B¬p
OK, those makes sense.  Similarly, there are (rather peculiar) definitions for "conceited", "consistent", "normal", "peculiar", and "regular" reasoners that also make sense and are (I think) adequately non-weird.

But I'm reduced to "what the actual fuck" when I read about his definition of a "reflexive" reasoner:
∀p:∃qB(q≡(Bq→p))
I mean, I think I can make some sense of this, but why is this case interesting?  When would it ever arise?
If we take p = "Hillary Clinton is POTUS", for example, and imagine that I'm a "reflexive" reasoner for the sake of argument, what the hell might the corresponding q look like?

I'm nearly as befuddled by his definition of a "modest" reasoner:
∀p:B(Bp→p)→Bp
What is "modest" about this?  And how is it anything but weird?  Take any proposition having the property that I believe that I don't believe it:
BBp)
Then, assuming I can handle basic logic, we'd have
BBp∨p)
So (under the same assumption) we'd have
B(Bp→p)
So "modesty" (by Smullyan's definition) would entail Bp.
IOW, if you're "modest", and you can handle basic logic, then for any p, if you believe that you don't believe p, then you actually believe p.  Utterly bizarre.
16
The point I am making is that there is no evidence of humans in Africa prior to the migration of humans from the Middle East.
Whatever mtDNA analysis that is done is fantasy if there were no humans in Africa prior to the migration of humans from the Middle East.
Christ, this is stupid, even for Socrates.
Worth repeating.
But this is not worth arguing about.
17
Sports / Re: Winter Olympics 2018
In an amazing coincidence, I am also bitter, nerdy, and unable to do a quad axel.

Maybe meep and I are related?
18
"Cells don't intend anything, Dave."

Yes they do. You are absolutely wrong here.
It's not a question of being "wrong".  Ben is using "intend" in the English sense of the word, while you're using it strictly in the Davinese.

"Cells don't intend anything" is quite right in English.  It may be wrong in Davinese, but who cares?
19
no illiterate.  YOU'RE the illiterate.
20
I am starting to realize that you folks do not really understand this subject. There is a good chance that you are also just wasting my time on purpose as some have admitted in the past.
Don't be silly, you need no help wasting your time.  Everybody knows this.
worth repeating.
until it sinks in
anyone else?
21
I am starting to realize that you folks do not really understand this subject. There is a good chance that you are also just wasting my time on purpose as some have admitted in the past.
Don't be silly, you need no help wasting your time.  Everybody knows this.
worth repeating.
22
One good thing to come out of the last couple of years, is a convenient label to apply to someone who is too fucking stupid to reason with and too arrogant to realize their limitations:

Trump Supporter.
counterpoint:  Jerome is worse than Dave wrt stupidity, and just as bad wrt arrogance, but is not a Trump supporter.
23
Thankfully someone honest and mavericky who has studied this stuff his whole life does know.

Here's what he said just this past year...

Quote
The most basic idea is that evolutionary genome change results from biological activities, not from random accidents.
--Shapiro 2017

Lizzie, when are you going to give up and say uncle?
At the very least, it would require you to stop shifting the goalposts all over the place.
24
you are very confused about all of this.

 This is very telling... "Look, Dave, stop trying to trick me into saying what MECHANISM of mutagenesis would be needed.  I don't know."

 Yes I know you don't know.
So do you have a point to make, or are you merely going to hint (socky-style) that you have one?
25
The more I discuss this stuff, the more I realize that most Darwinists JUST. DON'T. GET. basic biology and basic genetics.  It's remarkable.
It's becoming increasingly clear
And where do you base this increasing clarity on?
That's just part of Dave's schtick.

Take something that Dave is already fully convinced of (typically without evidence), and argue about it with him for a while.  Inevitably, from time to time, he will say (without having added any evidence to his initially empty set of evidence) that he is becoming "increasingly convinced" or that whatever he wants to be true is becoming "increasingly clear".

That "increasingly" bit is part of what keeps people arguing with him, even though it's hopeless because he doesn't give a shit about truth.  It's an attention-grabber.