Author Topic: Daft Questions Thread  (Read 78970 times)

Jimburst and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline B-more Mag

  • General Member
  • Wash your hands … immediately.
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2750 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 01:20:23 pm »
conical foam attachment for my dremel

About 20,000 RPM or thereabouts?

Online thomas

  • NO's Best Foreigner - Participant
  • General Member
  • some kind of genetically engineered super jerk
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2751 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 01:25:35 pm »
conical foam attachment for my dremel

About 20,000 RPM or thereabouts?
Depends on the shituation.

That speed is fine if you're going in after a 1-4 on the bristol. Anything higher and a slower speed is recommended for cleaning out the ol' fudgepit.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2752 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 06:11:09 pm »
Ah, yes. Quite similar to White Zombie's hypothesis that there is, in fact, something more human than human: the Astro-Creep--a demolition style hell American freak yeah.

Funny that. The reason I was pondering my question, was as part of the bigger question, can humans be more than human? Or it might be, can we still consider ourselves to be human?

It is informed by the argument that adversity plays a part in the development of the human.

http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/adversity_quotes.html

Too many quotes to choose from, but this one set's me up nicely, I think.

Adversity introduces a man to himself.
H. L. MENCKEN

The question is when? And one possible answer is, the very moment you are born. What could be more representative of adversity, than being shot out into an alien universe, covered in blood, s*** and p*ss? Blind, mute and probably deaf. And in order to survive you have to find a source of nourishment.

Of course, man somehow managed to successfully overcome that adversity long enough to develop medical procedures that would serve to remove that adversity.








Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2753 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 06:44:47 pm »
Ah, yes. Quite similar to White Zombie's hypothesis that there is, in fact, something more human than human: the Astro-Creep--a demolition style hell American freak yeah.

Funny that. The reason I was pondering my question, was as part of the bigger question, can humans be more than human? Or it might be, can we still consider ourselves to be human?

It is informed by the argument that adversity plays a part in the development of the human.

http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/adversity_quotes.html

Too many quotes to choose from, but this one set's me up nicely, I think.

Adversity introduces a man to himself.
H. L. MENCKEN

The question is when? And one possible answer is, the very moment you are born. What could be more representative of adversity, than being shot out into an alien universe, covered in blood, s*** and p*ss? Blind, mute and probably deaf. And in order to survive you have to find a source of nourishment.

Of course, man somehow managed to successfully overcome that adversity long enough to develop medical procedures that would serve to remove that adversity.









I think we put too much "beyond the natural" meaning on so many of our definitions. Being human in all likelihood doesn't stretch much beyond the phenotype. Civilization and all the s*** we created from it is just a byproduct of that. Not a destiny. Just a series of circumstances. The adversity argument seems way too connected to the Heroes Journey myths, and all that. Another way to cushion the blow of living in a hostile universe.

For me, a more salient question might be "can humans disconnect from an anthropocentric universe?"

I personally think that by the nature of self awareness and self preservation, we are going to put orders of magnitude more value on ourselves than is approaching anything realistic. This may seem extremely obvious on the surface, but the lion's share of our decisions are governed by this.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2754 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 08:27:31 pm »
Ah, yes. Quite similar to White Zombie's hypothesis that there is, in fact, something more human than human: the Astro-Creep--a demolition style hell American freak yeah.

Funny that. The reason I was pondering my question, was as part of the bigger question, can humans be more than human? Or it might be, can we still consider ourselves to be human?

It is informed by the argument that adversity plays a part in the development of the human.

http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/adversity_quotes.html

Too many quotes to choose from, but this one set's me up nicely, I think.

Adversity introduces a man to himself.
H. L. MENCKEN

The question is when? And one possible answer is, the very moment you are born. What could be more representative of adversity, than being shot out into an alien universe, covered in blood, s*** and p*ss? Blind, mute and probably deaf. And in order to survive you have to find a source of nourishment.

Of course, man somehow managed to successfully overcome that adversity long enough to develop medical procedures that would serve to remove that adversity.









I think we put too much "beyond the natural" meaning on so many of our definitions. Being human in all likelihood doesn't stretch much beyond the phenotype. Civilization and all the s*** we created from it is just a byproduct of that. Not a destiny. Just a series of circumstances. The adversity argument seems way too connected to the Heroes Journey myths, and all that. Another way to cushion the blow of living in a hostile universe.

For me, a more salient question might be "can humans disconnect from an anthropocentric universe?"

I personally think that by the nature of self awareness and self preservation, we are going to put orders of magnitude more value on ourselves than is approaching anything realistic. This may seem extremely obvious on the surface, but the lion's share of our decisions are governed by this.

Yes. We do struggle to accept the natural that we cannot rationalise in the context of the anthropocentric universe.
In answer to your salient question I would say a definite yes, but it will be difficult because of self awareness and self preservation. Self awareness inhibits free will, in the form of shyness, conscience and many other ways. And free will is essential to overcoming adversity. As the very first quote states;

Adversity is a soul sister to success. And on the journey to greatness, our willingness to befriend these twin sisters, and know them as one, will have much to do with our greatness.
NOAH BENSHEA

As for the heroes journey, I'm not 100% sure what that is but I'm sure I agree that the adversity argument is linked to it. It sounds about right. But it also sounds like something that could have manifested as a substitute for faith in the "beyond natural".

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2755 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 08:45:10 pm »
Ah, yes. Quite similar to White Zombie's hypothesis that there is, in fact, something more human than human: the Astro-Creep--a demolition style hell American freak yeah.

Funny that. The reason I was pondering my question, was as part of the bigger question, can humans be more than human? Or it might be, can we still consider ourselves to be human?

It is informed by the argument that adversity plays a part in the development of the human.

http://www.notable-quotes.com/a/adversity_quotes.html

Too many quotes to choose from, but this one set's me up nicely, I think.

Adversity introduces a man to himself.
H. L. MENCKEN

The question is when? And one possible answer is, the very moment you are born. What could be more representative of adversity, than being shot out into an alien universe, covered in blood, s*** and p*ss? Blind, mute and probably deaf. And in order to survive you have to find a source of nourishment.

Of course, man somehow managed to successfully overcome that adversity long enough to develop medical procedures that would serve to remove that adversity.









I think we put too much "beyond the natural" meaning on so many of our definitions. Being human in all likelihood doesn't stretch much beyond the phenotype. Civilization and all the s*** we created from it is just a byproduct of that. Not a destiny. Just a series of circumstances. The adversity argument seems way too connected to the Heroes Journey myths, and all that. Another way to cushion the blow of living in a hostile universe.

For me, a more salient question might be "can humans disconnect from an anthropocentric universe?"

I personally think that by the nature of self awareness and self preservation, we are going to put orders of magnitude more value on ourselves than is approaching anything realistic. This may seem extremely obvious on the surface, but the lion's share of our decisions are governed by this.

Yes. We do struggle to accept the natural that we cannot rationalise in the context of the anthropocentric universe.
In answer to your salient question I would say a definite yes, but it will be difficult because of self awareness and self preservation. Self awareness inhibits free will, in the form of shyness, conscience and many other ways. And free will is essential to overcoming adversity. As the very first quote states;

Adversity is a soul sister to success. And on the journey to greatness, our willingness to befriend these twin sisters, and know them as one, will have much to do with our greatness.
NOAH BENSHEA



How is free will essential to overcome adversity? Most species who survive innately do this?

No offense, but this sounds a little like Jordan Peterson to me, which is essentially just a gilded rehashing of the earliest days of the Age of Enlightenment. Journey to greatness. Those quotes seem riddled with an anthropocentric view of the universe, and could even be ascribed to early Greek thinkers. Not to be contradictory, but it seems like we are using Windows 95 on brand new processors to me.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2756 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:05:49 pm »
Well Peterson is certainly contemporary in my thinking, so no offence taken. I've basically taken the adversity argument to an extreme conclusion, that the best possible life would appear to involve a different experience of birth.

I've heard, and can't be arsed just now to check, that new born babies have the ability to swim. In the adversity argument, they'd sink or swim. certainly.
I've also heard that they can grip with their tiny little fingers, so if a baby was born into water (baptism?) it could swim towards the mothers breast, the mother could offer her hands in a gesture of support and co-operation, baby grabs on and they come together in a natural bond. That baby's very first experience, upon which all subsequent experiences will be built, is one of achievement through commitment and co-operation. Which would be a distinctly different phenotype than the current experience of having the ability to fly through the air and find the tit without a single moment's thought.

That's if there is any thing in the adversity argument.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2757 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:31:15 pm »
Well Peterson is certainly contemporary in my thinking, so no offence taken. I've basically taken the adversity argument to an extreme conclusion, that the best possible life would appear to involve a different experience of birth.

I've heard, and can't be arsed just now to check, that new born babies have the ability to swim. In the adversity argument, they'd sink or swim. certainly.
I've also heard that they can grip with their tiny little fingers, so if a baby was born into water (baptism?) it could swim towards the mothers breast, the mother could offer her hands in a gesture of support and co-operation, baby grabs on and they come together in a natural bond. That baby's very first experience, upon which all subsequent experiences will be built, is one of achievement through commitment and co-operation. Which would be a distinctly different phenotype than the current experience of having the ability to fly through the air and find the tit without a single moment's thought.

That's if there is any thing in the adversity argument.

That seems more to have to do with the social nature of certain species. Learned behavior is pretty common with social organisms.

And babies aren't born with the ability to swim. That's an urban legend based on how their reflexes work.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2758 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:33:05 pm »
I think our definitions of free will are maybe different. I consider every living creature to have free will relative to the requirements of their nature.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2759 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:34:37 pm »
Well Peterson is certainly contemporary in my thinking, so no offence taken. I've basically taken the adversity argument to an extreme conclusion, that the best possible life would appear to involve a different experience of birth.

I've heard, and can't be arsed just now to check, that new born babies have the ability to swim. In the adversity argument, they'd sink or swim. certainly.
I've also heard that they can grip with their tiny little fingers, so if a baby was born into water (baptism?) it could swim towards the mothers breast, the mother could offer her hands in a gesture of support and co-operation, baby grabs on and they come together in a natural bond. That baby's very first experience, upon which all subsequent experiences will be built, is one of achievement through commitment and co-operation. Which would be a distinctly different phenotype than the current experience of having the ability to fly through the air and find the tit without a single moment's thought.

That's if there is any thing in the adversity argument.

That seems more to have to do with the social nature of certain species. Learned behavior is pretty common with social organisms.

And babies aren't born with the ability to swim. That's an urban legend based on how their reflexes work.

Fair enough on the babies, but what is the reflexive response to drowning?

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2760 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:35:15 pm »
I think our definitions of free will are maybe different. I consider every living creature to have free will relative to the requirements of their nature.

That's a boundary condition. By the very nature of boundary conditions, it would suggest against having free will.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2761 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:36:00 pm »
Well Peterson is certainly contemporary in my thinking, so no offence taken. I've basically taken the adversity argument to an extreme conclusion, that the best possible life would appear to involve a different experience of birth.

I've heard, and can't be arsed just now to check, that new born babies have the ability to swim. In the adversity argument, they'd sink or swim. certainly.
I've also heard that they can grip with their tiny little fingers, so if a baby was born into water (baptism?) it could swim towards the mothers breast, the mother could offer her hands in a gesture of support and co-operation, baby grabs on and they come together in a natural bond. That baby's very first experience, upon which all subsequent experiences will be built, is one of achievement through commitment and co-operation. Which would be a distinctly different phenotype than the current experience of having the ability to fly through the air and find the tit without a single moment's thought.

That's if there is any thing in the adversity argument.

That seems more to have to do with the social nature of certain species. Learned behavior is pretty common with social organisms.

And babies aren't born with the ability to swim. That's an urban legend based on how their reflexes work.

Fair enough on the babies, but what is the reflexive response to drowning?


a, ahem, reflexive response to drowning.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Online thomas

  • NO's Best Foreigner - Participant
  • General Member
  • some kind of genetically engineered super jerk
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2762 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:37:54 pm »
probably deeply coded millions of years ago into all non-gill having air breathers tbh, doubt it's anything special

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2763 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:39:48 pm »
I think our definitions of free will are maybe different. I consider every living creature to have free will relative to the requirements of their nature.

That's a boundary condition. By the very nature of boundary conditions, it would suggest against having free will.

Not necessarily. Free-will is dependant on available choice. My inability to fly is not demonstrative of a lack of free-will.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2764 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:44:26 pm »
I think our definitions of free will are maybe different. I consider every living creature to have free will relative to the requirements of their nature.

That's a boundary condition. By the very nature of boundary conditions, it would suggest against having free will.

Not necessarily. Free-will is dependant on available choice. My inability to fly is not demonstrative of a lack of free-will.


If it is dependent on available choice, then it is not free will. It is constrained by physics, the biosphere, and the social environment.

Free will implies a lack of constraints. It's nothing but a form of human aggrandizement, and another way to convince ourselves that we have more control over our "fates".

All of this shares commonality with the geocentric model of the universe.

the best you can offer up is a choose your own adventure scenario. But our thinking is severely constrained just by the fact of being alive. Then throw in other environmental and sociocultural pressures, and we are reduced to "If you jump the pit, go to page 6."
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2765 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:48:08 pm »
I think our definitions of free will are maybe different. I consider every living creature to have free will relative to the requirements of their nature.

That's a boundary condition. By the very nature of boundary conditions, it would suggest against having free will.

Not necessarily. Free-will is dependant on available choice. My inability to fly is not demonstrative of a lack of free-will.


If it is dependent on available choice, then it is not free will. It is constrained by physics, the biosphere, and the social environment.

Free will implies a lack of constraints. It's nothing but a form of human aggrandizement, and another way to convince ourselves that we have more control over our "fates".

All of this shares commonality with the geocentric model of the universe.

You're misunderstanding my position. I actually believe that humans have less free will than other living creatures as a result of the anthropocentric universe.
"If you jump the pit, go to page 6." Nice one. That is relevant, because the very definition of hero, is formed around literary characters, and more recently tv and video games. In a video simulation you are offered numerous random patterns to create a unique identity, but you are restricted to the programmed variables. In real life those variables are truly infinitely infinite.


Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2766 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:48:44 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2767 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:50:46 pm »
I am not sure I would agree with that assertion either. A jackal doesn't opt to be a jizzmopper at a porno booth, or just as ridiculously, decide to be a documentary filmmaker.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2768 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:54:22 pm »
I am not sure I would agree with that assertion either. A jackal doesn't opt to be a jizzmopper at a porno booth, or just as ridiculously, decide to be a documentary filmmaker.

Neither did man until the 19th century. Well Jizzmopper is probably as old as time.

Online thomas

  • NO's Best Foreigner - Participant
  • General Member
  • some kind of genetically engineered super jerk
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2769 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:57:28 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2770 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 09:59:20 pm »
When we are talking about humans, we must include the modern man as well.

And how can you claim that those variables are truly infinite? Just because you can't put a number on something doesn't mean it's evidence for the infinite. Sounds great, but I honestly don't see much real meaning in what you are saying. It's coming across like a 19th century World Expo exhibit to me. And that could just be me utterly misunderstanding where you are coming from.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2771 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:00:46 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

no, but it is a constraint that would likely curtail your dreams of becoming an NBA player quite early.
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline QuakesMag

  • General Member
  • Telling it how it isn't
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2772 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:02:30 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.

Is that the reality though? How are we certain that it will not for all practical purposes be simulated one day?
Not one of the cool kids, and really insecure about it.

Offline sadnesstan

  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2773 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:05:21 pm »
You see, I think we are in agreement on free will as a product of the anthropocentric uni. And under that definition it is a bad thing which can only be attributed to humans. But if you define free will as simply the freedom to experience your natural existence, then I think you get a much more balanced and realistic view of life.
If a mother bear feels that her cubs are threatened, she doesn't pause to consider the rights and wrongs of ripping the limbs from a predator. That is free will.

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Daft Questions Thread
« Reply #2774 on: Friday 7 December 2018, 10:05:48 pm »
A demonstration on the lack of free will........

What's your favourite colour ? Can you honestly decide, right now, to change it ?
Is such a thing chosen or hard coded in one's DNA; similarly I hardly have free will to change my height whenever I want but I wouldn't say that that shortcoming would be an example of lack of free will.

For the record I'm in the deterministic camp, though to butcher Arthur C Clarke - any sufficiently advanced conscious decision is indistinguishable from free will; just because it's theoretically simulatable, the reality is we'll never be able to so it's not worth worrying about too much. The illusion of free will we have is sufficient given I'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.
My guess would be neither, it develops like most tastes.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.