What are your thoughts on Hegel? [FASCIST EDITION] - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14919068
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I would actually enjoy having debates with you because you seem quite informed

Astute observation.
if only you refrained from your strange and difficult to follow format of responding to MANY-very-small-quote-portions (which makes anything you write an utter eye-sore)

This kind of comment baffles me. I think it's much easier to follow a discussion when a response directly follows the statement it is responding to, and often get frustrated trying to figure out which statements other posters are referring to in their comments, having to page up to an earlier message to see the context, etc. I also think a direct, verbatim, in-context quote immediately before the response minimizes the opportunity for red herrings and strawman fallacies, and I have noticed that people who do not quote what they are responding to directly, verbatim, and in-context are often profligate strawman fabricators.
and from your Trump-esque attempts to instigate flame-wars, I would likely enjoy debating with you often and for our mutual edification.

Sometimes I'm just having fun; but in general I take ideas seriously, and I am unable to make myself ignore the evil done -- the billions of innocents robbed, enslaved and immiserated, and the millions of them slaughtered every year -- because no one called out fallacious and dishonest arguments designed to rationalize tyranny and justify injustice. My anger at the purveyors of such despicable, dishonest filth is intense and quite genuine. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. One problem with Internet forums like POFO is that it is permitted for members to lie about what other members have plainly written, but not for the other party to identify the fact that the member has lied.

If you haven't seen it, I strongly recommend watching "Judgment at Nuremberg," which portrays how intelligent and otherwise "good" people dishonestly pervert their own minds in the service of evil when it is expedient, profitable, or even just safer for them. "Crime and Punishment" is of course another brilliant portrayal of how dishonesty with oneself enables evil to gain control of one's mind, but it requires more of a time and effort commitment.
If you want to debate the substance of his ideas sometime, great.

The what of his ideas??
But what was the point in this substance-less and vitriolic drivel?

It was a warning to the philosophically naïve who might be taken in by his drivel.
Where did this even come from?

Sorry, I carelessly omitted crucial context that shows the relationship: SAI will be a kind of god that, unlike your God, will actually exist. The point being that SAI isn't going to wait until after we are dead to f*ck with us.
I know my Theism triggers you, but bringing it up out of nowhere to instigate some sort of reaction?

I hope the above clarifies my intention.
Like I said, I would love to debate you on any subject really, whether it be the Existence of God, economics, history, philosophy, whatever.

I also appreciate your honesty, intelligence, articulateness and consistency. You don't try to move the goalposts when you can't stop the opposing team's advance.
Take it from the dude that would actually enjoy debating with you and agrees with most of the shit you say.

I don't agree with much of what you say, but at least it is honest, it makes sense of a sort (theism and Darwinism? OK, go wild), and you don't evade.
#14919073
Zamuel wrote:SAI is going to be a distant probability for a while.

I'm not sure about that. I am old enough to remember when progress in AI was glacial. Things are now happening very quickly, and positive feedback is starting to be significant. And that's just the AI research we know about.
Conventional AI will do the job for now and will likely lead the way to a stable and useful development of SAI.

I'm skeptical of the happy ending, for one very important reason: SAI will almost certainly reflect the priorities of those who have devoted the most resources to it, and those people are all either soulless, amoral, corporate greed robots doing it for money, or sociopathic military/security/intelligence supervillains doing it for power. SAI is the quintessential winner-take-all technology, so those pursuing it will not slow down even when they can plainly see its demonic shape coalescing in the darkness.
#14919112
Truth To Power wrote:I'm not sure about that.

No one is … SAI is uncharted territory, we don't even understand our own sentience. We do know it took nature Billions of years to achieve it. AI, yes … AI relies on redundancy for accurate results, it's judgements are high probability. Self awareness requires much more than that. More even I think than Turing's famous test.

Arguing about SAI is senseless IMHO. Paranoid speculation is delusional. Thank god for stoicism.

Zam :angel:
#14919218
Truth To Power wrote:Astute observation.


;)

I. On Posting Format Generally.

Truth To Power wrote:This kind of comment baffles me. I think it's much easier to follow a discussion when a response directly follows the statement it is responding to, and often get frustrated trying to figure out which statements other posters are referring to in their comments, having to page up to an earlier message to see the context, etc


I do think you are well-intentioned, don't get me wrong and I have heard your explanation for your posting style when confronted by other users; however, one ought to ask themselves if their intended goal of being helpful and clear are not meaningless when there is a growing consensus that your style is in fact doing the opposite of what you intended it for?

I only ask for to reevaluate the style as a better means of accomplishing your own stated intentions.

Truth To Power wrote:I also think a direct, verbatim, in-context quote immediately before the response minimizes the opportunity for red herrings and strawman fallacies, and I have noticed that people who do not quote what they are responding to directly, verbatim, and in-context are often profligate strawman fabricators.


This is all well and good, but its not the vebatim quoting itself that is a problem, but the size of the portions and their rapid succession.

Obviously, there will be those who use straw-men and intentionally attempt to distort and evade and in those cases the method you have used may at the very least serve to irritate and frustrate them (which they obviously deserve), but we have had enough conversations that you should know (as you even admitted), that I am not going to evade or intentionally obstruct debate.

In fact, the post I am not responding to, wasn't bad at all. It was sincere, respectable, and was easy to read. That should be the goal.

I suppose if you are debating me or others on here that you know will give you a good honest debate, you should make a rule for yourself along the lines of "for every one line I quote of their post, I will write three lines of response-analysis....or, I will only quote those portions of the text that represent the main points being argued. (this is the big one really)

For instance, if you were to analyze most of my longer posts, they would reveal an outline of sorts (sometimes I even put headers in my posts for each section), in such cases you could quote only the header and then give a full-throated response that is a paragraph long or the relevant thesis statement of each point, etc, etc.

However, when you quote a sentence, give a sentence, quote a sentence, give a sentence, its just a painful reading experience and is too choppy, likewise for those of us who write arguments with a general thesis and several supporting points, it is easy to lose track of which points are specifically being addressed in your critiques as you don't address points, but individual lines.

Often when you do this, you will often generate many new points as you bring up disparate objections to individual sentences and supporting claims. This unduly creates rabbit-holes, side-topics, and obscures the original contentions. Likewise, as this method multiplies the points made in the conversation, each post tends to gets longer by each respondent (I noticed this when I tried to mirror your method in a debate we had in the past), which then results in fatigue as those of us who are exceptionally busy cannot commit to responding in-turn to posts that keep growing in size, scope, and subjects of contention. It gets overwhelming and annoying even without the vitriolic attacks being thrown in.

All-in-all it just results in an unpleasant debate experience, which I know is not what you want others to anticipate before considering a response to something you have written.

I suppose writing posts more like papers is advisable. If you were to write a paper or a blog post critiquing an argument made by, lets say, John Locke, your paper or blog post would assuredly not look like your posts generally do (white and gray stripes of single-sentence quotes with single-sentence responses).

There is a reason for this (clarity and readability), the same goes for debates on here.

The point is, i would like to debate with you and i am not the first one to bring this up (but I feel my motives are more sincere than others who have said this to you).

I just think you should give the matter consideration and only reserve the eye-sore method for irritating the trolls and d-bags of the forum, not the serious types.

For the serious types, their posts should be treated in the way you would critique any serious thinker, moderate portions of text quoted with longer portions of analysis and critique.

I think that is a fair suggestion and I hope that you would agree.

Also, this is not a strict suggestion meant for knit-picking, just a general guideline. There will always be a place for cynical one-liner and provocative rhetoric done even with a single word. But not generally.

II. On Vitriolic Posting Specifically

Truth To Power wrote:Sometimes I'm just having fun;


I think there is a place for an occasional jab, and even trolling (in certain threads), but being proliferate with it throughout a serious conversation does not advance the discussion. It closes down serious considerations, gives the impression you are not open to hearing the other side, and begets more of itself. That is, if you want vitriolic generalizations and drive-by insults then give them first and you will get more in return (wash, rinse, repeat). I think this is pretty common-sense. Obviously, if you are debating with alt-right shit-posters on here or one of the SJW d-bags, there are contexts in which mockery can be quite funny, but it seems out of place in a serious debate and just drags down the quality of the whole interchange.

Truth To Power wrote:and I am unable to make myself ignore the evil done -- the billions of innocents robbed, enslaved and immiserated, and the millions of them slaughtered every year -- because no one called out fallacious and dishonest arguments designed to rationalize tyranny and justify injustice. My anger at the purveyors of such despicable, dishonest filth is intense and quite genuine. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.


Sure, I get it, evil must be addressed and addressed harshly, but part of the problem is that most people on here think their position is the righteous cause against the evil positions of everyone else. The intellectual marketplace of ideas thus, long ago, came up with a resolution to just killing everyone else with what was called "civil debate."

Simply calling each other's ideas evil and reprehensible and each other's influences scumbags or nazis is not going to advance the debate nor is it going to cause reflection in your opponent, its only going to cause them to dig-in and entrench themselves and respond with the same sort of vicious dialogue.

I'm not saying I am perfect in this regards, i'm not. I am only saying that I believe if we are serious about intelligently debating with people in a respectful way with a real attempt at both understanding and being understood, much could be advanced even on a place like POFO.

For example, take two leftists: Potemkin and PoD. I disagree with their worldviews about the same as they are close to the same; however, PoD has no intention of being understood, understanding, and resorts to childish tactics instead of honest and open debate. Potemkin is serious and is a serious poster and if anyone had the hope of making me see the virtue of the leftist position, it would be him.

Note his posting style in comparison to someone like PoD sometime. What is the difference?

Potemkin will write like he is writing a blog post or paper, he will quote relevant text and respond in easy-to-read paragraphs giving both critique and analysis. His posts can be witty and sarcastic, but are rarely scathing. PoD, posts one-line remarks, either insulting the position or making unreasonable demands for evidences etc. which are never sincere. (sea-lioning).

Potemkin will ask for evidence only if what is written is very obviously wrong (like dates, names, etc) and will even acknowledge that certain schools have varying interpretations of the same events (which requires the critique to assess not the event's details, but the root of the interpretation itself).

Like I said before, I don't usually jump on the format-nazi-bandwagon, but I felt that some of this needed to be said because PoFo needs more sane individuals of substance, and you are definitely the guy for the job if debating with you wasn't such a joyless pain in the ass.

III. Other

Truth To Power wrote:The what of his ideas??


Sure. Would love to do that sometime.

Truth To Power wrote:Sorry, I carelessly omitted crucial context that shows the relationship: SAI will be a kind of god that, unlike your God, will actually exist. The point being that SAI isn't going to wait until after we are dead to f*ck with us.


Truth To Power wrote:I hope the above clarifies my intention.


It does, thanks. No harm, no foul I suppose. An honest jab with a context.

Truth To Power wrote:I also appreciate your honesty, intelligence, articulateness and consistency. You don't try to move the goalposts when you can't stop the opposing team's advance.


Thank you sir, no one likes cowardly d-bags who move goalposts. I suppose I don't shy away from embracing the conclusions of my own worldview even if they seem "mean" or whatever. I just feel that if a position is true it ought to be followed, irrespective of hypothetical consequences and that the true position will ultimately be the most moral and natural position when all things come out in the wash.

Truth To Power wrote:I don't agree with much of what you say, but at least it is honest, it makes sense of a sort (theism and Darwinism? OK, go wild), and you don't evade.


Once again, thank you.

I do hope you will think over my suggestions, I give them with pure and sincere motivations (inasmuch as a sinner such as myself is able to do so).

I think we could have some epic debates of PoFo legend, but whether that happens someday will largely depend on how you format your posts. Thats a shitty thing to say, I know, but I would be lying if I didn't let you know.

Also, TTP, are you a man or a woman?

I apologize if that sounds dickheadish, i mean no offense, but for some reason, I have often imagined you as a woman.

Like I said, I mean no offense by that. Just curious.

Anyway.

Godspeed.
#14919346
Zamuel wrote:No one is … SAI is uncharted territory, we don't even understand our own sentience.

IMO it's a mistake to throw up our hands and declare conditions on the other side of the Singularity too unpredictable. What we do now could have profound effects on what the universe is like on the other side -- or of course, it might make no difference at all.
We do know it took nature Billions of years to achieve it.

But without a plan to do so. Deliberate AI development is obviously progressing several orders of magnitude faster.
Self awareness requires much more than that. More even I think than Turing's famous test.

It's becoming clear that the Turing Test was not really very well thought out. Deep learning AI will probably be able to pass it soon without actually understanding what it is saying.
Arguing about SAI is senseless IMHO.

OTC, it may be the only thing we do today that will matter in 100 years. Maybe even in 50 years. Maybe 20.
Paranoid speculation is delusional.

Paranoid? Surely Snowden laid that canard to rest.
#14919392
Truth To Power wrote:IMO it's a mistake to throw up our hands and declare conditions on the other side of the Singularity too unpredictable. What we do now could have profound effects on what the universe is like on the other side -- or of course, it might make no difference at all.

Which leaves us with nothing but speculation. It's worthwhile but it's limitations must be recognized and respected. Paranoia is unwarranted.

It's becoming clear that the Turing Test was not really very well thought out. Deep learning AI will probably be able to pass it soon without actually understanding what it is saying.

That's the difference between AI and SAI. The Turing test is perfect, it measures human intelligence as much as machine intelligence. When a balance is reached AI is achieved.

Zam

The energy demands of the developing world, wher[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]