dimreepr
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dimreepr
-
-
-
Edited by dimreepr
2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said: It's a tendency to assume a certain conclusion before any evidence is even examined and then to cherrypick or invent evidence to fit that preexisting conclusion.
Survival, motivated by fear of being eaten.
2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said: It leads to obvious closed epistemic loops - the worst case I am familiar with are conspiracy theorists who treat lack of evidence for the conspiracy as evidence of it being... correct (since it means the conspriacy is powerful enough to suppress evidence).
Any ideas?
This is a different question (political), the motivation is still fear though.
Reasoning is a byproduct of intelligence, our ability to apply it effectively, as with all life, lies on a spectrum...
-
22 minutes ago, studiot said: I don't understand your question.
Are you saying that misuse is the only human use of this process ?
or
Are you saying this is a danger of using this process ?
Or what ?
Indeed, also @Otto Kretschmer what is motivated doing in the title?
-
-
-
-
Edited by dimreepr
22 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Just a mask to wear when cordial, constructive dialogue appears to have left the building.
Perhaps you should PM me. I don't bite.
I understand that I can be annoying and have annoyed a lot of the great member's on this site; how annoying is the child that simply asks, why do you think that is true? But isn't satisfied with bc I said so.
Just to reiterate my point and get back on topic, I'm a human and so my freedom is limitated to that of a human (a bee would give a different answer), therefore anything that a human is capable of, from Hitler to Jesus, is generally dictated by my circumstances/context.
-
Edited by dimreepr
24 minutes ago, sethoflagos said: It seems like an appropriate response to one whose sole intent consistently appears to be to wreck any meaningful dialogue. (And maybe payback for past ad hominems).
Nor is that...
I'm trying to discuss a topic, why are you angry with that approach?
If you're correct and I'm wrong, then show me how; but don't mock me bc I'm disabled and you might face a cancellation... ;)
I've only mocked your arguments, I don't know you...
-
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Hardly! Holden Caulfield is a puerile narcissist; a young Trump in the making. Similarly destructive of course, but quite a different character type.
Do you identify with this rôle?
... and drink from the cattle trough of doom? No thanks. Not when the hedgerows have brambles and elderberries a-plenty.
Mocking my answer's is not an argument, at best it's a logical fallacy, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
I note, with interest, that you've yet to answer 'how can one judge one's level of freedom from within one's prison'?
16 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Well answered!
No it isn't, it's a description of nirvana AKA no place.
"You can't step on the same river twice" is analogous to humanity, every one of us is entirely unique, but we can't help being swept along by the same river, however hard we wish it isn't true... ;)
-
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Not if he wishes to remain in the priesthood.
Why not is there a rule, that I missed?
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Self-flagellation? Not for me. John's a pathetic, self-pitying wimp.
You're thinking about "A Catcher in the rye".
The point of the savage, is to be an external criticism of what 'we' consider the norm, for instance, 200 years ago the norm would be our culter accepts that 'god' is real, and you would be the savage as an atheist.
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Rubbish. One channels it, and all other negative impulses into positive, constructive action. Or you sit, wallowing in self-pity, and pretend that that somehow makes you a philosopher.
OTOH you could sit in your ivory tower and think that my way is the only correct way, I assume you know how dangerous that can be...
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: I could however identify with Helmholtz, perhaps. Except that I chose exile in Nigeria rather than the Falkland Islands. Actually, when I think about it, the parallels are... interesting.
Only to you, without some sort of synopsis.
-
14 hours ago, sethoflagos said: The priest promises relief from hardship in the afterlife; the engineer strives to deliver it in the present.
A priest can't be an engineer?
What if the promise of the afterlife relieves the hardship of the present?
14 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Then by the same token, you must fail to understand it too. Pointless and off topic.
I've been thirsty enough to share a dirty water trough with a herd of cow's, my point is you can't know how you'll react in a stressful situation.
The Dunning and Krueger crowd will be utterly convinced that, in a life and death situation, they will act in a morally and heroic way, some might, but most of us will try to hide and hope we don't piss our pants.
Seems entirely appropriate in a topic labelled 'the false flag of freedom'.
14 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Sorry, I don't do angst.
As a palliative I'd recommend The Roads to Freedom. Both more constructive and on topic.
How does one know one's level freedom from within one's prison?
If you don't do angst then you don't do philosophy, as a palliative I'd recommend 'A Brave New World', and imagine that you're the 'savage'.
-
Edited by dimreepr
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: A rather extreme and melodramatic example, but with the appropriate life insurance policy...
Kin altruism certainly shaped (or excused) many of the (free?) choices I made in my adult life; willingly accepting the responsibility of raising a brood of good little numerate atheists, well-equipped to fend for themselves in uncertain times.
Strangely, I found that adapting to meet the economic constraints imposed by family responsibility did not have to compromise my personal freedom. Quite the reverse. Which leads me to suspect that just as one defines one's own purpose in life, one can also define what freedoms one can indulge in. However, there are always trade-offs. No free lunches and all that.
It's only seems like an extreme example bc you've never been hungry enough to eat from the gutter; in the unlikely event that you have to choose between eating that dirty morsal or give it to your equally hungrey child, then how could you understand my point.
Life Insurance/assurance is only money and you can't eat that...
21 hours ago, sethoflagos said: I'm going to call your 'mystical, god-shaped dimension' Luilekkerland; declare that there's nothing fundamental about it (it's just a childish fantasy); and leave Darwin to decide who made the best evolutionary choice: the priest or the engineer.
Why are they mutually exclusive?
This is not a binary question, for instance, what if one of your darling little athiests wanted to believe that grandad is still 'somewhere' and smiling down on it's godless soul?
You should read some Nietzche, start here.
22 hours ago, sethoflagos said: I'm rather bored by the free-will debate. Evolution has given me the very strong impression that my significant choices are made freely, and it suits me to accept that at face value if not as an article of faith then at least by Occam's Razor. The principle of personal responsibility for one's actions seems a lot more useful.
The trouble with Occam's Razor is, it's only superficially true at every level...
-
Edited by dimreepr
13 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Responsibility is thrust upon us whether we would wish it or not. The way things seem to be going, 'most of us' need to grow up before reality bites us on the bum.
Reality is thrust upon us whether we would wish it or not.
Growing up, to what standard before reality bites?
Responsibility is more a question of circumstances, for instance, when does your responsibility to protect your kids by not dying, out weighed by the needs of one of your five kids, in immediate danger?
14 hours ago, sethoflagos said: Some perhaps.
@DavidWahl 's definition of freedom is more the mediaeval utopian idealism of a Cockayne or Luilekkerland. I share some aspects of it myself to a certain extent. Who wouldn't want to live in a land where:
Quote roasted pigs wander about with knives in their backs to make carving easy, where grilled geese fly directly into one's mouth, where cooked fish jump out of the water and land at one's feet. The weather is always mild, the wine flows freely, sex is readily available, and all people enjoy eternal youth.
It's an age old fantasy, still shared by many.
I think this is more a question of free will than freedom, humans tend to be predisposed to a mystical, god shaped, dimension; how does a rational approach replace that fundamental need?
But now that we are free to laugh at the stupid, religious, people, we feel guilty every time we put on our lucky socks.
-
15 hours ago, DavidWahl said: If I understand your question correctly, I believe it concerns the subject of free will and for personal reasons, I prefer not to engage with that topic right now. That being said, I think we all recognize that freedom and free will, though closely related, are still distinct notions. Oftentimes, people conflate the two. I see freedom as largely external. It is a condition in which choices are available and we can act on them (regardless of whether those choices are truly our own). A society that provides maximal opportunities for an individual or group is therefore a society with the most freedom. By this measure, I can say with certainty that I have far more freedom than a prisoner because I lack the external constraints they face. In this context, questions about free will do not affect the reality of practical freedom.
What about your own self imposed lack of freedom?
The reality of freedom in this context is conflating freedom of movement with the freedom to have a guilt free normal nights sleep.
Convicts on the run have been reported as being relieved to having been caught, bc they no longer have to face the worry of constantly being hyper-vigilant in every waking moment.
12 hours ago, sethoflagos said: In short, Sartre’s answer would not be a fixed goal, but a task:
... to continually define oneself through free, responsible action in a meaningless universe, through communication, political involvement, and commitment to others. ie. to be a constructive, adult participant in society.
Camus’ “purpose” would not be to define oneself, but to experience life intensely, lucidly, and defiantly—like Sisyphus, who finds contentment in endlessly pushing his rock. (or performing mathematical feats in his prison cell).
Neither of these exercises in freedom are the safe and comfortable options. They both come with serious responsibilities.
Most of us don't inhabit the extremes of these thought's, bc we don't want the responsibility.
Most of us are perfectly happy to be led down the path to a brave new world, by means of somer.
Aldous Huxley was sure that somer was an artificial god and so, much less potent; which sort of sits with Nietzche and his quest for a substitute to the god we've destroyed.
-
6 hours ago, DavidWahl said: I completely agree with you on this. Freedom is one of the most misunderstood ideas in modern society. If I wanted to be a free man, I could abandon society entirely and live alone in some distant land. But then I would spend more of my life worrying about survival than actually enjoying that freedom. I would likely devote most of my time to finding or growing food, whereas in society I can use that time to think, do mathematics, or even watch football. Freedom is meaningful only when one has the time and resources to exercise it. Things like refraining from peeing by the side of the road are small sacrifices we make that do not meaningfully affect our broader conception of freedom.
Have you ever wondered if your sense of freedom, is correct or just another rabbit hole we flee to as an excuse to misunderstand, a reason we hold dear?
-
I have no doubt that I'm about to be wrong, but...
What if dark matter + space/time = gravity and space/time without dark matter = freedom of movement without restriction which = expansion.
I think of it as dark matter somehow activates space/time, would that mean there's region's of space in which relativity does not apply?
Just a brain fart, but I'd love to know why I'm wrong, preferably in a language I sort of understand...
-
On 3/18/2026 at 7:16 PM, npts2020 said: There are candidates in every election who want this. Trouble is, the sincere ones are not generally Republicans or Democrats and Americans don't seem to mind "evil" too much so we get what we have...
Imagine 'evil' as an excuse to vent, are you sure that your anger is legitimate and not just a reason to be indignant?
-
On 3/15/2026 at 10:47 PM, Externet said: Without asking directly if one or the other; is there a way in a non-political conversation, to detect/sense if a person is democrat or republican in the U.S. or has tendency to be ?
-Or by asking what ?
That's like asking for a question that could winkle out a closet vegan or a dedicated BBQer, no question is necessary, just stop talking for a minute or two and they'll tell you... ;)
-
-
On 3/17/2026 at 3:59 PM, CharonY said: Folks doing silent reading the article can be read in about 20-45 mins, i.e. less than half the time needed for listening. But of course it depends on practice and other factors (such as legasthenia). But an important advantage is that you can much easier skim through parts of it and focus on the parts one might be interested in. In a video that is quite hard.
It takes me a lot longer, to not only read but also a lot more concentration to comprehend the meaning, verbally I can, usually, skip to the end in about the same time.
-
13 hours ago, CharonY said: He also does talk about the different between the leadership and the Iranians. I also found a video from the discussion, if you are interested (I just lack the patience when reading is so much faster).
Speak for yourself, and thanks for the video, but I too lost patience after about 20 mins and skipped to the end/conclusion; all 'they' want is a seat at the table, why are 'we' so afraid of their opinion?
-
22 hours ago, KJW said: Well, maybe Ukraine should be given back the nuclear weapons it gave up at the end of the Cold War in return for guaranteed sovereignty.
I'm not sure how you think that argues my point?
If Ukraine wanted to guarantee sovereignty, all they needed to do, was shove a few secret shekles under the carpet for a rainy day; the threat of a mortal thing, in the animal kindom, is normally enough to restrict the violence to sabre rattling.
Imagine if we did give Iran a nuke, it would be like watching a petulant child who got their wish, with their justifiably inflated angry balloon, only to watch it deflate in a shameful smelly fart...
-
-
12 hours ago, npts2020 said: IMO the whole argument over Iran (or any country) building a missile and nuking the US with it is silly. Why would any entity able to refine uranium bother trying to put it on a missile when you can just smuggle it to wherever you want to set it off with likely a higher chance of success and lower cost.
Iran wants the leverage not the missile.
12 hours ago, npts2020 said: This is why I think a long term conflict with Iran is far more dangerous than most people wish to believe, especially if the materiel they have isn't fully secured.
This is why it's not well thought out by Trump, his overwhelming power forced Iran into gorilla war tactics and just blow up the shit that matters to it's enemies, the number's will slow down, with time, but the relative impact will increase.
Why did motivated reasoning evolve in humans?
in Psychiatry and Psychology
I'm unsure what the difference is, in this thread/topic
But as a matter of interest, is the null hypothesis, not just contentment?
Unless we're getting into a Hari Seldon situation.