by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Forest Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,4601,4611,4621,4631,4641,4651,466. . .1,5781,579»

Random forest

Random fact of the day:

Kopi luwak, which is a kind of coffee originating in Indonesia, is made with the coffee beans that passed through the digestive tract of Asian palm civets (a type of small mammal), which are hand-picked from their dung. Kopi luwak is considered to be a very luxurious coffee, and its retail price can reach $700 per kilogram.

Farewell Zwangzug, another big hitter moving on. You were always a calming and humourous influence and you liked posts judiciously so that I felt a little warm glow when you did. More than once your imagined exasperation kept me from a political rant I might otherwise have launched on. I've always remembered a wonderfully sarcastic phrase of yours from an RP in my first week in Forest - "a grand quorum of no person at all."

Aclion wrote:Also because making a graphic for a 9 dimensional hypercube will be a headache and a half :P

Fun mathematical fact in memory of our departed mathematician: in such a 9 dimensional space it would be impossible to tie knots - with so many additional dimensions to move through there would always be a way of shaking them apart.

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:On the contrary, neuroscience suggests that causal decision making of this sort is an illusion, and biological neural networks arrive at decisions and initiate action potentials before the individual in question is even consciously aware that a decision is being taken to begin with.

Well, yes, but the thing is that humans have developed those biological neural networks specifically because they're effective at appropriate decision making - far better than anything else we've observed in nature or been able to build ourselves. And then people say that what's going on isn't free will because we used the specialised tool that we have for that specific purpose. To me that seems like suggesting the cleaner bot can't properly move across the carpet because it's using the motor.

Certainly human decision making can, at least in principle, be described in scientific terms. This leads people to deny the existence of free will because the processes involved are either deterministic or random. Yet this implicitly suggests that a decision only counts as free if the process that produces it is literally magical, which seems to be setting the bar pretty high. Once we get rid of the Cartesian idea of an immaterial soul controlling the body like a driver sat in a car we need to ask what we would expect free will to look like.

Ruinenlust wrote:That touches on the observation of some school of thought in philosophy that I can't quite recall at this point (probably several, actually), which is essentially that reality is both fundamentally subjective and also objective, because in order for something to be observed, criticized, or presented to others, there must, necessarily, be an observer, a critic, or a presenter, both by definition and also in actual fact. There is no science without a scientist; there is no view without a viewer, so to speak.

I'm not sure if that's a specific school of thought, but I think it has to do with the original division between the analytic philosophy that dominates academic philosophy in the English speaking world and the Continental philosophy that's influential in social studies, literary theory and theology.

Analytic philosophy, which in its modern form has a close relationship with mathematical logic, aims to find certainties as a starting point and proceed using logical methods to find new certainties. Given the difficulties in proving that you're not a brain in a vat, however, or living in the matrix, certainties to start from are in short supply. In the 18th century Kant introduced a new approach which he modestly described as a Copernican revolution, starting instead from subjective human experience and asking what must be the case in order for this experience to be possible, what are its conditions of possibility. Philosophy from that point tends to either ignore Kant and treat the subjective as ephemeral and inconsequential, or else build on his approach to the extent that it gets classified as post-Kantian.

Economic -9.5/Authoritarian -6.87 and submitted. I looked at the 9 axes test but while a little US bias is understandable the fact that one end of the federalist/unitarian axis is labelled with a map of the US did kind of suggest that it wasn't for us foreigners.

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:You know what's a fun quiz? The Philosophical Health Test via The Philosophers' Magazine: https://www.philosophersmag.com/games !

It measures whether you have any tension in your...um, moral beliefs. FloorNet has only one tension in its beliefs, although it's probably not really a tension cause what do those fancy apes know anyway, right? Still, it is considering adopting Elementary, My Dear Wason as an inverse Voigt-Kampff test for detecting unauthorized primates.

Hmm.

Philosophical Health Check - Analysis 2

As you've probably already figured out, the Philosophical Health Test has identified no tensions in your beliefs. 3% of the people who have completed this activity to date similarly have no tensions in their beliefs.

I feel kinda conflicted about that. If I am lacking tension in my beliefs, does that mean I'm insufficiently self-reflective? Or does it mean that all those years thinking about my moral stance and worldview have given me clarity?

Edit:
And wow, my wife just scored 47%. So she is full of clashing beliefs, while I have a near psychopathic level of absolute moral certainty. Does that make us more compatible or less compatible?
She does, however, believe that she doesn't really know what she believes, a lot of the time.

Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.0

Also submitted. Is there a chart listing those who have submitted somewhere, or is that going to be for a dispatch?

@ Philosophical Health Check:

PHC Tension Score: 40

The PHC has identified 6 tensions in your beliefs.

Statements 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

48% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

Statements 17 and 28: Are there any absolute truths?

37% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

Statements 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?

55% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

Statements 12 and 30: Is the future fixed?

17% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny

Statements 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

32% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists

Statements 16 and 21: What should be legal?

37% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

Post self-deleted by Forest Breeze.

Mount Seymour wrote:There appears to be a problem with the security certificate of the forum software (freeflarum), so your browser may display a warning if you try to access our forum. There's nothing wrong with the site though -- if you're using Chrome you can click on "Advanced" and proceed past the warning. Hopefully the issue will be resolved soon.

"You cannot visit forest.freeflarum.com right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later." Oh well, "probably work later" is probably reassuring.
EDIT: It is back up!

So, fun thing happened today.

Teaching my 3 and 6 year old about comparatives and superlatives as we walk through the park. We develop a game where we each take a turn saying an adjective, the next one says the comparative, then the next one says the superlative.

For example:

6 year old: I'm funny.
Me: I'm funnier.
3 year old: I'm the funniest.

Kept going for a while, till this happened:

3 year old: I'm broccoli.
6 year old: I'm brocclier.
Me: I'm broccliest.

Which is pretty funny to boys there age. We kept playing the game mostly seriously, but with the odd silly one thrown in. Till we pass a dog walker.

3 year old: I'm a dog!
6 year old (shouting): I'm a dogger!
My wife: I can't believe he just shouted that in the park.

((explanation for non-Brits: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/dogger)

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:So, fun thing happened today.

Teaching my 3 and 6 year old about comparatives and superlatives as we walk through the park. We develop a game where we each take a turn saying an adjective, the next one says the comparative, then the next one says the superlative.

For example:

6 year old: I'm funny.
Me: I'm funnier.
3 year old: I'm the funniest.

Kept going for a while, till this happened:

3 year old: I'm broccoli.
6 year old: I'm brocclier.
Me: I'm broccliest.

Which is pretty funny to boys there age. We kept playing the game mostly seriously, but with the odd silly one thrown in. Till we pass a dog walker.

3 year old: I'm a dog!
6 year old (shouting): I'm a dogger!
My wife: I can't believe he just shouted that in the park.

((explanation for non-Brits: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/dogger)

Dogs are just gross.

Feline Masters wrote:Dogs are just gross.

Agreed, that is why I always tax dog owners heavily to fund the building of an alabaster cat statue in that issue where dog poop is everywhere and people keep stepping in it.

Turbeaux wrote:Agreed, that is why I always tax dog owners heavily to fund the building of an alabaster cat statue in that issue where dog poop is everywhere and people keep stepping in it.

You couldn't worship us enough, so I'd suggest having more than one alabaster cat statue.

Unlike dogs, we at least know where to poop. We also know how to clean ourselves, while dogs just roll in their own sh1t for fun. Ugh. An animal must have dignity.

Feline Masters wrote:You couldn't worship us enough, so I'd suggest having more than one alabaster cat statue.

Unlike dogs, we at least know where to poop. We also know how to clean ourselves, while dogs just roll in their own sh1t for fun. Ugh. An animal must have dignity.

Here is the full text (edited by CWA): "'Ugh, dogs are so disgusting,' complains ailurophile @@RANDOMNAME@@, as the pet cat accompanying him/her drops a dead bird at his/her feet and cleans its paws with its tongue. 'Felines are much lovelier than dogs; they groom themselves constantly, and do their business in a tray, not outside like those mangy canines do. With that in mind, I propose that we restrict the ownership of dogs with hefty license fees, and use that money on a national campaign promoting the virtues of cats instead.'” The result is: "An alabaster statue of an ancient cat-deity takes pride of place in the centre of @@CAPITAL@@." I have sided with the ailurophile every time that issue comes up, so there should either be multiple statues or all of Forest's alabaster in one gargantuan statue.

Also, it is tough to see Zwangzug go. You will be missed! Goodbye!

Turbeaux wrote:Here is the full text (edited by CWA): "'Ugh, dogs are so disgusting,' complains ailurophile @@RANDOMNAME@@, as the pet cat accompanying him/her drops a dead bird at his/her feet and cleans its paws with its tongue. “Felines are much lovelier than dogs; they groom themselves constantly, and do their business in a tray, not outside like those mangy canines do. With that in mind, I propose that we restrict the ownership of dogs with hefty license fees, and use that money on a national campaign promoting the virtues of cats instead.” The result is: "An alabaster statue of an ancient cat-deity takes pride of place in the centre of @@CAPITAL@@." I have sided with the ailurophile every time that issue comes up, so there should either be multiple statues or all of Forest's alabaster in one gargantuan statue.

I want to visit your country.

Feline Masters wrote:I want to visit your country.

Please bring alabaster!

Everyone who post below this is not environmentally-friendly.

Guess I better post below it then.

Entitize wrote:Everyone who post below this is not environmentally-friendly.

OK, time for a linguistics lesson.

Logical operators enter into "scope" relations with other logical operators in a sentence. For example, words like every and all are universal quantifiers and not is a negation operator, both of which count as logical operators. Thus, a sentence that contains one of each of these two logical operators can have different meanings depending on their relative scope relations. For example, a sentence like "Everyone is not environmentally-friendly" (simplified) can mean two things.

1) Everyone is such that they are not environmentally-friendly. (∀ > not -> universal quantifier takes scope over negation)
2) It is not the case that everyone is environmentally-friendly (not > ∀ -> negation takes scope over universal quantifier)

I see you think you are smart (as all humans do) and that we should be forced to take the first meaning. But the grammar of English allows the second reading as well, and it is perfectly OK to opt for that - which is what I am doing.

After all, the second statement is almost trivially true, as not every Forestian is environmentally-friendly, some prominent examples being Candlewhisper Archive, Lord Dominator, etc.

Jokes on you, you accomplished nothing.

----------------------------------------

P.S. Just in case you need some guidance for next time, here is what you should have done to avoid this ambiguity. You should have said "Nobody who posts below is environmentally-friendly."

This sentence contains only one logical operator (a negative existential) and since there is not a second operator with which it can enter into scopal relations, the sentence will be unambiguous. As you see, spending my life as a distinguished library cat has taught me some things.

You're welcome.

Uan aa Boa wrote:Farewell Zwangzug, another big hitter moving on. You were always a calming and humourous influence and you liked posts judiciously so that I felt a little warm glow when you did. More than once your imagined exasperation kept me from a political rant I might otherwise have launched on. I've always remembered a wonderfully sarcastic phrase of yours from an RP in my first week in Forest - "a grand quorum of no person at all."

I'm not sure if that's a specific school of thought, but I think it has to do with the original division between the analytic philosophy that dominates academic philosophy in the English speaking world and the Continental philosophy that's influential in social studies, literary theory and theology.

Analytic philosophy, which in its modern form has a close relationship with mathematical logic, aims to find certainties as a starting point and proceed using logical methods to find new certainties. Given the difficulties in proving that you're not a brain in a vat, however, or living in the matrix, certainties to start from are in short supply. In the 18th century Kant introduced a new approach which he modestly described as a Copernican revolution, starting instead from subjective human experience and asking what must be the case in order for this experience to be possible, what are its conditions of possibility. Philosophy from that point tends to either ignore Kant and treat the subjective as ephemeral and inconsequential, or else build on his approach to the extent that it gets classified as post-Kantian.


Indeed! While most of my philosophy classes were with ancient or medieval philosophy, I nevertheless throughly enjoyed Kant and other thinkers from that period. I remember, with some fondness and also a bit of embarrassment, that I semi-seriously set out to essentially "figure out" which branch or school of philosophy was "actually correct" or something to that effect. Philosophy and language, though, are so fundamentally intertwined, since we only express philosophical concepts through the vehicle of spoken or written words (leaving out symbolic logic and such, although such systems also use their own 'language' of sorts). I was frequently tempted to switch from philosophy to linguistics, but it sort of passed me by.

I personally oscillate between starting with the objective world and starting with the subjective experience. One of the beautiful things about learning or thinking about such things now is that we can sort of look across thousands of years and hundreds of significant figures in many cultures and traditions, and sort of hold it all together at arm's length. I marvel how some of these people came up with or thought through their vast and complex systems of belief.

---

As an aside, you mentioned the other day on here how Scotland is having very dry weather. I sympathize with your efforts to keep the vernal pools wet. We have been having a lot of rain and flooding in the south. Here, it was only a few degrees above freezing, despite that the leaves are coming on the trees and that it has already been like 24C/75F several times. These weather patterns that take weeks or even months to change, as opposed to more regular changes in these latitudes, are really creating extreme conditions that we haven't seen before. And, as I keep reminding myself, we are just getting started. What happens when Europe has ten years in a row of extreme drought, and parts of North America see 1,000-year or 10,000-year floods? And then it changes, and the reverse occurs? We don't have the infrastructure or resilience to combat that, especially in the long-term.

---

Also, it's a shame that Zwangzug is no longer here. The Forest is much less...zwangy, now. :-/

I myself have been an occasional recipient of a Zwangzug like, which was indeed always a good thing to see. :-)

Feline Masters wrote:OK, time for a linguistics lesson.

Logical operators enter into "scope" relations with other logical operators in a sentence. For example, words like every and all are universal quantifiers and not is a negation operator, both of which count as logical operators. Thus, a sentence that contains one of each of these two logical operators can have different meanings depending on their relative scope relations. For example, a sentence like "Everyone is not environmentally-friendly" (simplified) can mean two things.

1) Everyone is such that they are not environmentally-friendly. (∀ > not -> universal quantifier takes scope over negation)
2) It is not the case that everyone is environmentally-friendly (not > ∀ -> negation takes scope over universal quantifier)

I see you think you are smart (as all humans do) and that we should be forced to take the first meaning. But the grammar of English allows the second reading as well, and it is perfectly OK to opt for that - which is what I am doing.

After all, the second statement is almost trivially true, as not every Forestian is environmentally-friendly, some prominent examples being Candlewhisper Archive, Lord Dominator, etc.

Jokes on you, you accomplished nothing.

----------------------------------------

P.S. Just in case you need some guidance for next time, here is what you should have done to avoid this ambiguity. You should have said "Nobody who posts below is environmentally-friendly."

This sentence contains only one logical operator (a negative existential) and since there is not a second operator with which it can enter into scopal relations, the sentence will be unambiguous. As you see, spending my life as a distinguished library cat has taught me some things.

You're welcome.

Forgive him, O great Feline, I am sure he did not do it for bad.
This seemed more of a logical leason to me than linguistic one, maybe you can recommend me ... recommend him something about English linguistic logic, let's see if they learn!
I would love you so much if I could correct myself when possible, O big Feline. ho is the most beautiful, how is ..., yes is you, cute, cuddly ... I will send you a great fish, delicious type, not the one thats ever has one another bigger than him.

Feline Masters wrote:OK, time for a linguistics lesson.

Logical operators enter into "scope" relations with other logical operators in a sentence. For example, words like every and all are universal quantifiers and not is a negation operator, both of which count as logical operators. Thus, a sentence that contains one of each of these two logical operators can have different meanings depending on their relative scope relations. For example, a sentence like "Everyone is not environmentally-friendly" (simplified) can mean two things.

1) Everyone is such that they are not environmentally-friendly. (∀ > not -> universal quantifier takes scope over negation)
2) It is not the case that everyone is environmentally-friendly (not > ∀ -> negation takes scope over universal quantifier)

I see you think you are smart (as all humans do) and that we should be forced to take the first meaning. But the grammar of English allows the second reading as well, and it is perfectly OK to opt for that - which is what I am doing.

After all, the second statement is almost trivially true, as not every Forestian is environmentally-friendly, some prominent examples being Candlewhisper Archive, Lord Dominator, etc.

Jokes on you, you accomplished nothing.

----------------------------------------

P.S. Just in case you need some guidance for next time, here is what you should have done to avoid this ambiguity. You should have said "Nobody who posts below is environmentally-friendly."

This sentence contains only one logical operator (a negative existential) and since there is not a second operator with which it can enter into scopal relations, the sentence will be unambiguous. As you see, spending my life as a distinguished library cat has taught me some things.

You're welcome.

I just died.

Kinganaryasia wrote:Forgive him, O great Feline, I am sure he did not do it for bad.
This seemed more of a logical leason to me than linguistic one, maybe you can recommend me ... recommend him something about English linguistic logic, let's see if they learn!
I would love you so much if I could correct myself when possible, O big Feline. ho is the most beautiful, how is ..., yes is you, cute, cuddly ... I will send you a great fish, delicious type, not the one thats ever has one another bigger than him.

Thanks for the offering of fish, loyal servant. You can leave it at my altar.

As for your points about logic - I have to say you are quite intelligent for a homo sapiens. I am impressed.

Yes, the phenomenon explained above has to do with logic, but can you tell me to what degree linguistics and logic are separable? They are not. For language is logic itself.

Entitize wrote:I just died.

Feline Masters wrote:Thanks for the offering of fish, loyal servant. You can leave it at my altar.

As for your points about logic - I have to say you are quite intelligent for a homo sapiens. I am impressed.

Yes, the phenomenon explained above has to do with logic, but can you tell me to what degree linguistics and logic are separable? They are not. For language is logic itself.

I think it's inside a box!

Kinganaryasia wrote:I think it's inside a box!

Technically, I am inside a box at the moment.

You, on the other hand, should practise thinking outside the box every once in a while, human!

Seriously, you humans suck at being creative.

Feline Masters wrote:Technically, I am inside a box at the moment.

You, on the other hand, should practise thinking outside the box every once in a while, human!

Seriously, you humans suck at being creative.

If that's true then we must give up, robots already win, next time i bee more prepared, i'll bring cat herb and one scratching post, be prepare!

and before you say, cat robots are meaneless. for a robotic dog, they can use a gyro to drop standing, and lives will be unlimited. (or while supplies last, buy now! .. habits)

Went job interview clothes shopping today. Aiming at something like business casual +1; I work in libraries, so shorts isn't enough but a three piece and tie is probably overshooting. Had a super once who interviewed people in a Hawaiian shirt. Anyway...

Spotted these shoes:

https://www.merrell.com/US/en/jungle-moc-leather/17704M.html?dwvar_17704M_color=J63883#cgid=men-footwear-casual&start=1

They're leather, so apologies to the vegans in the room, but I'll be damned if a pair of dress casual hiking shoes didn't make me instantly think of Forest for some reason.

Unfortunately they didn't have my size :(

(My feet are size exactly-right-or-youre-buying-the-podiatrist-at-least-a-couple-boat-payments)

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:
...Spotted these shoes...

They're leather, so apologies to the vegans in the room, but I'll be damned if a pair of dress casual mud kickers didn't make me instantly think of Forest for some reason.

Unfortunately they didn't have my size :(...

Leather aside, the soles on those look useless! It might be a good thing that they did not have your size!

«12. . .1,4601,4611,4621,4631,4641,4651,466. . .1,5781,579»

Advertisement