Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 104. (Read 345758 times)
Question about 2015.75. It seems Greece and its creditors have managed to extend-and-pretend into 2016, and that looked to be the most obvious source of sovereign debt contagion. (Of course it is still possible this latest bailout deal will unravel.) Is there another one?
Please stop feeding that troll who wants to pump his nebulous Great Empire Coin™ into every discussion that is proximate to the nature of money and society. It is burying this thread in pages and pages of neologisms and obscure philosophical quotes which are all OT of this thread which as stipulated in the opening post of this thread is supposed to be about practical solutions to Economic Totalitarianism. (note I have been very patient with him over the past year, so please don't accuse me of not being open to tangential discussion)
I just wish he would stop his apparently intentional efforts to take practical discussion off on philosophical abstractions which are often not even clearly correct or at least not precisely relevant. I mean we are in a crisis mode right now and need to focus our energies on tangible efforts.
I have debated Chomsky for example on Hume. I aced the course in Philosophy at the university and even I have corrected an IQ test on a philosophical test question. I can go there, but please not here and not now. Because for one reason is I am a reductionist and will pour energy into sieving the generative essence which consumes much effort, especially when we are referring to the wide open abstractions of philosophy.
I just wish he would stop his apparently intentional efforts to take practical discussion off on philosophical abstractions which are often not even clearly correct or at least not precisely relevant. I mean we are in a crisis mode right now and need to focus our energies on tangible efforts.
I have debated Chomsky for example on Hume. I aced the course in Philosophy at the university and even I have corrected an IQ test on a philosophical test question. I can go there, but please not here and not now. Because for one reason is I am a reductionist and will pour energy into sieving the generative essence which consumes much effort, especially when we are referring to the wide open abstractions of philosophy.
So you don't have original thoughts? Just copy and paste others? And aren't you trying to scorn me with your copy and pasting? I wasn't even thinking about you until you kept repeating [generalizthis] within quotations. But I see someone who lacks the courage to put forth their own thoughts and is quick to ridicule others when it doesn't jive with what they were taught..
What I write is without the authority of Time, save that even he corroborates my tales.
You should go back to quotations. Sorry, i get it now.
So you don't have original thoughts? Just copy and paste others? And aren't you trying to scorn me with your copy and pasting? I wasn't even thinking about you until you kept repeating [generalizthis] within quotations. But I see someone who lacks the courage to put forth their own thoughts and is quick to ridicule others when it doesn't jive with what they were taught..
What I write is without the authority of Time, save that even he corroborates my tales.
What do you think? Or are you an AI programmed to quote others?
Quote from: Proverbs 13:20 (Darby)
A scorner seeketh wisdom, and there is none [for him]; but knowledge is easy unto the intelligent.
(I compose replies through the syntheses of quotes.)
So you don't have original thoughts? Just copy and paste others? And aren't you trying to scorn me with your copy and pasting? I wasn't even thinking about you until you kept repeating [generalizthis] within quotations. But I see someone who lacks the courage to put forth their own thoughts and is quick to ridicule others when it doesn't jive with what they were taught.
The coward laughs behind the mask of the righteous
He seeks to destroy what he doesn't understand
He is doomed to repeat what was lost
And not see the age at hand
What do you think? 
Quote from: Proverbs 13:20 (Darby)
He that walketh with wise [men] becometh wise; but a companion of the foolish will be depraved.
What do you think? Or are you an AI programmed to quote others?
And didn't Judas walk with the wise?
What do you think?
Quote from: Proverbs 13:20 (Darby)
He that walketh with wise [men] becometh wise; but a companion of the foolish will be depraved.
The universe is in a constant state of flux…
In which case, “[t]he universe” (generalizethis) would be; however, it might be.
What do you think?
The universe is in a constant state of flux…
Perhaps, should it be; however, “[t]he universe” (generalizethis) might be.
Reductionist live in a vacuum of their own creation every idea that enters is prodded and poked relentlessly--the squirming carcass thrown back to the living to revitalize itself and resume its infinite course.
Quote from: David Konstan, “Epicurus,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014
Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms…
The universe is in a constant state of flux, to try to contain it (even the temporary yourself of this moment) is to deny yourself chaos. So when you try to pin down a word you miss the beauty of Shakespeare's "Brevity is the soul of wit" which simultaneously uses intelligence and humor as its base. I love using words that are adaptable to many meanings, that can't be pinned down and analyzed effectively. Every poet has had that moment when a word is used out of sheer bliss, and later when you go to do a more analytical edit, you read it and think, "That can't be the right word, it doesn't even make sense!" But nonetheless you go and look up the etymology and there it is: an old meaning that your daemon knew and your modern self had forgotten.
Do you have your own thoughts? When I say bony box--i mean you keep dusting off the words of dead men. Or I might mean something else entirely.
Reductionist live in a vacuum of their own creation every idea that enters is prodded and poked relentlessly--the squirming carcass thrown back to the living to revitalize itself and resume its infinite course.
Quote from: David Konstan, “Epicurus,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014
The [postmodern iteration of the] philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) [is] a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life ([Maslow’s hierarchy of needs]), an empiricist theory of knowledge ([the scientific method]), a description of [the real and hyperreal] based on [quantum mechanical] materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies.
Quote from: Epicurus (341‒270 BCE)
The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity.
Live in your own bony box. I'll go where my bliss takes me.
Quote from: Epicurus (341‒270 BCE)
He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing.
("Box," as you use it, is a loaded symbol.) If a limit cannot be defined with the arbitrary (numerical) value 𝛿, it cannot be defined.
Reductionist live in a vacuum of their own creation every idea that enters is prodded and poked relentlessly--the squirming carcass thrown back to the living to revitalize itself and resume its infinite course.
Live in your own bony box. I'll go where my bliss takes me.
Quote from: Epicurus (341‒270 BCE)
He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing.
(“Box,” as you use it, appeals to psychological conditioning, not reason.) If a (mathematical) limit cannot be defined with an arbitrary (numerical) constant 𝛿, it cannot be defined.
^ 
Good piece. Once a direct neural to computer interfaces reach the point where neurons can interact intimately with data, the bony veil of our skull will be lifted and our brain's capacity will expand into computer assisted consciousness. Though some may want to sit in their dusty recliners and muse (too much) over the meaning of symbols, without really getting that it's subjective and can't be redistributed in the value driven world with out some sort of mental violence--usually in the form of name and link dropping. I want to be inside the computer and see what alien values arise, if any....
Good piece. Once a direct neural to computer interfaces reach the point where neurons can interact intimately with data, the bony veil of our skull will be lifted and our brain's capacity will expand into computer assisted consciousness. Though some may want to sit in their dusty recliners and muse (too much) over the meaning of symbols, without really getting that it's subjective and can't be redistributed in the value driven world with out some sort of mental violence--usually in the form of name and link dropping. I want to be inside the computer and see what alien values arise, if any....
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
Live in your own bony box. I'll go where my bliss takes me.
^
Good piece. Once a direct neural to computer interfaces reach the point where neurons can interact intimately with data, the bony veil of our skull will be lifted and our brain's capacity will expand into computer assisted consciousness. Though some may want to sit in their dusty recliners and muse (too much) over the meaning of symbols, without really getting that it's subjective and can't be redistributed in the value driven world with out some sort of mental violence--usually in the form of name and link dropping. I want to be inside the computer and see what alien values arise, if any....
Good piece. Once a direct neural to computer interfaces reach the point where neurons can interact intimately with data, the bony veil of our skull will be lifted and our brain's capacity will expand into computer assisted consciousness. Though some may want to sit in their dusty recliners and muse (too much) over the meaning of symbols, without really getting that it's subjective and can't be redistributed in the value driven world with out some sort of mental violence--usually in the form of name and link dropping. I want to be inside the computer and see what alien values arise, if any....
how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?
Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-1. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.
No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.
Expert Bernstein and his expert collaborator Tanga on the crypto "apocalypse":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqLyvO2Apm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqLyvO2Apm8
As capitalism marches off the plank of zero marginal costs, what happens to physical value?
...
Capitalism is dead and we're all scared shitless so we keep running around the track playing the "remember when?" game.
What replaces this system?...
...
Capitalism is dead and we're all scared shitless so we keep running around the track playing the "remember when?" game.
What replaces this system?...
Answer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11917056
The zero marginal costs are only in the physical realm. The knowledge component can never be 0 unless you can make entropy reversible and stop time.
What if you could turn off? Stop your time. We can't, at least not in our current state, but an AI could experiment with what happens when time moves forward, but you do not. Could you scale yourself down to a point where there isn't even interactions with or on a subatomic level--to achieve a state of non-movement? Humans tend to think in terms of expansion, but what if AI goes the other way?
Dying (Emily Dickinson)
I heard a fly buzz when I died;
The stillness round my form
Was like the stillness in the air
Between the heaves of storm.
The eyes beside had wrung them dry,
And breaths were gathering sure
For that last onset, when the king
Be witnessed in his power.
I willed my keepsakes, signed away
What portion of me I
Could make assignable,-and then
There interposed a fly,
With blue, uncertain, stumbling buzz,
Between the light and me;
And then the windows failed, and then
I could not see to see.
This is Emily playing with the idea of past, present, and future colliding. Though her future self cannot see beyond the last moment, but maybe that is the real divine state: a point of zero-interaction.
As capitalism marches off the plank of zero marginal costs, what happens to physical value?
...
Capitalism is dead and we're all scared shitless so we keep running around the track playing the "remember when?" game.
What replaces this system?...
...
Capitalism is dead and we're all scared shitless so we keep running around the track playing the "remember when?" game.
What replaces this system?...
Answer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11917056
The zero marginal costs are only in the physical realm. The knowledge component can never be 0 unless you can make entropy reversible and stop time.
Jump to: