My apologies. I blame my phone's autocorrect. I have corrected the post.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1441, Annadog40 wrote:But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.
"What would Accountant do?"
If I gave this to a stranger, they would have no idea what it means.
1) Identify the self evident truths of the world
2) Follow them
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
It's one of those Anglo-American spelling/language differences which I actually couldn't care less about but thought it would be a good punchline to that rather jokey post
XRZ, it's midnight on a day that happens to fall in the unhappy overlap between Chinese New Year celebrations and exam preparation period. I am very busy, very tired and have a limited amount of time and energy to spare. The ramblings of an armchair psychiatrist who attempts to tell me what is in my mind and deigns to educate me as to what sort of approaches my own philosophy espouses are not on the top of my priority list.
Please be patient. I'll get around to dismantling your argument eventually.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1427, Sesq wrote:Actually, no, it was not established that personhood is derived from ideals, you just asserted it out of nowhere. Your diatribe about sentient AI is only true with the presupposition that their personhood would be judged on their ideals, which is supposed to be the conclusion, and not the premise, and yet again you display no knowledge of how logic or critical thought works.
Sesq... this is a thread about my beliefs. Are you seriously asking me for evidence that I really believe X beyond me asserting that I believe X?
Yes. If you have beliefs, they should be backed up by some form of evidence. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they're correct.
In post 1427, Sesq wrote:This sort of implies that there's an alternate to reality. There isn't. I definitely wish there was sometimes, and I'm prone to getting caught in my own fantasies from time to time, but that doesn't validate its position as important at all.
That's the kind of dangerous rhetoric used by reality sympathisers. I'm honestly unsure why on earth you'd want to discriminate against fantasy worlds. Is this jealousy because they're better places to live in than reality?
"Reality sympathizer" is a thing now. Brilliant. How am I discriminating against something that doesn't exist? I'm not saying we should ignore their ideals, necessarily, but to bring them to the real world you must then apply practicality and critical thought to the idea.
In post 1427, Sesq wrote:It really shows that instead of proving why you aren't being hypocritical, if that is indeed the case, you tell them to GTFO because it offends you. This is not a debunk, it's whining.
I can't debunk what doesn't exist. Shaziro offered no proof of my hypocrisy, or evidence towards the same.
In post 1427, Sesq wrote:It's just not real. It's true you can imagine things and they can become real. Social security was a dream one day, as was flight and the internet, and if you have good ideas you should go through with them. However, you need a sense of practicality to apply it to reality, as your non-reality applies to nobody but you and maybe some of your mates.
You know perfectly well that I hold no truck with reality. It's meaningless to me unless it advances utopia. To tell me that what I believe is not real is about as meaningful as telling me that my favorite book begins with the letter T or that my best friend has red hair. It's just a completely pointless statement.
As for my friends, I invite you to cease speaking about subjects of which you are ignorant.
When I said "your mates" I meant like, if anyone was like, doing shrooms with their friends. It was more a general example than one targeted at you.
In post 1441, Annadog40 wrote:But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.
"What would Accountant do?"
If I gave this to a stranger, they would have no idea what it means.
1) Identify the self evident truths of the world
2) Follow them
They're only self-evident TO YOU, at least the self-evident truths you are referring to. And if they are only self-evident to you, they are not self-evident to or of the world.
It's funny because the only discernible reason for all of Accountant's beliefs is the idea that he wants to be perfect, so anything that doesn't make him or his ideas perfect is bad. Funny shit tbh. Of course this might not be the case, but he never provides any reasons for his beliefs beyond "it's self evident", despite it clearly -not- being self evident because he's the only one who thinks that way.
Some questions for Accountant:
How many ideals should one have to follow to the best of their ability?
Do you recognize that people make mistakes?
Cannot nuance be part of an ideal?
Let me explain, an ideal is something one sees as perfect or desirable. So if someone sees adding nuance to their ideals, are they not still ideals that one wants to follow? I think of nuance in a programmatic sense, if statements that contain branches for what to do. It seems in your world these ifs do not exist in ideals, whereas in mine they would. You run an ideal, but if X happens do Y, else do Z. Is this nuance and if so, isn't it still an ideal?
In post 1465, Dwlee99 wrote:Some questions for Accountant:
How many ideals should one have to follow to the best of their ability?
Do you recognize that people make mistakes?
Cannot nuance be part of an ideal?
Let me explain, an ideal is something one sees as perfect or desirable. So if someone sees adding nuance to their ideals, are they not still ideals that one wants to follow? I think of nuance in a programmatic sense, if statements that contain branches for what to do. It seems in your world these ifs do not exist in ideals, whereas in mine they would. You run an ideal, but if X happens do Y, else do Z. Is this nuance and if so, isn't it still an ideal?
I'm guessing the answers will be no limit, I don't, and no.
In post 1431, implosion wrote:Is it because there's this objective notion of value out there that, for some reason, has no correlation with the notion of value that I find obvious?
Yes.
So then why should I accept your philosophy, if it rests very directly on the tenet of "these things are self-evident" and I do not find them to be self-evident?
Or is there some reason to believe the tenets of your philosophy other than their being self-evident?
In post 1431, implosion wrote:Is it because there's this objective notion of value out there that, for some reason, has no correlation with the notion of value that I find obvious?
Yes.
So then why should I accept your philosophy, if it rests very directly on the tenet of "these things are self-evident" and I do not find them to be self-evident?
Or is there some reason to believe the tenets of your philosophy other than their being self-evident?
No, you're just "blind" and need to "see the correct path".
i love it when a new person joins the thread because they decide to argue the exact same points everyone else already has as if it's going to make much difference when they ask it
As much as I disagree with Accountant's philosophies, I still find the mindset interesting when new points are expanded upon, but when the points being asked are the same ones as always and the answer is the same one as always it's just dull and frustrating for every party involved
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
Also, what is NM doing? Worst play I’ve ever seen.
I can't remember the last N_M post that wasn't bland, unimaginative and lame. Some shitposters are at least somewhat funny. You are the epitomy of the type of poster that nobody would miss if you were to suddenly disappear. You never add anything of value.
I'm guessing you haven't read the game and probably never will? Why even sign up to play?
