|
Most people agree events have a cause. Whether the cause is future or past is a question we can never answer. We are happy to suppose that whatever direction time appears to go is essentially a matter of opinion. If it went backwards it wouldn't matter in the same sense that if a river flows toward the equator it doesn't matter.
Maybe humans are fish swimming upstream in the river of time. Hopefully we aren't senselessly crushed by an unexpected reversal of causal forces like aliens developing a super computer capable of time travel.
I hope science is banned for this reason. Science is a fraud because the scientific method depends on observers. As quantum physics shows observers inform the world which basically falsifies the scientific method. There will never be ceteris paribus conditions because any observer outside the system falsifies the scientific conditions.
I will never again force myself to perform any irrational act of observation.
 
|
I feel stupid reading this.
|
On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this.
Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish.
Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep.
|
Perhaps, but don't experiments like this physicsworld.com make you wonder at how we can square such results with our commonsensical notions of cause and effect?
Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect's experiments shows that a particle's wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity.
|
On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep.
His writing definitely makes me feel stupider, not because I think it has intrinsic value, but because it knocks off a few of my IQ points simply by reading it.
Yoko's writing is reminiscent of that famous Feminist glaciology paper.
|
On January 03 2017 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Perhaps, but don't experiments like this physicsworld.com make you wonder at how we can square such results with our commonsensical notions of cause and effect? Show nested quote +Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect's experiments shows that a particle's wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity.
Based on stuff they're doing over at Liquidpoker I think any particle qualifies as conscious and most individuated consciousnesses qualify as particles. If you took enough robotussin you and your Japanese car could probably teleport several miles as long as one of your quantum selves was sufficiently consistent in another person's consciousness.
The usual argument of Manifesto7 surviving a drunken rampage because his grandmother believed in him experiences serious repercussions if the double slit experiment fails. It's a good experiment.
|
On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep.
The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. There is this quote by Hawking who was asked what his IQ was and he answered "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers".
Anyway, I kind of see your point Yoko, but it makes little sense. You are an observer from the moment you feel; and according to the quantum physics you mention you influence what you see, feel and smell whether you like it or not.
I don't know how poetic it's all supposed to be but you can get rid of your eyes, ears, tongue, nose and your sense of feeling altogether if you want not to "perform an act of irrational observation".
Also, it doesn't hurt to be clear, even though the duel of post-modern dialect with Moltke is quite entertaining.
![[image loading]](http://www.pathguy.com/calvin_hobbes_writing.jpg)
|
On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. There is this quote by Hawking who was asked what his IQ was and he answered "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers". Anyway, I kind of see your point Yoko, but it makes little sense. You are an observer from the moment you feel; and according to the quantum physics you mention you influence what you see, feel and smell whether you like it or not. I don't know how poetic it's all supposed to be but you can get rid of your eyes, ears, tongue, nose and your sense of feeling altogether if you want not to "perform an act of irrational observation". Also, it doesn't hurt to be clear, even though the duel of post-modern dialect with Moltke is quite entertaining.
Hmm, well I think you've misinterpreted my meaning. IQ is really great because it provides a rubric that isn't shit... Tons of people are always wondering whether they are making progress. For instance as oneofthem points out the great philosopher and linguistic Ludwig Wittgenstein had an incredibly high IQ (many estimate 190) but was very dissatisfied with the inherent properties of the measurement. Much of Wittgenstein's later career (whether this is true or false) is said to have looked heavily at language-games and the dichotomy of use-mention in the application of his first major work TLP, at least my interpretation is that language-game theory follow closely on the heels of the Tractatus.
Most modern theorists are supposing something in the vein of causal-influence to supplant IQ. Theoretically we can quantify agent-behavior based on market interaction.
In practice what this seems to imply is a unifying of Kantian "universality" with Millian "utilitarianism". Where a market structure toward happiness versus suffering quantifies real "goods" and real "bads' with a reasonable rate of exchange. I think this a lot better than IQ personally because it satisfies our feeling that IQ is walking a thin line between nonsense and something disagreeable. There have been many supplements to IQ theory over the years from emotional intelligence and social intelligence to more mystical stuff (many good books on meditation theory have been presented by Daniel Goleman).
Whether any ideal quantification of causal-influence can be obtained and successfully demarcated into "goods" and "bads" I have no idea. The Wittgensteinian language-game precursor to this theory is in my opinion probably the best, but definitely leans toward a Kantian bias (in my mind) and could have benefited from more utiliitarianism in the viewpoint.
|
On January 04 2017 05:36 YokoKano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 23:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Perhaps, but don't experiments like this physicsworld.com make you wonder at how we can square such results with our commonsensical notions of cause and effect? Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect's experiments shows that a particle's wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity. Based on stuff they're doing over at Liquidpoker I think any particle qualifies as conscious and most individuated consciousnesses qualify as particles. If you took enough robotussin you and your Japanese car could probably teleport several miles as long as one of your quantum selves was sufficiently consistent in another person's consciousness.
Why would sub-atomic matter be considered "conscious"? There is nothing to substantiate this claim, and when you say things like "I think we should ban science because the observer interferes with experiments by default" makes me feel like you want empirical science to be wrong, because you want to believe there is a higher power governing everything. I don't know why; maybe it's comforting for you to believe in God. If it is comforting, then you can simply say that -- that you find God to be comforting and that's why you believe there is a God, rather than trying to create some convoluted logic in your head that requires the re-working of all human knowledge to fit the paradigm of God.
That being said, I don't think you need God to have a meaningful life.
|
On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold.
Is it? I find it more amusing that his quote said "160 IQ" last week, but it dropped by 5 points and that he felt the need to append his TL quote to match the new reality of the now-155 IQ. I can only surmise what happened to cause the 5-point drop at this point.
|
On January 04 2017 07:20 YokoKano wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. There is this quote by Hawking who was asked what his IQ was and he answered "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers". Anyway, I kind of see your point Yoko, but it makes little sense. You are an observer from the moment you feel; and according to the quantum physics you mention you influence what you see, feel and smell whether you like it or not. I don't know how poetic it's all supposed to be but you can get rid of your eyes, ears, tongue, nose and your sense of feeling altogether if you want not to "perform an act of irrational observation". Also, it doesn't hurt to be clear, even though the duel of post-modern dialect with Moltke is quite entertaining. Hmm, well I think you've misinterpreted my meaning. IQ is really great because it provides a rubric that isn't shit... Tons of people are always wondering whether they are making progress. For instance as oneofthem points out the great philosopher and linguistic Ludwig Wittgenstein had an incredibly high IQ (many estimate 190) but was very dissatisfied with the inherent properties of the measurement. Much of Wittgenstein's later career (whether this is true or false) is said to have looked heavily at language-games and the dichotomy of use-mention in the application of his first major work TLP, at least my interpretation is that language-game theory follow closely on the heels of the Tractatus. Most modern theorists are supposing something in the vein of causal-influence to supplant IQ. Theoretically we can quantify agent-behavior based on market interaction. In practice what this seems to imply is a unifying of Kantian "universality" with Millian "utilitarianism". Where a market structure toward happiness versus suffering quantifies real "goods" and real "bads' with a reasonable rate of exchange. I think this a lot better than IQ personally because it satisfies our feeling that IQ is walking a thin line between nonsense and something disagreeable. There have been many supplements to IQ theory over the years from emotional intelligence and social intelligence to more mystical stuff (many good books on meditation theory have been presented by Daniel Goleman). Whether any ideal quantification of causal-influence can be obtained and successfully demarcated into "goods" and "bads" I have no idea. The Wittgensteinian language-game precursor to this theory is in my opinion probably the best, but definitely leans toward a Kantian bias (in my mind) and could have benefited from more utiliitarianism in the viewpoint.
I think you don't get my point. I'm not arguing against the merit of IQ (although I think it's a rather narrow way of measuring "intelligence" for a variety of reasons). I'm commenting on you writing in your signature "155 IQ". It's rather obnoxious.
Also, I've also read Deleuze, Butler, Derrida and Foucault, I like them a lot, but I have had my share of post modern gibberish for a lifetime. Sincerely, can you make sentences with less 10 dollars words? We are on a video game website, not in a 1960's French university department of philosophy.
I don't want to be condescending, but your way of constructing sentences says the same thing than you signature. Maybe you have a problem with that. But believe me, you don't need to assert your certitude of being intelligent in every way imaginable. I have had that problem too for half of my life and when I gave up both thinking I was "smarter than thou" whenever I met someone and that I needed to show it to everyone, I believe I became a better person. (My two cents, you do whatever you want).
|
On January 04 2017 07:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 07:20 YokoKano wrote:On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. There is this quote by Hawking who was asked what his IQ was and he answered "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers". Anyway, I kind of see your point Yoko, but it makes little sense. You are an observer from the moment you feel; and according to the quantum physics you mention you influence what you see, feel and smell whether you like it or not. I don't know how poetic it's all supposed to be but you can get rid of your eyes, ears, tongue, nose and your sense of feeling altogether if you want not to "perform an act of irrational observation". Also, it doesn't hurt to be clear, even though the duel of post-modern dialect with Moltke is quite entertaining. Hmm, well I think you've misinterpreted my meaning. IQ is really great because it provides a rubric that isn't shit... Tons of people are always wondering whether they are making progress. For instance as oneofthem points out the great philosopher and linguistic Ludwig Wittgenstein had an incredibly high IQ (many estimate 190) but was very dissatisfied with the inherent properties of the measurement. Much of Wittgenstein's later career (whether this is true or false) is said to have looked heavily at language-games and the dichotomy of use-mention in the application of his first major work TLP, at least my interpretation is that language-game theory follow closely on the heels of the Tractatus. Most modern theorists are supposing something in the vein of causal-influence to supplant IQ. Theoretically we can quantify agent-behavior based on market interaction. In practice what this seems to imply is a unifying of Kantian "universality" with Millian "utilitarianism". Where a market structure toward happiness versus suffering quantifies real "goods" and real "bads' with a reasonable rate of exchange. I think this a lot better than IQ personally because it satisfies our feeling that IQ is walking a thin line between nonsense and something disagreeable. There have been many supplements to IQ theory over the years from emotional intelligence and social intelligence to more mystical stuff (many good books on meditation theory have been presented by Daniel Goleman). Whether any ideal quantification of causal-influence can be obtained and successfully demarcated into "goods" and "bads" I have no idea. The Wittgensteinian language-game precursor to this theory is in my opinion probably the best, but definitely leans toward a Kantian bias (in my mind) and could have benefited from more utiliitarianism in the viewpoint. I think you don't get my point. I'm not arguing against the merit of IQ (although I think it's a rather narrow way of measuring "intelligence" for a variety of reasons). I'm commenting on you writing in your signature "155 IQ". It's rather obnoxious. Also, I've also read Deleuze, Butler, Derrida and Foucault, I like them a lot, but I have had my share of post modern gibberish for a lifetime. Sincerely, can you make sentences with less 10 dollars words? We are on a video game website, not in a 1960's French university department of philosophy. I don't want to be condescending, but your way of constructing sentences says the same thing than you signature. Maybe you have a problem with that. But believe me, you don't need to assert your certitude of being intelligent in every way imaginable. I have had that problem too for half of my life and when I gave up both thinking I was "smarter than thou" whenever I met someone and that I needed to show it to everyone, I believe I became a better person. (My two cents, you do whatever you want).
Well feel free to datamine whatever you want to datamine. Tons of successful philosophers datamine all the well-known authors as well as lesser-known esoteric or even occult authors. Some of the most renowned authors are wrong about things. For instance, David Hume said Bunyan would not be recalled while Attison withstood the tides of time. You can see this in the "standard of taste"
|
On January 04 2017 07:26 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. Is it? I find it more amusing that his quote said "160 IQ" last week, but it dropped by 5 points and that he felt the need to append his TL quote to match the new reality of the now-155 IQ. I can only surmise what happened to cause the 5-point drop at this point.
I noticed that too, but wasn't sure he actually did it, maybe it's like a gag, he will gradually decrease his IQ over time until it hits his actual IQ
|
On January 04 2017 07:26 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. Is it? I find it more amusing that his quote said "160 IQ" last week, but it dropped by 5 points and that he felt the need to append his TL quote to match the new reality of the now-155 IQ. I can only surmise what happened to cause the 5-point drop at this point.
Perhaps he fell in love, and steeped in the irrationality of it his mighty IQ suffered a blow. I would think love would knock off at least 20 points though, but we are talking about a genius here so who knows.
|
On January 04 2017 10:14 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 07:26 ninazerg wrote:On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. Is it? I find it more amusing that his quote said "160 IQ" last week, but it dropped by 5 points and that he felt the need to append his TL quote to match the new reality of the now-155 IQ. I can only surmise what happened to cause the 5-point drop at this point. I noticed that too, but wasn't sure he actually did it, maybe it's like a gag, he will gradually decrease his IQ over time until it hits his actual IQ
Don't be a meanie weenie. He might actually have a high IQ score. Who knows?
On January 04 2017 13:25 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 07:26 ninazerg wrote:On January 04 2017 06:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 03 2017 21:09 Hryul wrote:On January 03 2017 19:29 Gurderoy wrote:
I feel stupid reading this. Don't. Yoko's writing is a mockery of the usual sociological slang. it's basically unintelligible gibberish. Although he is a master of making it sound meaningful and deep. The "155 IQ" in the profile is quite gold. Is it? I find it more amusing that his quote said "160 IQ" last week, but it dropped by 5 points and that he felt the need to append his TL quote to match the new reality of the now-155 IQ. I can only surmise what happened to cause the 5-point drop at this point. Perhaps he fell in love, and steeped in the irrationality of it his mighty IQ suffered a blow. I would think love would knock off at least 20 points though, but we are talking about a genius here so who knows.
No, true love would absolutely obliterate his IQ, and bring it down to like 90. A mere 5 points tells me that it was something really minor fuck-up, like losing a game of speed-memory-chess to a dog, and then waking up to find out it was only a dream...?
|
My IQ is probably well-beyond 155 as I have never missed the correct answer to a question on a standardized test. The quest to maximize my full power potential is nothing to do with the reality of an abstract measurement. Since the answers are usually randomly generated any successful gap in the random sequence is enough to score perfectly on any multiple choice test. An IQ test that isn't multiple choice is just a language-game. In short an IQ test is a lottery and the odds of scoring perfectly on a 50 question 4 multiple choice test with a random number generator is 50,000.
In short we can truly doubt IQ results of guys with IQs in excess of 200 since it would take roughly 500000000 questions to determine that they were good for it.
|
France9034 Posts
Apparently, high IQ doesn't prevent from writing very very obvious contradictions. The first and the last sentences are quite interesting to read in the same message.
|
On January 04 2017 22:28 YokoKano wrote:
My IQ is probably well-beyond 155 as I have never missed the correct answer to a question on a standardized test. The quest to maximize my full power potential is nothing to do with the reality of an abstract measurement. Since the answers are usually randomly generated any successful gap in the random sequence is enough to score perfectly on any multiple choice test. An IQ test that isn't multiple choice is just a language-game. In short an IQ test is a lottery and the odds of scoring perfectly on a 50 question 4 multiple choice test with a random number generator is 50,000.
In short we can truly doubt IQ results of guys with IQs in excess of 200 since it would take roughly 500000000 questions to determine that they were good for it.
That still doesn't explain why your IQ dropped from 160 to 155. Actually, that explains nothing at all, because you're saying that you would have a higher IQ on the current IQ tests if the current IQ tests were not the way that they were designed. It's like blaming the game of Chess itself for one losing a game of Chess.
|
On January 04 2017 22:28 YokoKano wrote:
My IQ is probably well-beyond 155 as I have never missed the correct answer to a question on a standardized test. The quest to maximize my full power potential is nothing to do with the reality of an abstract measurement. Since the answers are usually randomly generated any successful gap in the random sequence is enough to score perfectly on any multiple choice test. An IQ test that isn't multiple choice is just a language-game. In short an IQ test is a lottery and the odds of scoring perfectly on a 50 question 4 multiple choice test with a random number generator is 50,000.
In short we can truly doubt IQ results of guys with IQs in excess of 200 since it would take roughly 500000000 questions to determine that they were good for it.
You seem to be meandering around the subject.
Can you scan and post an official US certified IQ test, or perhaps military test?
|
On January 05 2017 21:40 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2017 22:28 YokoKano wrote:
My IQ is probably well-beyond 155 as I have never missed the correct answer to a question on a standardized test. The quest to maximize my full power potential is nothing to do with the reality of an abstract measurement. Since the answers are usually randomly generated any successful gap in the random sequence is enough to score perfectly on any multiple choice test. An IQ test that isn't multiple choice is just a language-game. In short an IQ test is a lottery and the odds of scoring perfectly on a 50 question 4 multiple choice test with a random number generator is 50,000.
In short we can truly doubt IQ results of guys with IQs in excess of 200 since it would take roughly 500000000 questions to determine that they were good for it. You seem to be meandering around the subject. Can you scan and post an official US certified IQ test, or perhaps military test?
it wouldn't matter because you couldn't read the number.
it's honestly a posthumous award in every significant sense. from wittgenstein to asimov, juan carlton sr. to goethe, tesla, einstein, hawking, asia, russell, nietzsche, basically all have received posthumous w/o test so it's just my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
