[Previous] The Four Best Books | Home | [Next] Ayn Rand on Thomas Szasz

Discussion

Discuss anything in the comments below.


Elliot Temple on September 21, 2017

Comments (40)

yay!

FF at 5:19 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9059
Is this meant to be an experiment? To see what we discuss?

MK at 8:11 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9061
> Is this meant to be an experiment? To see what we discuss?

The old Discussion Thread is overflowing!

He creates new threads one in while.

FF at 8:25 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9062

C

one = once (Correction)

ff at 8:26 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9063

Fresh Start

I updated the "Open Discussion" link in the sidebar to point here. The old thread had ~350 comments.

curi at 9:54 AM on September 21, 2017 | #9064
Should we trust our emotions when it comes to preserving our Integrity?

Eg: Stealing violates my integrity so I start feeling bad when I am planning to steal something.

FF at 7:18 AM on September 22, 2017 | #9067
Emotions are really helpful. They can give us clues that we are about to violate a value of ours.

I wouldn't call it "trust", though. Instead, you can be thankful for the clue and then use *reason* to figure out what you should do in the situation and why.

kate at 8:32 AM on September 22, 2017 | #9068
> I wouldn't call it "trust", though. Instead, you can be thankful for the clue and then use *reason* to figure out what you should do in the situation and why.

yeah, I shouldn't have used the word "Trust". Trusting emotions would be a bad thing.

FF at 9:45 AM on September 22, 2017 | #9069

Is matter a constructor?

David Deutsch talks about matter, energy, and evidence, and energy is a constructor for tasks that require a change in energy, and evidence is a constructor for the extinction of bad explanations, so...

Do matter and energy create explanations? Is matter a constructor for anything? Does it use electromagnetism to repel other matter and "construct" changes in the momentum of other matter with some charge?

Is this what allows it to instantiate explanations that are "kept"?

Why does it always have mass, and is that important for its role in knowledge creation?

Evan Oleary at 4:32 AM on September 25, 2017 | #9075
@#9075

There's too much to discuss at once here. I'm going to reply to the first thing, and if we finish discussing it then I can go back and reply to the second thing.

> energy is a constructor for tasks that require a change in energy

it's unclear if you're claiming this or you're stating that DD claims it. can you give a source if you're attributing it to DD?

I question this idea because constructors aren't allowed to undergo a net change during constructions, but using energy changes it by e.g. turning some into waste heat.

Also isn't it *universal* constructors which are of primary interest?

Anonymous at 10:36 AM on September 25, 2017 | #9076

Is matter a constructor?

Ah, whoops, yeah, I'm wrong about that. I thought DD claimed energy was a constructor.

Evan Oleary at 7:54 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9078

Is matter a constructor?

But the point is that DD claims that evidence, matter, and energy are ingredients for knowledge to arise.

Is it sufficient for knowledge to arise? And if it is, then knowledge creation involves:

constructors which perform the possible transformations of energies of inputs (compositions of energy-commensurable tasks)

constructors which perform extinction of errors (evidence)

And my question is, is matter involved in a way where it's a constructor? For transformations of voltage or gravitational potential or something?

Evan Oleary at 8:01 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9079
It'd be better to bring up fewer issues at once. E.g. try to understand FoR/BoI stuff or CT stuff in isolation before mixing them.

> constructors which perform extinction of errors (evidence)

This doesn't make sense. You should try to think of examples of things you talk about, and give the examples, and also give quotes from DD that you're trying to discuss. Also it's universal constructors which are of primary interest, and their primary interest is for understanding the laws of physics (not for understanding e.g. epistemology).

> Is it sufficient for knowledge to arise?

This question is unclear. It could be asking whether there's some 4th thing and knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE without it (not that I know of). That is, is there at least one configuration of any amount of evidence, matter and energy which allows for knowledge creation. Yes there is, e.g. the state of the Earth when biological evolution got going. But I don't even know what we're excluding, isn't everything (including evidence) made of matter and energy? You might say vacuum isn't, that empty space is excluded, but I doubt the question was intended to be about whether some empty space is needed.

> And my question is, is matter involved in a way where it's a constructor?

Yes, matter is involved in knowledge creation. Knowledge is created by evolution which involves replicators (such as dog genes) which are made out of matter.

Anonymous at 9:26 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9080
huh!

Larry at 10:43 AM on September 27, 2017 | #9081
About 20-30 years ago Liberty Fund made several deals with OUP to publish their Collected Works of various classical writers in paperback. (This was great for those who wanted to read these books, because the paper and printing of Liberty Fund was far better than that of OUP at the time.) Liberty Fund, as a matter of course, publishes e-versions of all of its titles for free, either on the net or, collectively, on disk. That was a long established practice.They did that in these cases as well.

Suddenly, one day, for no reason anyone can figure out, OUP informed Liberty Fund that they were still sticking by their deal with respect Liberty Fund's pb copies of the Collected Works of Adam Smith, but would sue for copyright infringement if Liberty Fund didn't immediately remove all electronic copies of these identical volumes. Liberty Fund complied, but everyone is still scratching their heads.

Craig J. Bolton on Facebook at 4:10 PM on September 30, 2017 | #9083
OUP = Oxford University Press

Liberty Fund has free books here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org

Anonymous at 4:10 PM on September 30, 2017 | #9084

Is matter a constructor?

Example would just be any result of a test that problematizes one or more bad explanations that you have (which obstruct you from using and building upon the good ones)

I agree universal constructors are of primary interest, and I'm trying to better understand universal explainers because they're the most important known part of a universal constructor

Evan at 1:45 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9085
#9084 It also has the Quran not just "A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets."

FF at 8:21 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9086
A piece of paper with the result of a scientific test is not a constructor. It's only capable of constructing any particular thing in very few initial conditions. Just like something is only a replicator if it can replicate in a variety of situations.

Why do you think universal explainers are part of a universal constructor?

Anonymous at 8:58 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9087
Is beauty important? What problems does beauty solve?

Anonymous at 9:08 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9088
the problem of not getting laid

Anonymous at 11:10 AM on October 1, 2017 | #9089
But the result itself is repeatably observable, and it can condition people to construct the extinction of theories which expect something other than it

I think universal explainers are part of universal constructors because that's my best explanation for the regular co-occurrence and co-absence of ability-to-explain-a-lot and ability-to-construct-a-lot. (DD's connection between explanation and transformation)

Also, is there an exact difference between conjecture and criticism?

Anonymous at 8:07 AM on October 3, 2017 | #9090
Is a rock (plain old boring rock i pick up from a beach or field) a constructor for unicorns? if you drop it into the right input scanner for a computer hooked up to an appropriate 3d printer, it will print a unicorn with no change to the rock.

> I think universal explainers are part of universal constructors because

how about a reason involving a quote from DD which directly says it? if not that, a quote from DD followed by a clear, short argument about how it's required by the quoted text?

you're incorrect. a universal constructor doesn't require a universal explainer as part of the constructor. i think you may be unaware of the concept of writing a program for what the constructor does as part of setting up the construction task.

> Also, is there an exact difference between conjecture and criticism?

a conjecture is an idea. a criticism is a type of idea. the words also have different connotations.

curi at 8:55 AM on October 3, 2017 | #9091

twitter comment

140 chars is too short so i'm writing here and linking it. I'm replying to:

https://twitter.com/curi42/status/915685533203931136

Hit "show more replies". I didn't see any way to link directly to the 3 Andrew Adams reply tweets together.

---

Szasz wrote many books and papers. To address Szasz, you need to, in order:

1) understand his idea
2) evaluate his idea
3) write out the reasoning for your evaluation, especially if it's negative

You've pre-judged his idea as false before understanding it and without writing out a considered opinion. I would expect a reasonable negative judgement of Szasz's views to be at least a few hundred words and include at least one quote.

Alternatively, if someone else has already done this, you could endorse and take responsibility for their published evaluation of Szasz's ideas. If you want some pre-existing written criticism to speak for you, that's fine as long as you actually understand it and will treat criticism of it the same as criticism of your own writing.

What you've done instead is ambiguous assert that it's "well known" that Szasz is mistaken, and take for granted the reality of some of the very things at issue. That's not a rebuttal.

curi at 2:31 PM on October 4, 2017 | #9092
> the problem of not getting laid

why does it solve that problem?

Anonymous at 5:00 AM on October 6, 2017 | #9097
> why does it solve that problem?

people who want to bang prefer pretty faces

Anonymous at 11:00 AM on October 7, 2017 | #9098
what if I don't want to get laid?

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on October 7, 2017 | #9099

Anonymous at 5:55 AM on October 18, 2017 | #9186
fixed, thx

Anonymous at 9:56 AM on October 18, 2017 | #9187
Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Onkar Ghate on Free Speech

Streamed live on Oct 19, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP2WlfTiohw

FF at 3:41 AM on October 24, 2017 | #9190
i know that trying to look pretty so that other people like me is bad.

is there anything wrong with trying to look pretty for myself?

AnonGirl at 3:04 PM on October 24, 2017 | #9203
trying to look pretty "for yourself" = trying to look pretty for other people, but internalizing it and being dishonest. that's *even worse*.

read https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html

Anonymous at 3:28 PM on October 24, 2017 | #9205
Is there a way to start a new thread or can only Elliot do that?

I have questions about TCS, coercion in general, induction, and free markets.

Cam at 12:40 AM on November 1, 2017 | #9230
You can request threads. BUt there are already existing threads about TCS, induction, econ, etc, which you can use.

curi at 12:49 AM on November 1, 2017 | #9232
there is a message for you from outside the circles of time

i am an imperfect messenger but this is what it said:

the capsids of your spicules burst with neutrinos

while the echo of your demise travels sideways in possibility

you will remember that one person who dies right in front of you for the longest

schizophrenia is contagious at 5:57 PM on November 8, 2017 | #9235

12 Rationalist Virtues


curi at 1:10 PM on November 10, 2017 | #9238
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/4888618/sex-worker-slept-10000-men-answers-questions-women/

> In fact, in the decade she was in the industry, the most important thing to her clients was “feeling of being needed and wanted. Wanted badly by a horny woman. It is their ultimate fantasy after all.”

so men want approval more than they want sex, even when hiring sex workers.

> She said that it is vital, therefore that whatever sex acts you are doing, “you make look like you want him bad and are enjoying him so much (even if you aren’t).”

heh. this is why women fake orgasms.

What do men want from women/sex? at 10:12 AM on November 13, 2017 | #9249
When will Rami be back? Does anyone know?

FF at 5:57 AM on November 29, 2017 | #9391

MailMate Configs

What's up with the MailMate config files in the FF guidelines? Can't access.

Anonymous at 7:17 PM on December 5, 2017 | #9410
dropbox breaks links sometimes. use http://curi.us/files/MailMate-Config.zip

Anonymous at 7:27 PM on December 5, 2017 | #9411

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)