13249 réponses à ce sujet

[leighzard]

Well I did say it grows very quickly waaayyy early in the thread when I first posted myself. Still letting it grow out though. Not sure how long I want it though, just longer than this lol. What kinda dog? =I

The needy one's a beagle mutt.  Her picture is here someplace.

Both of them have pics in the dog thread.

 

 

It has kittens!! Gimme!

 

Oh dear, I did it again. Say sorry to her for me. I always call every dog a he even if I've been told they're a she. I do it all the time at work and the owners get annoyed. It must be because I've never had a female dog and my mind keeps thinking they're all male. 

 

 

Edit: WAIT a minute!!! You called him a he in your other post!! Now I'm confused!!

I feel like this confusion can be easily rectified.  It's not like we're talking about gerbils here.

Edit: Ha!  mystery solved.

[Dobbysaurus]

Haha, no. Mine.

 

I did?

 

Was I drunk?

 

F***.

 

I meant she on that then lmao.

 

Go home Heather, you're drunk! But not before you give me some bunny bread and your shirt.

 

The needy one's a beagle mutt.  Her picture is here someplace.

Both of them have pics in the dog thread.

 

 

I feel like this confusion can be easily rectified.  It's not like we're talking about gerbils here.

Edit: Ha!  mystery solved.

 

Haha now that you mention gerbils. I had two gerbils that were given to me as being males. Wake up one morning and there's babies everywhere. That's the last time I trust someone without checking myself first.

 

I did end up keeping 4 of them. They were my 4 musketeers; D'Artagnan, Porthos, Aramis, and Athos.

[LPPrince]

Worked out. Got tired. Had a nap. Dreamed during nap. Relatively happy dream had an interestingly sappy ending. Woke up with wet eyes.

 

Comes here. Sees gerbil talk. Or dog talk. Or Heather is drunk talk. Not sure. Realizes this is par for the course.

 

All is back to normal. 

[mybudgee]

Naps are some risky biz

[TheBunz]

What is up everyone? Somebody should create an interesting thread or something to talk about.

[mybudgee]

What is up everyone? Somebody should create an interesting thread or something to talk about.

Go ahead. You are unofficially in charge of Off-Topic shenanigans...

 

[leighzard]

What is up everyone? Somebody should create an interesting thread or something to talk about.

He's right, you know.  That's really your department.

If I made a thread it would be about something boring and unfunny that no one likes, like knitting or medicaid's stupid rules.

[Jorji Costava]

Make our own threads? I've got a few (bad) ideas on that:

 

• Do we have free will?
• Why do we appreciate tragedy in art?
• Is knowledge stake-sensitive?
• Must we bring about the greatest good for the greatest number?

 

No takers? Oh well, I'll just be in this corner over here if any of you need me. *shuffles out of the room*

[mybudgee]

 

• Why do we appreciate tragedy in art?

Hmmmm...

[Sigma Tauri]

Make our own threads? I've got a few (bad) ideas on that:

 

• Do we have free will?
• Why do we appreciate tragedy in art?
• Is knowledge stake-sensitive?
• Must we bring about the greatest good for the greatest number?

 

No takers? Oh well, I'll just be in this corner over here if any of you need me. *shuffles out of the room*

 

I'll take "Are there times injustice is justified?" or "Coconuts: Why do people put it on food?"

[leighzard]

Make our own threads? I've got a few (bad) ideas on that:

 

Do we have free will?

-Yes.  Stop trying to pretend your problems are out of your control.

Why do we appreciate tragedy in art?

- Because it makes us feel better about ourselves.  We're all mean girls at heart.

Is knowledge stake-sensitive?

- I first read this as "snake-sensitive," which makes equally as much sense to me as what is actually typed.  Way over my pay grade.

Must we bring about the greatest good for the greatest number?

- No. Because we have free will (see above).  YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!!!

 

Philosophy made easy!

[Jorji Costava]

Do we have free will?

-Yes.  Stop trying to pretend your problems are out of your control.

Why do we appreciate tragedy in art?

- Because it makes us feel better about ourselves.  We're all mean girls at heart.

Is knowledge stake-sensitive?

- I first read this as "snake-sensitive," which makes equally as much sense to me as what is actually typed.  Way over my pay grade.

Must we bring about the greatest good for the greatest number?

- No. Because we have free will (see above).  YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!!!

 

Philosophy made easy!

 

 

Not that easy, I guess.   Anyways, stake sensitivity is the idea that whether or not you know that a statement is true can depend in part on what is at stake for you; evidence that would be good enough for you to know something in low stakes situations may not be good enough for you to know that thing in higher stakes situations. This contrasts with philosophical orthodoxy in a variety of ways too boring for me to explain right now.

 

Anyways, let's address the real hard questions. I'll start with one originally raised by Colin Mochrie, the great Canadian philosopher: How does food become poo?

[Fast Jimmy]

Not that easy, I guess. Anyways, stake sensitivity is the idea that whether or not you know that a statement is true can depend in part on what is at stake for you; evidence that would be good enough for you to know something in low stakes situations may not be good enough for you to know that thing in higher stakes situations. This contrasts with philosophical orthodoxy in a variety of ways too boring for me to explain right now.

Anyways, let's address the real hard questions. I'll start with one originally raised by Colin Mochrie, the great Canadian philosopher: How does food become poo?

Oh. I thought it was the quantity of knowledge we have about killing vampires.

[leighzard]

Not that easy, I guess.   Anyways, stake sensitivity is the idea that whether or not you know that a statement is true can depend in part on what is at stake for you; evidence that would be good enough for you to know something in low stakes situations may not be good enough for you to know that thing in higher stakes situations. This contrasts with philosophical orthodoxy in a variety of ways too boring for me to explain right now.

 

Anyways, let's address the real hard questions. I'll start with one originally raised by Colin Mochrie, the great Canadian philosopher: How does food become poo?

Wait, what?  You lost me here.  Either something is true or it isn't. 

What I think I know about it doesn't change reality.  Theory of Mind, man.

The statement "The Bunz outside of my house with a telescopic lens camera right now" is just as false as "I have enough milk for my cereal in the morning"

Or is this a Schrodinger's cat situation? 

Either way, I'm gonna have to put almond milk on my cereal or else make oatmeal.

[Sigma Tauri]

Wait, what?  You lost me here.  Either something is true or it isn't. 

 

I think Jorji's saying that sometimes even something obviously evident isn't good enough to be true when something is at high stakes.

 

I sense a connection with clinical situations here.

[leighzard]

I think Jorji's saying that sometimes even something obviously evident isn't good enough to believe when something is at high stakes.

Well then that seems like a psychological issue, not a philosophical one.

How do people behave when stakes are high?  And isn't that basically the point of poker?

[Jorji Costava]

Wait, what?  You lost me here.  Either something is true or it isn't. 

What I think I know about it doesn't change reality.  Theory of Mind, man.

The statement "The Bunz outside of my house with a telescopic lens camera right now" is just as false as "I have enough milk for my cereal in the morning"

Or is this a Schrodinger's cat situation? 

Either way, I'm gonna have to put almond milk on my cereal or else make oatmeal.

 

 

I'll put this in a spoiler tag so it doesn't clutter up the thread too much:

 

Spoiler

Very quickly, knowledge is about more than just truth. Knowledge consists in believing something that is true, and also having good reasons for doing so (this actually isn't quite right, but again, another long discussion). So for instance, there's a true answer to the question "Is the number of hairs on my body even or odd?", but no one knows it, because no one's investigated (to the best of my knowledge). Another example: If I make a lucky guess, I have a true belief but I don't have knowledge, because I didn't have any good reason for believing what I did and got it right totally by coincidence. What the stake-sensitivity theory says is that knowledge (but not truth) is stake sensitive. The amount of evidence you need for knowledge is based on what's at stake for you.

 

Hope that helps! I'm more than happy to answer any further questions about this, but it might be best to PM me; this might not be the best thread to continue this conversation.

[Sigma Tauri]

Well then that seems like a psychological issue, not a philosophical one.

How do people behave when stakes are high?  And isn't that basically the point of poker?

 

Well, when stakes are high, we do want to have more rigorous tests to know that what we hypothesize stands as poor knowledge leads to unacceptable error. Like knowing that the rest of the players in a poker tournament attempt to display as few cues about their hand as possible, you would try to scrutinize someway that what you observe is true.

 

But, I'll let Jorji explain as I'm probably ****** up explaining the concept.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'll put this in a spoiler tag so it doesn't clutter up the thread too much:

 

Spoiler

Very quickly, knowledge is about more than just truth. Knowledge consists in believing something that is true, and also having good reasons for doing so (this actually isn't quite right, but again, another long discussion). So for instance, there's a true answer to the question "Is the number of hairs on my body even or odd?", but no one knows it, because no one's investigated (to the best of my knowledge). Another example: If I make a lucky guess, I have a true belief but I don't have knowledge, because I didn't have any good reason for believing what I did and got it right totally by coincidence. What the stake-sensitivity theory says is that knowledge (but not truth) is stake sensitive. The amount of evidence you need for knowledge is based on what's at stake for you.

 

Hope that helps! I'm more than happy to answer any further questions about this, but it might be best to PM me; this might not be the best thread to continue this conversation.

 

If you are being attacked by vampires, your stake-sensitivity about stake knowledge would be very high.

[leighzard]

I'll put this in a spoiler tag so it doesn't clutter up the thread too much:

 

Spoiler

Very quickly, knowledge is about more than just truth. Knowledge consists in believing something that is true, and also having good reasons for doing so (this actually isn't quite right, but again, another long discussion). So for instance, there's a true answer to the question "Is the number of hairs on my body even or odd?", but no one knows it, because no one's investigated (to the best of my knowledge). Another example: If I make a lucky guess, I have a true belief but I don't have knowledge, because I didn't have any good reason for believing what I did and got it right totally by coincidence. What the stake-sensitivity theory says is that knowledge (but not truth) is stake sensitive. The amount of evidence you need for knowledge is based on what's at stake for you.

 

Hope that helps! I'm more than happy to answer any further questions about this, but it might be best to PM me; this might not be the best thread to continue this conversation.

Okay.  I didn't fully understand the distinction between knowledge and truth.  So when you say that "whether or not you know that a statement is true can depend in part on what is at stake for you" you are referring to knowledge and not truth, even though both concepts are present in the phrase, right?

I think I'm back on board, but I've had 2 glasses of wine.  Who knows if I'm too drunk or not drunk enough for this conversation.

[mybudgee]

 

What I think I know about it doesn't change reality.  Theory of Mind, man.

Are you talking about the link between the mind & the brain??

 

Spoiler

It's a very fascinating subject for me, as I have been amateurish-ly studying the subject ever since I was a kid. It often is taken for granted, as is the way our brain can process time and compartmentalize memories.  

In the linked article, for example (http://www.unm.edu/~...sen-science.pdf) the author, Nancy C. Andreasen, states that the mind & brain can be studied as separate entities; that is, by differing methods altogether. 

She also says that many mental illnesses, esp. Schizophrenia, are massively misunderstood & misdiagnosed. The old line of thought about a schizophrenic was that it was similar to identity disorders/multiple personality disorders, however this is becoming increasingly inaccurate. While a person suffering the former seems to have it develop either in childhood or adolescence, and without any rhyme or reason, the latter seems to be a result of trauma in almost all cases, and can be an effective coping mechanism (schizophrenics can usually not function in society without treatment and medication)

An analogy often used is that of technology; Schizophrenia and other severe mental illness is similar to a hardware problem, whereas milder conditions can be compared to a software bug. In other words, someone with say, Bi-polar disorder or an addiction can be treated and sometimes overcome the problem, while a Schizophrenic is more or less stuck with the condition. 

I guess I am trying to say that our understanding of Psychology and the physiology of the brain is constantly in flux.

 

[leighzard]

Are you talking about the link between the mind & the brain??

 

Spoiler

It's a very fascinating subject for me, as I have been amateurish-ly studying the subject ever since I was a kid. It often is taken for granted, as is the way our brain can process time and compartmentalize memories.  

In the linked article, for example (http://www.unm.edu/~...sen-science.pdf) the author, Nancy C. Andreasen, states that the mind & brain can be studied as separate entities; that is, by differing methods altogether. 

She also says that many mental illnesses, esp. Schizophrenia, are massively misunderstood & misdiagnosed. The old line of thought about a schizophrenic was that it was similar to identity disorders/multiple personality disorders, however this is becoming increasingly inaccurate. While a person suffering the former seems to have it develop either in childhood or adolescence, and without any rhyme or reason, the latter seems to be a result of trauma in almost all cases, and can be an effective coping mechanism (schizophrenics can usually not function in society without treatment and medication)

An analogy often used is that of technology; Schizophrenia and other severe mental illness is similar to a hardware problem, whereas milder conditions can be compared to a software bug. In other words, someone with say, Bi-polar disorder or an addiction can be treated and sometimes overcome the problem, while a Schizophrenic is more or less stuck with the condition. 

I guess I am trying to say that our understanding of Psychology and the physiology of the brain is constantly in flux.

 

I was actually referring to the cognitive psych principle of how we ascribe mental states to other people.  Children usually develop it around 3-4 years of age (at least as measured by the Sally-Anne Test, which differentiates what you know from what others know and forces a child to recognize that other people can hold false beliefs). 

 

I'd be more that happy to talk all day about what you put in the spoiler tags though.

[Dermain]

I'd share my immune system if I could.

 

Important question, friends:  Is this hat stupid?

Spoiler

I like that it has a wide brim to keep the sun off my face when I'm outside, but I don't want to look like hipster dbag.

Thoughts?

 

The hat fits you, but you need the right outfit to go with it.

 

What that would be, I have no idea. 

 

I just bought a cat from the animal shelter. 3 months old, female, dark as the darkest night, even the skin on her paws is jet black. I gave her the name ''Shade'' for obvious reasons. She seems super intelligent and very calm. 

 

 

That cat is planning on killing you.

 

You can see it in it's eyes.

 

I was actually referring to the cognitive psych principle of how we ascribe mental states to other people.  Children usually develop it around 3-4 years of age (at least as measured by the Sally-Anne Test, which differentiates what you know from what others know and forces a child to recognize that other people can hold false beliefs). 

 

I'd be more that happy to talk all day about what you put in the spoiler tags though.

 

I was originally going to say something about this, but then I remembered that cognitive psych wasn't something I was particularly interested in.

 

So that kills that info dump.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think I am going to make System Shock 2 walkthrough/analysis videos. Storytelling in games is something that bugs me with so-called critics in the media knowing precisely f*ck all about it, and SS2 is probably the best told story I've played. So yeah.

I dunno. Maybe like all my other ideas, this'll fizzle out too. But I needed something to say to bump this up back to page 1.

Spoiler

And I'm not going to post the picture I was planning to.

[leighzard]

Spoiler

And I'm not going to post the picture I was planning to.

Boooo.

 

New project sounds good though.  Maybe not quite as much fun as killing fellow BSNers in a dungeon, but a good use of time.

Wait but the best stories aren't told.  They're shown through an immersive multimodal  experi... yeah, I lost steam on that line of crap before I could get to the end.