Jonathan Hogg

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux All I'm saying is that I don't think anyone has access to some purely conceptual realm that exists apart from physical reality. If you could never learn a concept without a physical reference, I don't see how that concept could have an independent, nonphysical meaning.

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux That confuses how we learn concepts with what they are. Numbers and logic aren’t derived from matter, physical things only instantiate them. Even if every example is tied to the physical, truths like 7 > 6 or non-contradiction don’t depend on matter to be true.

Please make the case that non-material things exist without using matter. It’s impossible, of course. That is your answer, if you want it.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux You can try to provide an example of a set of nonphysical things, but I promise I can tie whatever those things are to the physical world (though the character limit might provide a challenge).

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux There’s a difference between requiring “any particular” physical object(s) and what I’m saying. I’m arguing that ideas like sets, the number 7, time, etc. derive their meaning from the physical world and have no meaning otherwise.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Me not wanting to get on a phone call with a rando is a lack of intellectual honesty? All you have to do is tell me what the number 7 means as completely untethered from the physical world and I'll concede that I've lost.

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux That’s what I thought. Go run coward. Zero intellectual honesty. If you knew even half of what you think you do you’d be able to debate it. But instead you’ll run. Why don’t you just prove me wrong and let me hear your argument bc you can’t even grasp ours.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Not really. I can't right now anyway.

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Do you want to hop on spaces it doesn’t sound like you’re grasping what I’m saying.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Why is your position the authoritative one and mine is not? Based on what?

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux This is called equivocation. You are confusing individual certitude with normative authority. I don’t think you’ve looked into any refutation of your position. Do you even know the difference? Or are you going to blow by the point again.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux The reason to bring up teaching a child is that it illustrates how we all understand concepts. Time is another easy example. How would you teach a child what time is? Time is expressed through changes in physical states and that's how you'd convey it to a child.

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Bro… what about 7 concepts…. Reality, time, logic…… not physical but exist.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Just to be clear, I'm not saying that numbers are inherently physical, but they are inherently tied to the physical. I can't see what meaning the number 7 has except in reference to something physical, even if it can be applied to objects that are otherwise different.

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux So your refutation of my argument is a fallacy? Are you going to debate in good faith or just run?

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Fallacy how?

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Try teaching a child to count without using physical objects. What does the number 7 even mean in the absence of there being seven of something?

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux You’re confusing epistemology with ontology. We may learn counting through physical objects, but numbers themselves aren’t physical. Seven apples aren’t the number 7, they participate in it.

@DeuceBigalowEO @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux My view is that the physical and non-physical are inseparable. For example, counting is nonsensical without physical objects but addition is an abstraction that's downstream from counting, so ultimately also downstream of the physical. I'm still open to hear a counter example.

@JonathanHogg @JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux You’d have to justify your use of abstraction. You’re only using it because you already know where this goes and are trying to weasel out of it.

@JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux > The laws of logic exist prior to humans How do you know that? You can prove your point by providing an example of X that isn't physical or derived from the physical.

@JonathanHogg @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux The classification of identity is before any description of anything physical at all The laws of logic exist prior to humans, ergo its irrelevant that we would discover them from a position of physicality when they are a priori to use

@JoeDoe11096701 @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux What is an example of X that is not physical or an abstraction from the physical?

@JonathanHogg @ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Yeah absolutely. X that cannot not equal X. Law of identity demonstrates. If an identity as a class couldn't be absolutely true we couldnt think about literally anything

@ByJimbob @StefanMolyneux Can you define truth in a way that doesn’t reference the physical world?

@StefanMolyneux Does Knowledge exist? Does Truth exist? Does meaning exist? What are they made of?

@assface_burner All of this is supposed to happen at the margin and coincide with declining cost of living, but the Fed ensures that all benefits go to the top. There have been massive productivity gains in the last few decades but the median person is no better off.

AI is a net negative for humanity and ill explain why 1. If you start firing people and replacing them with AI, millions of people will now not be able to afford the thing you're selling made by AI because they now have no job and no money. Your consumer needs income to have money to buy your thing. 2. Eventually the skill of people will decrease an skilled labor will start diminishing and there won't be people to hire at all. The highly skilled worker with 10-20 years of experience won't exist because he never got the opportunity for that experience due to AI replacemen5. #1 then gets worse This is why Musk keeps saying that in the future you won't have to work because AI will make everything and everything will be free. Except this will never happen in a capitalist society. You'll have a society where AI makes shit and the people have no money to buy that shit because they have no income. Welcome to the Hunger Games

@dannycantalk If time travel is excluded, then there's no reason not to take both boxes, but then there's also no point to the question and it's not even a paradox.

"How does it work?" - You don't know. You only know it's extremely accurate. "How accurate is extremely?" - Let's just say it's never gotten an answer wrong and you're the 1001st player. "Could it work by time-travel?" - No, it's a predictor. Time traveling to change the amount of money in the box isn't a prediction. "Why would anyone be a one-boxer?" - Because the predictor is so accurate. "Why would anyone be a two-boxer?" - Because the money has already been placed, so why not get all of it?

We're done rehashing the button question. Time to rehash Newcomb's Paradox. Are you a one-boxer or a two-boxer?

@assface_private What's the outlook for the next few days after tonight?

@assface_private Wtf?

@joshuazhilee @Devon_Eriksen_ How many mailboxes is a person allowed to bash before a broken arm becomes justified? The whole idea of punishment for crime is to prevent future crimes, i.e., to minimize future suffering.

@Devon_Eriksen_ Your initial premise is inherently flawed. It's the sign of a good soul to sympathize with both and remediate both with appropriate responses that reduce as much suffering as possible. It's the sign of a bad soul to wish or inflict more harm than what may have been necessary.

The Mailbox Test, like the breakfast test, is an excellent way to tell who you can allow to wield power in your society. Goes like this: If someone is hurt trying to destroy someone else's stuff in order to take pleasure from their pain, do you sympathize with... The aggressor because he got hurt? Or with the guy who owns the stuff, because he wasn't the aggressor? You can have people in your society who fail the Mailbox Test. That's okay... they can work at hospices, or shelters for orphaned kittens, or something. But you cannot allow them to vote, or otherwise wield political power. Because if you do, they will open the gates of the city to the enemy. I am personally tired of everyone pretending that people who enjoy ruining things for random strangers are just kewt smol beans who are only aggressive because of all the complex socioeconomic factors and lack of resources. They knew someone would be hurt by what they did. They knew that someone had done literally nothing harmful to them. And those two ideas, in combination made them feel pleasure. And they went and did it. That is the sign of a rotten soul. Defending ourselves and our property is not just a right, it's a moral obligation. Otherwise, we just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, someone who may not be able to defend herself. I don't care if a vandal breaks his arms trying to destroy my stuff. Because I value my stuff more than a vandal's arms. And the fact that he tried to destroy somebody else's stuff shows that he, too, values his arms less than the opportunity to hurt somebody. We cannot allow such people inside the city, and we cannot give the keys to those who would open the gates for them.

@ArtemisConsort I believe in a creator, but the idea that an all-loving creator would send the majority of his own creation to eternal torment and knowingly created them for that end is a nonstarter for me. Resolve this for us, Absolem.

A few notes: 1. Yes I’m sincere. 2. No I probably won’t be able to explain it in a way that’s convincing to you. 3. No I have not suddenly started believing arguments I previously thought were bad, epistemics remain intact, etc. It’s a different-shaped thing. 4. Most aspects of my practical worldview remain the same. I don’t want to become some annoying convert grifter, so I probably won’t even talk about this much going forward. I am not making an argument. I am reporting a thing that happened to me. I barely understand it myself, so I certainly am not where you should look for insight about it.