Profile for Diprosopus
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Diprosopus |
| Member number | 13806 |
| Title | BANNED |
| Postcount | 134 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Quick Question in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 26 2008 23:43
Profile
Many thanks, sir. I feel profoundly less lost after having read those paragraphs. :) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Quick Question in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 26 2008 23:25
Profile
Insanity is often the domain of the... err, creative? I was wondering if there was a deeper meaning, but this community seems to have evolved beyond that. Oh well, it's not immediately amusing anyway. :P Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Quick Question in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 26 2008 21:29
Profile
This is the internet--everyone's a gimmick. :rolleyes: Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Quick Question in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 26 2008 20:31
Profile
Why do people say "leave your sanity at the door?" This seems like something of a mantra, and I've never figured it out. :confused: Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Simulated Reality in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 26 2008 20:23
Profile
Dear Misters Mystic and Xel'Raga: Until you are familiar with the issues, for which Nick Ranger generously provides us background information, then do not burden us with your juvenile, verbal diarrhea. Many thanks. :) Kinggolden, I believe you may want to familiarize yourself with the Meditations on First Philosophy to learn why your mind exists. It is odd that you would deny the existence of your mind, considering that you quoted Descartes. Perhaps you ought to reread your Descartes before dropping his most clichéd line. :o My general take on Cartesian skepticism is that, while we may be subject to simulation of some sort, all we can defer to is our experience. When we dream, we may be convinced that the dream is reality, but we do not doubt that reality is reality. (The only time we do that is in the philosophy classroom. :) ) When we wake up, we have very good reasons to doubt that our dreams were real, and we have very good reasons to believe that what we experience is real. Of course, that's simply saying that we do what is most practical, but you did ask whether or not it matters, and the answer is clearly no: Even if it's theoretically possible to "beat the system," we can prove that our time would be better spent aiming for ends we can reach. Whether or not we can simulate such experiences ourselves seems to be what Bostrom is unsure of. I don't think we can answer that until we make better technology. (And I cannot begin to fathom "what kind" of simulated reality we exist in--the nature of the problem prevents us from knowing this, since if we knew what kind of simulation we were in, we would presumably not be deceived by it anymore.) Ultimately, to answer your first (and most interesting) question: Take a course on the material, or simply look up who has written on the subject. While not many philosophers adopt a skeptical position (except for perhaps Richard Rorty), there is great debate as to precisely why skepticism is wrong. I do not have the background to adopt a stance on this issue. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| In the Shadow of Dragons Released! in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 23:45
Profile
Oh, hush, you! No need to be so modest--a scenario release is something to be proud of! Flex your ego. :) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| BRAND SPANKIN' NEW BLADES OF EXILE SCENARIO RELEASED! HOORAY! GO ADOS! GO ADOS! WOOO! in Blades of Exile | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 19:43
Profile
My mother told me, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." However, I will say that this scenario left me speechless. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| What have you been reading recently? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 17:28
Profile
Hipsters read Rand nowadays? Well, I suppose it's preferable to Coulter. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| 9th Blades Contest in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 12:07
Profile
I may make something, but I do not claim that it will be of any quality whatsoever given my lack of experience with designing. Ah well, wish me luck: It will be, if nothing else, quite retro. ;) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Satellite Shootdown in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 12:04
Profile
What you observe, Thralni, is not limited to Dutch speakers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicism Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Congratulations Jeff in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 11:05
Profile
EDIT: Oops, for some reason, my post ended up in the wrong topic. :( [ Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:03: Message edited by: Diprosopus ] Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| AAAAAAAH!!! in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 24 2008 11:00
Profile
In light of Mr. Azuma's interpretation, perhaps Mr. Excalibur's picture was less thought-through than I had imagined. However, feel free to keep my compliments; I clearly have no use for them. :o Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| cathedral of winds in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Saturday, February 23 2008 23:10
Profile
I believe, sir, that she was talking about Shades of Gray. Did the scenario report any errors in the scripts? (These would be in the text display in the lower-right corner of the screen.) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| AAAAAAAH!!! in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Saturday, February 23 2008 23:06
Profile
We live in an age when satire has been eclipsed by reality. I'm more inclined to take absurdities of excess seriously. That being said, the turtle picture is one of the cleverest things I've seen for a while. Bravo. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Scenario placing in Blades of Avernum | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Friday, February 22 2008 23:43
Profile
I'm glad you saw fit to release your gem! I pray improvement allows you to more fully grasp your talent as time passes. ...I really am praying, for my sake if nothing else. :( Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| AAAAAAAH!!! in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Friday, February 22 2008 09:35
Profile
Your profile says you're 16. What the heck are you doing, driving a BMW? Or is your sarcasm flying under my radar? :confused: Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Nyyyoron~! in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Friday, February 22 2008 09:32
Profile
Oy veh. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Is it old? in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 19 2008 21:40
Profile
Citizen Kane was much fun. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Scope of Ethics in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Tuesday, February 19 2008 08:31
Profile
That Kantianism encourages conflict doesn't seem particularly worthless. Also, that Kantianism divorces people from their values is perhaps the most important critique of Kantianism in ethics to date. While my previous examples may have been obscure (the sadist and the like), that's simply because I want to make one in which no confounding factors can be identified (hence why I corrected your revision of my sadist example). And in either case, that you defer to a pragmatic justification for Kantianism proves that you don't actually believe Kantianism anyway, just that Kantian standards offer you a convenient rule of thumb. Ethics is not (at least not necessarily, and certainly not according to Kant) trying to determine merely what is most convenient. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Scope of Ethics in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Monday, February 18 2008 23:07
Profile
My dilemma was more about how the CI isn't precise with respect to maxims. When can one be sure that one's maxim has passed the standards of the CI? Even if the sincerely-held beliefs of two different people are both Kantian, it strikes me that they could be placed opposed to one another. Or, in the case of the objector to Kantianism, Kantians would certainly agree that she would be irrational. That, however, strikes me as a particularly strong claim for Kantians to make, and I am not convinced why I should treat humanity as an end unto itself. As for your remarks on game theory: I'm not sure how people's cooperating simply for the sake of cooperating has any bearing on things, other than perhaps make Kantianism look even less desirable. [ Monday, February 18, 2008 23:18: Message edited by: Diprosopus ] Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Scope of Ethics in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Monday, February 18 2008 00:25
Profile
I am not considering an absolute formula for ethics; I simply suggest that your reasoning that "we can't know anything to such a great extent" makes my criticism of "Kantianism may not be precisely obtaining the nature of ethics" invalid. Even if it is impossible both practically and theoretically to make a perfect model of ethics, that doesn't indicate to me why better models cannot be constructed. I might hope that you pardon me my indolence for not dropping more names to clarify the issue. :) I simply wished to pose the dilemma which I humbly suspect a discontent poses to Kantianism: Can those who act contrarily to treating humanity as an end really be called irrational? People find themselves in situations where they would have to violate their impartially ethical commitments to avoid personal detriment. Is expecting someone to stay committed to her ethics really unreasonable? If it is, then I fail to see what authority that ethical system could claim. (If it's reasonable–which I doubt–then the CI permits the dissenter to object at the same time it permits the others to act on their maxim in spite of the dissenter. And yet, it's not difficult for people to agree that both parties cooperating in a prisoner's dilemma is preferable to both parties defecting, and so by the CI's own standards, it must forbid violating the objections of rational dissenters to its maxims.) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Scope of Ethics in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 17 2008 23:47
Profile
Sir, I appreciate your candor in encouraging me to broaden my literary horizons. (I can also see how Wittgenstein would be applicable; yet Tarski seems a stretch, and Gödel more so.) If you mean to imply that your opinions aren't worthy of an audience, I hasten to disagree; that being said, I would await the unveiling of your insight from beneath the appeals to authority so soon as you might inflict the luxury upon me. Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Scope of Ethics in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 17 2008 16:14
Profile
That we have not answered our questions sufficiently yet does not prove that we cannot answer our questions. The Enlightenment is only 400 years past, a drop in the bucket of human history. I must presume you have a very pressing theory as to why rigor will never permit us to know the nature of ethics; I can only wait for it anxiously. Not being able to pursue truth would be a very relaxing position to maintain :cool: Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Nyyyoron~! in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 17 2008 14:18
Profile
I read your posts while idly scratching my naked, hairy beer belly and shoveling doritos into my girating maw. What else did you think, silly? ;) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |
| Getting political in General | |
|
BANNED
Member # 13806
|
written Sunday, February 17 2008 13:00
Profile
I respect the courageous position you maintain I agree wholeheartedly. Conservatives seek to preserve tradition, and what's more anathemic to the American way than blind, heartless money-grubbing? If only we could return to the traditional values of our slave-holding ancestors. Hamilton was right: We should have a monarchy. (I can scarcely imagine how glorious a dynasty in this country would be.) Posts: 134 | Registered: Sunday, February 3 2008 08:00 |