Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

Opportunity to vote for low level gimmedats is how this plays out politically.

when does idealism beat out self interest?

 

[Dak]

when does idealism beat out self interest?

Probably pretty damn rarely.

 

[rms]

I agree, I don't agree with that correlation (poor immigrants voting blue which ='s less freedom), rather they see blue as a better chance at getting those gimmedats. hispanics are pretty red-voters though than what i notice from any other ethnic group

 

[Dak]

I agree, I don't agree with that correlation (poor immigrants voting blue which ='s less freedom), rather they see blue as a better chance at getting those gimmedats. hispanics are pretty red-voters though than what i notice from any other ethnic group

Hispanics vote more Dem than Repub, but I imagine there's a pretty obvious urban/rural divide.

 

[rms]

I think it's like 60/40 though?

 

[Einherjar86]

By coming here, they indicate a desire to have more opportunity (as a proxy for "liberty"). By voting patterns, they indicate they don't understand why here is better than there. Opportunity to vote for low level gimmedats is how this plays out politically. Obviously, the GOP has it's own issue gimmedats for certain groups.

I just have to say, "gimmedats" is one of the most annoying terms you use. That's not a request for you to stop using it, just an admission that I roll my eyes at it every single time. Okay, carrying on...

"Here" is better than "there" whether you vote republican or democrat. Don't try and play up a personal perspective as a matter of factual analysis.

I think it's agreeable that any one of these eras of change you mention still look distinctly different than Latin America, the Middle East, or Asia.

I don't think that was the point.

In other news, a friend of mine posted this recently on Facebook. Quite good, I think:

I am NOT HERE for your philosophy of science, University of Chicago. As a science practitioner and person in the world, the immediate stakes are HIGH for how scientific knowledge is made, communicated, and consumed. Its effects are happening now, and changing faster than we can describe them. And then I go to a seminar on the philosophy of cancer biology and it's just octogenarians creaking about homeostatic property clusters and Kuhnian paradigms. Completely evacuated of humanity, of actual stakes in people's lives (as well as of any relevance to scientists), it amounted to masturbatory epistemic bean-counting. Your metaphysics and your natural kinds reveal a total disinterest in ethical consequences, or applying critical thought toward any meaningful political or emancipatory project. Never have I felt more strongly that a field of humanities should be closed up and left to collect dust along with its objects of study and its relevance to the world.

 

[Dak]

I just have to say, "gimmedats" is one of the most annoying terms you use.

It's certainly not erudite but I think it's efficient shorthand for referring to both a certain subset of government spending and the real nature of that spending and those it goes to.

"Here" is better than "there" whether you vote republican or democrat. Don't try and play up a personal perspective as a matter of factual analysis.

If you move locations to take advantage of policies unlike where you were, then vote for people/policies that mimic where you were, it makes sense to point out there's some obvious confusion or ignorance.

In other news, a friend of mine posted this recently on Facebook. Quite good, I think:

I'm not sure I follow your approval. If his sentiment were the opposite, I could see you taking him to task for his anthropocentrism.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's certainly not erudite but I think it's efficient shorthand for referring to both a certain subset of government spending and the real nature of that spending and those it goes to.

Have a laugh man, I am.

If you move locations to take advantage of policies unlike where you were, then vote for people/policies that mimic where you were, it makes sense to point out there's some obvious confusion or ignorance.

Voting democrat in America doesn't come close to mimicking the policies or people from which/whom many refugees are trying to flee.

I'm not sure I follow your approval. If his sentiment were the opposite, I could see you taking him to task for his anthropocentrism.

Buuuuut his sentiment isn't the opposite, so... what should I be taking him to task for, exactly?

 

[Dak]

Voting democrat in America doesn't come close to mimicking the policies or people from which/whom many refugees are trying to flee.

I guess there's some truth to that. Most countries are super restrictive on immigration

Buuuuut his sentiment isn't the opposite, so... what should I be taking him to task for, exactly?

Whoops, was on my phone and my post got messed up. What I meant to post was "If his sentiment were the opposite, I would understand. I could see you taking him to task for his anthropocentrism."

 

[Einherjar86]

Whoops, was on my phone and my post got messed up. What I meant to post was "If his sentiment were the opposite, I would understand. I could see you taking him to task for his anthropocentrism."

I feel like I've often promoted the idea that the humanities and the sciences need to develop complementary methodologies. I don't have any issues with his suggestion that human lives are at stake in current scientific development--in fact, I agree with him. There is a difference between humanitarian benefits to be discovered within various scientific fields, and scientific approaches that fall back on anthropocentric perspectives about the world.

Critical theory has a lot to say about the epistemological limitations of scientific practices; but I for one feel that the state of the sciences today has moved significantly beyond traditional humanist limitations, primarily due to more self-reflexive models and advances in simulation analyses.

 

[CiG]

That's not a request for you to stop using it, just an admission that I roll my eyes at it every single time.

I also have a feeling that's the point.

 

[Dak]

self-reflexive models and advances in simulation analyses.

I have a skeptical side that wonders if these things are merely making up what it purports to observe.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have a skeptical side that wonders if these things are merely making up what it purports to observe.

I have a skeptical side that wonders if our brains are merely making up what they purport to observe. That doesn't mean I discount the heat I feel when I hold my hand over an open flame.

Skepticism is always warranted, but these analyses aren't just collecting dust in hard drives. Simulations are increasingly important for producing usable models without the expense of toiling through a sufficient number of experiments or observations in the field. This isn't to say that the latter are obsolete, but that their correspondence to computer simulations (and vice versa) is ultimately useful for scientific study. Simulations aren't just making up what they purport to observe because their observations have, in many cases, been verified and validated.

 

[Dak]

I have a skeptical side that wonders if our brains are merely making up what they purport to observe. That doesn't mean I discount the heat I feel when I hold my hand over an open flame.

Skepticism is always warranted, but these analyses aren't just collecting dust in hard drives. Simulations are increasingly important for producing usable models without the expense of toiling through a sufficient number of experiments or observations in the field. This isn't to say that the latter are obsolete, but that their correspondence to computer simulations (and vice versa) is ultimately useful for scientific study. Simulations aren't just making up what they purport to observe because their observations have, in many cases, been verified and validated.

If enough simulations are run, of course we should find one or another that correlates something with something at some point. This doesn't mean we can depend on it going forward, because we simply can't account for all the variables and even when we account for "error", we don't know the direction, location, or nature of the error.

 

[Einherjar86]

If enough simulations are run, of course we should find one or another that correlates something with something at some point. This doesn't mean we can depend on it going forward, because we simply can't account for all the variables and even when we account for "error", we don't know the direction, location, or nature of the error.

You can say the exact same thing about the human senses. The scientists who run simulations are likely very cognizant that the world isn't for us, and that simulated models will be in constant need of updating; but that's actually what simulation makes it easier to do. Imagine if we had to keep conducting real-world experiments in order to keep up with all these changing variables!

Your skepticism of simulated models needs to be extended to the human senses and subjective experience, otherwise you're being inconsistent. And at that point, in order to justify action you're basically falling back on what you've described in the past as a matter of practicality. With which I would agree, but I would say you need to extend the same courtesy to simulated models.

 

[Dak]

You can say the exact same thing about the human senses. The scientists who run simulations are likely very cognizant that the world isn't for us, and that simulated models will be in constant need of updating; but that's actually what simulation makes it easier to do. Imagine if we had to keep conducting real-world experiments in order to keep up with all these changing variables!

Your skepticism of simulated models needs to be extended to the human senses and subjective experience, otherwise you're being inconsistent. And at that point, in order to justify action you're basically falling back on what you've described in the past as a matter of practicality. With which I would agree, but I would say you need to extend the same courtesy to simulated models.

I'm privileging the senses only to the degree to they are the mediate for the simulations. In other words, the simulations are simulating from the simulation, if you wish to speak in that sort of language.

 

[The Ozzman]

the simulations are simulating from the simulation

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm privileging the senses only to the degree to they are the mediate for the simulations. In other words, the simulations are simulating from the simulation, if you wish to speak in that sort of language.

You're not being consistent on this, and you're digging into a well of pure skepticism that affords us nothing.

I could also say that your percept-image of the world is a simulation constructed by your brain and your senses, among other things. It runs internal models--in effect, it also "simulates from its own simulation" (and it does; the brain has been shown to weed out information that doesn't accord with prior internal models).

 

[Dak]

You're not being consistent on this, and you're digging into a well of pure skepticism that affords us nothing.

I could also say that your percept-image of the world is a simulation constructed by your brain and your senses, among other things. It runs internal models--in effect, it also "simulates from its own simulation" (and it does; the brain has been shown to weed out information that doesn't accord with prior internal models).

Sure, "top down processing" eliminates a lot of information that it finds irrelevant. I'm not saying simulations are entirely useless, but they have gotten far too much hype.

 

[Einherjar86]

Goddamnit, have you always been disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, or have I rubbed off on you too much?