The Existential Crisis

[uwot]

Surely you can tell that what Feyerabend advocated for was woefully incomplete?

I support Feyerabend 100%.

And? It's just a contradiction.

Surely you can navigate around it in the context of the conversation progressing?

This conversation isn't progressing. Anyone bothering to follow is witnessing one truculent twat insist that no rules apply to himself, while simultaneously demanding that a second truculent twat obeys whatever rules the first imposes. 'Fuck that.' thinks the second. And then, slightly to his shame, 'Still, it's quite funny poking this fool.'

[Skepdick]

This conversation isn't progressing.

Well, if you can't tell that my agreement with Fayerabend was in a slightly different context to my disagreement with him...

Anyone bothering to follow is witnessing one truculent twat insist that no rules apply to himself,

I have told you that. Over and over. I don't follow rules (except when I choose to). It's clearly not registering in your peanut-brain.

Not that you read any of my links, but one of them was to a paper called "From rules of logic to the logic of rules".

while simultaneously demanding that a second truculent twat obeys whatever rules the first imposes. 'Fuck that.' thinks the second. And then, slightly to his shame, 'Still, it's quite funny poking this fool.'

I am not imposing any rules on you except the ones YOU (Philosophers) claim to adhere to.

Informally, I don't give a fuck about consistency. I am consistently inconsistent.
Apparently you don't give a fuck about formalisms, yet somehow you do give a fuck about consistency. Go figure.

I am merely helping your adhere to your religion.

The only thing I demand (and have demanded) from you or anybody is to practice what you preach.

[uwot]

I am not imposing any rules on you except the ones YOU (Philosophers) claim to adhere to.

Well Skepdick, about the only rule that WE (Philosophers) think that YOU (Computer Scientists -all of whom live in their mum's basement, surrounded by empty ice cream tubs, inventing past achievements) should adhere to is not to rail against your lazy stereotype philosopher and to address what any individual actually says.

[Skepdick]

Well Skepdick, about the only rule that WE (Philosophers) think that YOU (Computer Scientists -all of whom live in their mum's basement, surrounded by empty ice cream tubs, inventing past achievements) should adhere to is not to rail against your lazy stereotype philosopher and to address what any individual actually says.

I couldn't give a shit what individuals SAY. I care about what groups of individuals DO. Impact - not lip service.

LOOK what computer scientists have DONE with language in the last 50 years!

"Past achievements" my ass. We've had Philosophy for 3000 years. Where were your theories of computation and information 100 years ago?

[Age]

I am consistently inconsistent.

You are right about this.

[Skepdick]

You are right about this.

I know.

[Age]

Well Skepdick, about the only rule that WE (Philosophers) think that YOU (Computer Scientists -all of whom live in their mum's basement, surrounded by empty ice cream tubs, inventing past achievements) should adhere to is not to rail against your lazy stereotype philosopher and to address what any individual actually says.

I couldn't give a shit what individuals SAY. I care about what individuals DO. Impact - not lip service.

Not caring about what individuals SAY on a website designed around discussions, and thus designed around what individuals SAY, and partaking in those discussions seems rather illogical, to SAY the least.

LOOK what computer scientists have DONE with language in the last 50 years!

I have not seen any actual improvement in what 'you', people, have supposedly DONE with language in the last 50 years. So, do SAY.

"Past achievements" my ass. We've had Philosophy for 3000 years. Where were your theories of computation and information 100 years ago?

[Age]

You are right about this.

I know.

This could be one of your inconsistencies. You are, after all, consistently inconsistently.

[Skepdick]

I have not seen any actual improvement in what 'you', people, have supposedly DONE with language in the last 50 years. So, do SAY.

SAYS Age using a computer over the internet.

You are communicating with a stranger on the other end of the planet thanks to programming languages.

I am going to guess you never lived in the world where long-distance communication required pen, paper, envelopes and postage stamps.
As recently as 1990 a letter sent from Europe took +-30 days to arrive in South Africa.

Human communication is now more synchronous (less asynchronous).

[Age]

I have not seen any actual improvement in what 'you', people, have supposedly DONE with language in the last 50 years. So, do SAY.

SAYS Age using a computer over the internet.

To me, a computer and the internet are improvements of 'how' language' is used, and shared. They are obviously NOT improvements 'with' language itself.

You are communicating with a stranger on the other end of the planet thanks to programming languages.

Language, in the written word, which has been going on now for thousands upon thousands of years already and has NOT improved, relatively, in just the last 50 years.

I am going to guess you never lived in the world where long-distance communication required pen, paper, envelopes and postage stamps.

You can guess/assume whatever you like. But, I would suggest you find out what thee actual Truth is BEFORE you assume absolutely any thing at all.

But you are FREE to do whatever you want to do.

As recently as 1990 a letter sent from Europe took +-30 days to arrive in South Africa.

Really?

And how does this relate to what has supposedly been DONE 'with language', itself?

Human communication is now more synchronous (less asynchronous).

But 'human communication' is obviously NOT 'language', NOR 'human language', itself.

[Skepdick]

I have not seen any actual improvement in what 'you', people, have supposedly DONE with language in the last 50 years. So, do SAY.

SAYS Age using a computer over the internet.

To me, a computer and the internet are improvements of 'how' language' is used, and shared. They are obviously NOT improvements 'with' language itself.

You are communicating with a stranger on the other end of the planet thanks to programming languages.

Language, in the written word, which has been going on now for thousands upon thousands of years already and has NOT improved, relatively, in just the last 50 years.

I am going to guess you never lived in the world where long-distance communication required pen, paper, envelopes and postage stamps.

You can guess/assume whatever you like. But, I would suggest you find out what thee actual Truth is BEFORE you assume absolutely any thing at all.

But you are FREE to do whatever you want to do.

As recently as 1990 a letter sent from Europe took +-30 days to arrive in South Africa.

Really?

And how does this relate to what has supposedly been DONE 'with language', itself?

Human communication is now more synchronous (less asynchronous).

But 'human communication' is obviously NOT 'language', NOR 'human language', itself.

Really?

What is language? How does it work?
What is communication? How does it work?

Without a scientific model of language; or a scientific model of communication - you can't answer either of those questions with any predictive adequacy.

[uwot]

Well Skepdick, about the only rule that WE (Philosophers) think that YOU (Computer Scientists -all of whom live in their mum's basement, surrounded by empty ice cream tubs, inventing past achievements) should adhere to is not to rail against your lazy stereotype philosopher and to address what any individual actually says.

I couldn't give a shit what individuals SAY. I care about what groups of individuals DO. Impact - not lip service.

So you think having tantrums on the internet is doing something.

LOOK what computer scientists have DONE with language in the last 50 years!

And to think they did it all from their mums' basements eating ice cream!

"Past achievements" my ass.

My point precisely.

We've had Philosophy for 3000 years.

And a much better animal for it.

Where were your theories of computation and information 100 years ago?

Oh yeah? Well where were your computers 3000 years ago?

[Atla]

Well Skepdick, about the only rule that WE (Philosophers) think that YOU (Computer Scientists

Timeseeker talking about computer sciences is a bit like Deepak talking about physics. He read some words about it, and he's writing them down in a mostly random order.

[Skepdick]

So you think having tantrums on the internet is doing something.

I do?

Teach me some mind-reading, please!

And to think they did it all from their mums' basements eating ice cream!

You seem to know a lot about that. Were you doing house visits or...?

Alas, there is some irony there. My mom's basement (if I actually lived in it) is actually my basement.
My parents live in a house I bought for them when I was 25.

My point precisely.

Try again? Failed making it.

Oh yeah? Well where were your computers 3000 years ago?

You tell me. Philosophers couldn't come up with the idea in 3000 years?

[Skepdick]

Timeseeker talking about computer sciences is a bit like Deepak talking about physics. He read some words about it, and he's writing them down in a mostly random order.

Randomness and order

Seeming as you got scammed when you studied "computer science" you probably don't even know what those words mean.

I AM introducing randomness into my words! It's intentional!

The irony that you were actually complimenting me is not lost on me (but sure is lost on you).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#History

Although randomness had often been viewed as an obstacle and a nuisance for many centuries, in the 20th century computer scientists began to realize that the deliberate introduction of randomness into computations can be an effective tool for designing better algorithms. In some cases, such randomized algorithms even outperform the best deterministic methods.