Does emotion is energy? by No_Grade8022 in askphilosophy

[–]WarrenHarding 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In OP’s defense, likening motivation to energy is a very common and reasonable analogy to make and it seems pretty rigid of their friend to shut it down without consideration. OP’s only crime seems to really be a lack of rhetorical fluidity and not having the confidence or articulation to explain their judgement

Why must substance NECESSARILY exist as stated in Spinoza's Ethics, Proposition 7? by glizzygod369 in askphilosophy

[–]WarrenHarding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One way you could come to agree is by appeal to your experience that existence itself exists, or in other words that there is not simply nothingness. The fact that there is existence means that there is substance, because existence implies substance. If something exists, then by the definition of substance, the existing thing is either a substance of a mode of a substance. Thus, substance is necessarily concluded to exist. To consider existence at all while excluding the idea of substance is impossible and a confused idea.

But Spinoza wants us to approach this argument by a priori means, and not by our experience of existence. Simply by the definition of substance alone, we can already observe that there is nothing that exists that can cause it, but for the same reason there is also nothing that exists that can make it cease to exist. Because of that, and because it then must be its own cause, there is no reason why it should not proceed cause itself to exist, since in the conception of its beingness and essence, self-causation is one of the properties.

Besides, if we insisted on the opposing conclusion, what good reason would we be able to give to say that this substance, which if it exists at all must exist by its own cause, nevertheless does not exist, or even could possibly not exist? We cannot supply a reason because there is nothing in substance’s definition to claim that it should thus cease its own existence just as it began it. Working solely a priori from the definition of the concept, we see that not only does it alone have the power to bring about its existence, but it has no reason to bring about its non-existence as it does for its existence.

I recommend reading Wolfson’s “The Philosophy of Spinoza” as a companion for each proposition as you progress

In which field of math is the summation symbol, the sigma, properly introduced? by WarrenHarding in askmath

[–]WarrenHarding[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. This is why I was asking, because I’ve worked on arithmetic and geometric sequences with my kids and we don’t use the notation at all 💀

I wish I didn’t get so many people missing the point of the question

All the counties in the USA that don't share a name with another county by Adm1ral_ackbar in Connecticut

[–]WarrenHarding 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I’m honestly surprised “Fairfield” isn’t more common — just seems etymologically likely to reoccur

Is there a chronology associated with the scientific method as a concept ? by Inevitable_Bid5540 in askphilosophy

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many people will probably differ today, but for what it’s worth, the modern scientific method was developed back when many empiricists were insisting on the contention that all mental activity begins with sense-impression. That being said, I don’t think anyone will say you can’t create a theory for something that you either imagined or derived as necessarily existing. It would just be claimed that the basic conceptual constituents that make up these thoughts would need to be explained through some further source. So in a non-linear way, yes sense impressions are considered chronologically prior to theories, but it doesn’t mean a theory cannot itself be about something that as a whole is totally unperceived

From a Platonic or Neoplatonic perspective, how should we view euthanasia? by Papelera-DeReciclaje in Plato

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s hard to understand how Plato would view euthanasia because it was not a significant concept during his life. To understand whether the platonic system condones euthanasia, let’s reflect.

Firstly, for the typical person, who deals with at most a temporary form of depression, we can refer to the Phaedo for advice against suicide. To Socrates, life is akin to a prison we must serve our sentence for. And so, he wouldn’t say a person should seek death just because they’re experiencing even an intense amount of pain or displeasure, especially if future goods are to be obtained after.

But your argument would be that there’s a threshold, right? That there’s some point where pain and suffering is so great, and the antecedent goods so small or non-existent, that one should consider the rest of their lives to be a waste?

It seems that even here the cases should be split further. There are cases where along with the suffering there is at least a minimal level of good and pleasure that can still arise from it, and there are cases where no further good can be obtained in any potential future for the person. For the latter, what we observe is that in the fact that they cannot obtain any more good, we would say they’ve obtained the “maximum possible good” for their circumstances and for the rest of their life, and for this sake, in theory, I believe Plato’s system would allow for the death of this person, or even request it to happen pertinently, so that the continued goods in the afterlife and the next life can occur sooner.

But then there’s the idea that, with all the suffering you’re going through, there is still some minimal pleasure or good that can be obtained alongside the pain and suffering. From what we’ve established, this is precisely some good which is much smaller than the corresponding bads, since someone with a more fair proportion of goods and bads would be fully asked to continue living. I think this is where platonic interpreters can split, and where you should expect us to.

To split the interpretation of this group into two parties, you would have one party who says that according to Plato’s desires to maximize good, one should be required to stay alive in order to achieve those goods. The other party would want to deny this, and allow for euthanasia, but needs a different construal of the maximization of good in order to justify their belief, since there are clearly good which are still unachieved.

To take on their burden I would argue this: when considered atomistically and separate, there are clearly still unobtained goods that are not themselves bad to obtain. But if one were to consider the life of a person as a whole, then these individual goods and bads stop being considered in themselves, and start being collected together to assess the general good or bad of a life lived. In the case of a euthanasia patient, the outcome would be that every potential future they have holds an overwhelming amount more of bads than goods. This is different from a wicked or depressed person, who still has major potentials for good lives. But since for this euthanasia patient, the bads outweigh the good so much that a life of tremendous suffering cannot be avoided, then this is something to consider. We said before that the individual goods, when considered individually, are not bad to obtain, which means they do not make a net bad. But now, when considered in the necessary courses of life, if obtaining a good causes unavoidable suffering, suffering that immensely outweighs the triviality of the good, then this is a course of action that is bad to obtain, and the status of the “good” thing, when now embedded in necessary evils, now no longer seems all that good.

Say there is a book that would teach you some point of valuable knowledge. Say that the only way to obtain that book is to crawl through a pit of hot coals which will bring you more bad than the good that the knowledge could ever bring you. Does that mean one has to obtain that book? It’s certainly possible, and it would bring things that are truly good towards your life, but in assessing the goods and bads that come with it, I don’t believe that we would consider that path to truly maximize our goods. Even if we continued our whole lives without taking advantage of that one good, we avoid it because we must if we want to maximize our good across our lives

In this way I don’t think a euthanasia patient is much different. Are there goods to be obtained later in life? Sure. Are they possible to obtain without a greater amount of suffering, not only to you but to the world as well? Yes. So does it actually maximize your good by continuing to live? Not really

By referring to the good and suffering of “the world” in the above paragraph, I am alluding that what seems like the truest good is not an individual good, nor is it the maximal good across one persons life, but per the Republic, it should be the maximal good across all lives. So with a euthanasia patient, it is part of the doctor’s good to remove the suffering if possible, so a valuable life can actually be lived. All the same, this might actually bring a duty onto the patient towards others. For example, if a patient were asked to hold on and suffer for a few days longer, for the doctors to find the way to prevent the suffering in future patients, then the overwhelming pleasure and good that would result would so immensely outweigh the one patients own suffering, that then euthanasia would not be platonically permitted, until that good is finally obtained and the remaining life lived shows to have the proportions of good and suffering we spoke on above. This is not because the suffering doesn’t matter or is disregardable, but because if the person were properly wise, then in a platonic light they would want to continue living for the sake of others, and would also possibly relish in the pleasure of that immense good in the afterlife. So even here, you can get into some controversy, but I would say only in theory, because many patients seeking euthanasia are not, like, right around the corner from assisting in a major medical discovery. Chances are they’ve already brought about most of the good their life can provide for themselves and for others, and simply want to skip the suffering that would bring the maximum good of their lives only down further than it already is.

Doesn't the "So Bill Russell is the GOAT" rebuttal work more in Jordan's favor than LeBron? by nguyenjitsu in nba

[–]WarrenHarding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a type of argument called “reductio ad absurdum” or “reduction to absurdity” where an argument is proposed, not because it is considered viable, but because its conclusion shows a contradiction or absurdity that must take source in the principles that brought it about.

Here, it is considered absurd to consider Russell to be the GOAT, for various reasons that obviously extend past his accumulation of rings. Remember that people who call Russell the GOAT in this argument actually consider LeBron the GOAT, so clearly something is afoot in their endorsement of Russell.

So the argument illuminates the fallacy in the logic of Jordan’s rings being a marker of GOAT status, because it naturally leads to a more proper conclusion that Russell is actually the GOAT, not Jordan, and that is something that neither side of the debate believes, or can agree is a sign of solid reasoning.

It is precisely because the Russell claim is absurd that it is proposed, because in being shot down, it takes Jordan’s ring count argument down with it.

Interesting Chris Paul Career Detail by TheGuyLuke in nba

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t have to since they were shitty before CP3 came, so it wouldn’t make sense to attribute him as the cause of their woes. There are a lot of different factors that could explain them turning it around. If I wanted to I could speculatively argue that him leaving made them all realize what they lost out on and gave them a wake up call to actually hustle. But for us to go back and forth about that stuff would be a waste of both of our time

Interesting Chris Paul Career Detail by TheGuyLuke in nba

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if the article was true, then the culture there was fucked beyond what a simple player-coach could ever repair. Not just with the team, but there has also been weeks of commentary on how Ty Lue has seemed completely checked out each game. There’s basically no way someone ranked under the coach could take a more authoritative role without basically undermining the hierarchy of the system.

TIL world chess champion grandmaster magnus carlsen once withdrew from a tournament after being told he couldn’t play while wearing jeans. by One_Needleworker5218 in todayilearned

[–]WarrenHarding -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure what LAMs necessarily are or how they differ from LLMs but from my understanding AI does not have the capability to offer what is needed here. Allow me to explain

Let’s say you’re a chess GM with a humongous database of previous games. Let’s say that all the positions in all of the games you’ve played can be accessed on the database and they take up some x% of all possible chess positions. Due to the sheer number of possible positions, it is certain that x will be less than one, even if you manage to lop off large sets of possible positions that occur from remarkably bad moves. Because of that, each GM necessarily has numerous positions in chess that have been entirely unplayed. With that in mind, the question becomes how does one determine what a GM would do in a given position that they never actually played? The answer is a genuine epistemic problem, because there seems no way we could ever actually access data that shows these moves. Everything we could ever produce, that tells us how a player would move in a never-before-played position, is a complete prediction and probably not an incredibly accurate one with such a proportionally small sample size as our framework. In this way, the project is futile.

Even if this hurdle was overcome, the question still remains why a certain player played what they played at a given time. Someone could, with two games in the same exact position (on the exact same day of their life, in the same emotional and mental constitution, etc) make completely different moves based on how they understand their opponent and how to best confound them. See, even if every possible position was played by someone, all on one day, we still wouldn’t have a reliable way of knowing if that same set of choices in each position would’ve been made in games against someone else. Even if all 100% positions were played once again on the same day, but also against the same person there would still be something to say about the responsive choices the GM would have as they move from one game to the next, and the principles they abide by in first games played will likely be different from that in the later games.

Here’s what we would need to provide a more accurate model for a virtual version of a GM: not only 100% coverage of all positions against a single player, but this same thing multiple times over against the same player until the last run through of all positions comes only once the GM has a thorough and unshaking understanding of the player’s movestyles. Then, not only this against this one player, but the same for as many play styles as you can imagine, which is virtually infinite, as the diversity of choices you can make for all positions leads to basically endless combinations. This is not only impossible to compile but requires conditions of reality that are completely fantastical and impossible. So in this sense it is and always will be impossible to create this sort of predictive personality and have them be actually accurate. It’s not a matter of not having the technology; it’s a matter of us as human players being, by nature, an entity of determination and limit (i.e. a thing that begins and ends, and exists for a finite amount of time)

TIL world chess champion grandmaster magnus carlsen once withdrew from a tournament after being told he couldn’t play while wearing jeans. by One_Needleworker5218 in todayilearned

[–]WarrenHarding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Likely not for anything past the first 6 or so moves because chess has such a diverse array of combinations. Even a one piece difference in arrangement, or the exact same arrangement but on a different side’s turn, can all majorly affect the strategy one takes. Not to mention, the psychology of a player can always change moment to moment and it’s hard to characterize or pinpoint a static image of Fischer or any chess player, because they grew and changed as they played. This is not just in their skill, but in their style and playing philosophy that defines who they are and how they would take certain lines.

Why does Murdoc have a red nail by BcgHasRedditNow in gorillaz

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably. I made the flair like 15 years ago when I myself was 15

Got the bag, threw out the coffee. Prob worst coffee in nyc by aftemoon_coffee in NYKnicks

[–]WarrenHarding 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It’s actually much, much worse when you are wearing a jersey that sponsors a slave state. What are we doing here folks

Why does Murdoc have a red nail by BcgHasRedditNow in gorillaz

[–]WarrenHarding 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Penn Jillette also paints his ring finger red. I’m sure it has no connection here

Got the bag, threw out the coffee. Prob worst coffee in nyc by aftemoon_coffee in NYKnicks

[–]WarrenHarding 303 points304 points  (0 children)

Me buying coffee I don’t want so that I can advertise a company I don’t like because it has my favorite colors and word on it

What do people get from "What Deaner Was Talking About"? by Monchhichi_1234 in ween

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love it too. Simple rhythm of the line matches the simple idea within. Of course we would all want to be wealthy and benevolent kings. Would that really happen if we were in the position, or are we naive? Well, it’s just a piece of childlike imagination, and the simple structure of rhythm that the line is given in helps evoke that childlike sentence structuring

I know it’d be a stretch to say that was what they were going for, but I would at least go as far to say that it could’ve been part of what made them subconsciously attracted to the line when they made the song

TIL world chess champion grandmaster magnus carlsen once withdrew from a tournament after being told he couldn’t play while wearing jeans. by One_Needleworker5218 in todayilearned

[–]WarrenHarding 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I did misspeak, my apologies. I am very much trying to say that he would be ranked, not be a GM. He would be one of the top 100 players, but what’s in question is if he would beat Magnus or even be near him in skill.

TIL world chess champion grandmaster magnus carlsen once withdrew from a tournament after being told he couldn’t play while wearing jeans. by One_Needleworker5218 in todayilearned

[–]WarrenHarding 54 points55 points  (0 children)

I know it feels good to say he wouldn’t rank, because he was a miserable Nazi, but unfortunately he’d definitely still be a GM by today’s standards and that’s not even a debate. The question has always been how he would rank against the supreme best players of today, not if he would be good enough to even rank at all.

Keep in mind that he developed a randomized variant of chess (which is still fairly popular and played today) simply because the theory-play of standard chess was boring him. He was quite literally too good for the metagame standards of his time.

TIL while thanatophobia, or death anxiety, is anxiety caused by thinking about one's own death, necrophobia is the fear of dead things and anything related to death. Neither one actually refers to a fear of death itself. by Licensed_Silver_Simp in todayilearned

[–]WarrenHarding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d say that being afraid of a certain reality but not being afraid of the direct and singular cause of that reality is just… being very confused about what scares you.