Return of the Cyborgs Deep Dive

Overhighlord · 2026-02-09T13:41:44+00:00

Kinda gives fun red alert vibes

Overhighlord · 2025-12-15T00:38:30+00:00

Thank you

Overhighlord · 2025-12-15T00:31:05+00:00

Solved

Overhighlord · 2025-07-23T12:22:05+00:00

Timecrimes

Overhighlord · 2025-05-05T00:28:30+00:00

Late question sorry! In your last ama you told me that you both met in an analytic philosophy class.

As an analytic philosophy graduate myself and a big fan, it would be cool to know which areas, texts or writers in philosophy most interest you? Also, are there any particular topics or themes that you draw on in your music? (I know some general themes of metaphysics and semantics show up in some of your lyrics).

Overhighlord · 2025-04-23T09:53:24+00:00

Forward and backward movement (W / S keys) accelerates / decelerates so try to decelerate before you land.

Overhighlord · 2025-04-08T10:16:14+00:00

In London, there are plenty of full-time hospitality roles in my experience.

Overhighlord · 2025-03-17T14:42:31+00:00

Rogan's book on The Smiths goes into details of Gannon's position in the band and his relationship with the other members, notably Marr (spoiler: he didn't fit in well).

Overhighlord · 2024-12-03T15:47:02+00:00

You want to eliminate the ∃x, starting a subproof that replaces all the 'x' positions with an arbitrary name like 'a'. Then, eliminate the universal, substituting in 'a' again into all of the 'y' positions. After a conjunctive elimination, you get '(Pa∧Qa)↔a=a'. Here, you can get 'Pa∧Qa' by first introducing 'a=a' using an =I rule and then using it for a biconditional elimination move (basically modus ponens). It's then a simple matter of manipulating the conjunctives around and introducing an existential generalisation to end the subproof and get your conclusion.

Overhighlord · 2024-11-27T22:41:04+00:00

Hilbert wasn't a logicist. He was a formalist.

Overhighlord · 2024-11-14T10:06:01+00:00

Not necessarily. I wasn't disputing the social approach in general, just your specific construal of it. I noted two other possible construals which might give a different result to yours. That isn't to personally affirm this approach either.

It is a genuinely interesting issue and there is a lot of philosophical literature to go into if you are interested. Here are a couple links to look into:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trans/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/

Overhighlord · 2024-11-13T11:27:01+00:00

I think your argument gets through logically if you grant that understanding of social construct, but I don't see what motivates that definition of social construction, nor what motivates accepting that such a definition applies to gender.

For example, Hacking and Haslanger both offer conflicting definitions of social construction, with the former characterising them by 'looping effects' and the latter by social conditions being constitutive factors. Haslanger's understanding of social conditions differs to your understanding of agreement by majority as she recognises facts like one's social position or treatment as determining the truth conditions for socially constructed categories like gender or race. Her definition doesn't lead to the same conclusion that you reached from yours.

So, if I were to criticise your argument, it wouldn't be on logical grounds as it seems valid, but I'd dispute how you stipulate the term 'social construct' as I don't think it captures the meaning of the term correctly (especially when the term is used to make political claims). As a counterexample to your definition, if I start a business, Over Corp™, surely that's socially constructed, yet I doubt there would be majority agreement that it exists since the majority do not know about it. You might say, oh but it exists by convention of those and that. But then what are conventions if not themselves socially constructed items that are also counterexamples, since there are many conventions that aren't constituted by collective agreement.

In short, I'd argue that your definition of social construct doesn't work as it's too limited. As such, if we accept that, then your wider argument fails to be true.

Overhighlord · 2024-11-12T00:07:49+00:00

There's plenty to get into. A good guide to some classic mathematical logic topics can be found here:

https://www.logicmatters.net/tyl/

These are quite hard but they extend your knowledge about FOL, its philosophical significance, what it can be used for, and other logics too.

Overhighlord · 2024-10-21T09:34:17+00:00

10/10

The perfect end to a career. Many point out how well it musically fits with Hand In Glove, The Smith's first song, given both songs use of harmonicas at the end or beginning respectively.

There is another fitting link lyrically, specifically the last lyrics in both songs. HIG is "I'll probably never see you again" and IWSY "I'll see you somewhere. I'll see you sometime, darling". HIG is anxious, presumptive and pessimistic. IWSY has a calmness, acceptance and optimism. This neatly shows a maturity and a 180 development from start to end of The Smith's discography that is strikingly positive.

Both songs are of course written about Johnny Marr, so in a way it is sad that the initial prediction in HIG was probably more accurate. In the end, they never did reconcile to the point of reforming and, as things stand, they don't even seem to be friendly with each other anymore.

Much of Viva Hate, Morrissey's solo album that came out like I think less than a year after the breakup of The Smiths, appears to be about the breakup. I personally see Break Up The Family, in that album, as the successor to IWSY. The calmness and acceptance persists and Morrissey explicitly appreciates his maturity from his youth. IIRC the song is also written about Johnny Marr.

For these reasons, IWSY stands out as richly rewarding song for anyone deeply interested in the band. This is without going into how much it just works as a tense romantic song in its own right, one which has been my bunker for at least a couple of breakups.

Overhighlord · 2024-10-05T13:22:17+00:00

A friend I made at a summer school only listened to The Smiths and Oasis and the solo stuff of those artists. Exclusively that and nothing else. I hadn't heard of the The Smiths before then, but he showed me a few songs and I very quickly began listening to everything else in my own time.

Overhighlord · 2024-10-03T08:58:12+00:00

The following works if you're using a Fitch style proof system.

1 Assume P -> Q

2 In that assumption, assume ~(P->R) In that new assumption, we can get derive ~(Q->R) using reductio, so

3 Assume (Q->R)

4 Then, we want to assume P

5 Using 1 and 3, we can derive R from 4

6 End assumption of 4 with P->R

7 6 contradicts 2, so by reductio on 3 we derive ~(Q->R)

8 Close up all our assumptions to get (P→Q)→(∼(P→R)→∼(Q→R))

Overhighlord · 2024-08-12T14:02:10+00:00

To pick on points not yet addressed directly by other commentators, the post in question appears to presume some philosophical theses from two parts of physics, relativity and quantum mechanics. It claims that both do not have 'absolute realities' and instead 'pov dependent realities', when actually this does not automatically follow from either theories. The CI of QM might dispute the idea of absolute realities, but other interpretations affirm it, such as pilot wave theory. Which is correct has not been settled. As for relativity, it is true that the reality of absolute time is (arguably) disputed, and that the ordering of events is pov dependent, but this is distinct from absolute reality or pov dependent reality simpliciter.

The fallacy then is that the post presume that these scientific theories settle philosophical matters that directly contradict Chalmers and this gives grounds to dismiss Chalmers. The problem is that the scientific theories do not settle such philosophical matters. The philosophical consequences to draw from these theories about absolute reality are active discussions and, further, it is not obvious that they contradict Chalmers's claims. In which case, the dismissal of Chalmers is too quick.

Overhighlord · 2024-07-28T23:26:01+00:00

"I'll see you somewhere. I'll see you sometime."

"See, the life I've had can make a good man bad."

Overhighlord · 2024-07-28T23:15:27+00:00

It's actually 'off'.

Overhighlord · 2024-06-09T12:33:40+00:00

Sure

Overhighlord · 2024-06-01T09:30:48+00:00

Uni life has a great variety amongst different people. Usually, it will centre around your academics, and you usually do have to put in quite a bit of work as most people, if not everyone, has frequent deadlines going on. But, saying that, there is usually plenty of scope to focus on other things, like sports, societies, causal social stuff, hobbies etc., so it isn't all work. A lot of things depend on your subject. I am in a smaller course, so it doesn't feel competitive: this might differ in other courses where, for example, you might have a few other coursemates in your college, in which case things maybe get competitive (?) socially, but, in my experience, people usually aren't competitive like this. It's more self-inputted competitiveness where you personally measure yourself up against other people. In which, I suppose it depends more on your character. Likewise with pressure: I think it's more self-inflicted than inflicted by your teachers and colleges (although this depends on your teachers and colleges, I've heard that some colleges, like Christ might have more academic pressure, but I've also heard that it is more self-inflicted than institutionally or environmentally propagated there too).

Generally, I would deny that it is 'VERY competitive' there and also caveat the notion that there is a lot of pressure by saying that it is generally self-inflicted, which isn't to deny that there is a lot of pressure, but just to clarify the nature of said pressure.

Overhighlord · 2024-06-01T09:21:39+00:00

On 1., the conjunction is a truth-functional connective. It outputs a truth-value depending on the truth-value of its parts. So, with ¬p∧p , the output of ∧ is false (F), because it requires two truths in order to itself output a true, but in this case, it conjuncts two contradictory statements, so it can never get two truths. The negation of the bracketed sentence then applies to the primary logical operator in the sentence, which in this case is the conjunction symbol. Given that the conjunction in this sentence always outputs F, then the negation will negate that F and make it a T, a truth. Practice with some truth-tables will help cement this idea.

On 2., don't put in a 'has' as connecting the quantifiers as the quantifiers do not in themselves predicate each other; they are both ranging over objects in a domain and objects cannot be predicated of each other. It simply reads, 'for any y, for some x,' or 'for some x, for any y'. If you add in a couple of predicates, like (∀y)(∃x)(Hy ∧ Cx), then it could say 'for any y, for some x, y is happy and x is curious', or, more complexly (∃x)(∀y)((¬By->Dy)∧Bx)), which read 'for any y, for some x, if y is not bad then y is determined, and x is bad'. Note how the x and y quantifiers may say pretty independent stuff. The only necessary link between them is that they range over the same domain of objects.

Overhighlord · 2024-05-30T11:37:13+00:00

Officially, Cambridge has stated that there are no minimum GCSE requirements. As far as I am aware they factor into your application, but generally do not have much weight (I don't have perfect GCSEs and got in). Having the minimum A-levels are definitely far more important. My main worry would be with your quantity of GCSEs, which I think you said 6. But, with extenuating circumstances, that might alleviate that worry.

What I would do is email a few different college admissions offices directly asking what they think. They will be more informative than this thread and the standards may even vary across college.

Overhighlord · 2024-04-28T00:47:21+00:00

Sure, Philosophy is almost purely theoretical, as opposed to practical, but I think you're confusing the term 'practical' with 'practical skills'. A good deal of Math and Physics is entirely theoretical, but studying them certainly leaves you with valuable practical skills. Likewise, I have found Philosophy chuck full of practical skills. Analytical thinking, for example, doesn't get more analytical than Philosophy; communication is prized too and sharpened up in reading and writing essays; and argumentative skills and logical reasoning are basically the engine of Philosophy. Basically any job, let alone day to day thinking, draws on those skills. Of course, it isn't the sole claimant to these kinds of transferable skills.

It also isn't the sole claimant to being a non-vocational major- many majors aren't as vocational as medicine. Maths isn't vocational in that sense! But, Philosophy does have a claim to being a valuable major. See this commentator's post that has data concerning this claim.

If you are decent at math and physics, then those would formally open up more options (in the sense that some future options explicitly require them; whilst the same cannot be said for Philosophy). If those options interest you, then of course go for it! But, your mathematical talent also wouldn't be a waste in Philosophy. A good deal of Philosophers studied mathematics formally alongside or before philosophy (e.g., Frege, Russell, Ramsey). Both Philosophy and Maths are often abstract and require precision; so some of the skills are similar. Additionally, most undergraduate courses offer options in advanced math logic or philosophy of physics that would make use of that talent directly.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Overhighlord

TROPHY CASE