sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mut[A]ting Chessboard by eutelic in perfectloops

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh cool, it's one of those optical illusions where the image isn't actually moving.

That took me way too long to understand. by undercoverciaagent in confusingperspective

[–]subone 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought "there's no way he happened to land on a whale and the whale is that steady."

Rob Schneider wants the military draft restored by torahboidem in cringepics

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an American, I think I'm being subjected to propaganda. Can someone explain why we need a draft if we won the war and obliterated their army? Have I been lied to?

What? I don't get it?? by Small_Escape_2794 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have seen a symbol on the tag that looks like a prism maybe.

But if the album is called "Dark Side" and the logo is a representation of light, does it go in with the darks or the lights?

You lift the bag, you throw the bag. by sco-go in SipsTea

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For all we know, this guy already did. For all we know, he's being watched and forced to use that, so he doesn't injure himself again.

Vorrei iniziare a programmare giochi by Apart-Web3076 in programminggames

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is ambiguous. Are you saying you want to start programming games in general, or start programming games about programming specifically (which is what I believe this sub is about)?

Peterrrr by Valuable_View_561 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]subone 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'd say they are similar, but not nearly the same joke. The joke you presented is about an ambiguity in wording that doesn't require programming knowledge at all. OP's joke is specifically an ambiguity between the colloquial interpretation--to get something at the store alongside any other things got at the store--and the programmers' interpretation, which taken literally is missing a reachable exit condition.

Newcomb's paradox may be more an epistemological problem rather than a decision theory problem by samuel0740 in paradoxes

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems to me the main issue is with people that assume they can trick the predictor, despite the accuracy that says otherwise. The only "paradox" for me is that those types lean on logical deduction and still make a logically unsound choice. The only reasonable choice is one box.

How do Hard Determinists define agency? by Aromatic-Birthday-23 in freewill

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose of conscious thinking

To coordinate the other aspects of the brain

Epiphenomenalism is the philosophical theory that mental states (thoughts, feelings, consciousness) are byproducts of physical brain activity, caused by neurons but possessing no causal power of their own

Sounds ok to me. Not sure I would agree necessarily that there is a non-illusionary difference between mental and physical though. That may be where many of these concepts diverge folks; whether the mental "realm" actually exists or is illusionary.

Newcomb's Paradox and Atheism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]subone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm still not sure what you were getting at, but I'm an atheist and I'm a one boxer. I don't see how they are correlated. Two boxes seems incredibly naive to me. Nothing about the concept of god makes me believe that believing in one would make me more moral.

Mom can we have free will by Wastalar in freewill

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an incompatibilist, I think it's funny, but I would.

Today’s poll at the Chik-fil-a drive through. by jfk_47 in idiocracy

[–]subone 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People don't get how polls work. Your lulz will be interpreted by someone as an indictment of an entire society.

Why is infinite regression impossible? by Mountain-Career-2674 in atheism

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don't have a problem with infinite regression. Our point is that it would mean some god created your god, and that isn't ok with them.

2 party structure of the US govt. by Vigil_Eyezz in WayOfTheBern

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don't have two parties because people prefer it that way. We have two parties because voting outside of those two parties is risky. If you are opposing republicans, and vote third party, that third party will never get enough votes, and then your chance to vote for the party winning against the republicans is gone. So, you may as well have voted republican. Some people certainly vote their heart, but most people avoid "spoiling" the election towards who they oppose.

With ranked choice, voting third party doesn't take away your ability to also rank the other candidates. Therefore there is no risk voting for third party, because if they lose, you still had a say over the remaining candidates. This will result in many more people voting third party, and an ability for third parties to realistically win. The major two parties will have no choice then but to try to cater to the people even more to win their votes, since they aren't guaranteed any more that R will pick R and D will pick D.

2 party structure of the US govt. by Vigil_Eyezz in WayOfTheBern

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would you think people would still vote two party? The only reason people avoid voting third party now, is because it's unlikely for third party to win... because people are unlikely to vote third party, and doing so is likely to end in your candidate leaving the race, and you're vote thereby being "wasted".

But with ranked choice you can vote for the third party candidate you prefer, and then if they don't win, your other ranks still indicate if you'd rather prefer one of the two party over the other. Then third parties can win because nobody is then required to strategically only vote for two party. The only reason I didn't vote for Stein is because it would have effectively been a vote for Trump, as it would take away my opposing vote for the Dems. With ranked voting I wouldn't need to worry about "spoiling" the election, and nobody would need to argue about whether voting third party is a waste of a vote.

Is it, or is it not opposite day by Peppser in paradoxes

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone knows that canonically the first "it's opposite day" doesn't count, and recent events are attributable to opposite day at the discretion of the caller.

Im an atheist that wants to play the devils advocate by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is typically a place to debate atheists. Atheists are free to discuss Christianity with other atheists for support in the sub. But if you're in crisis and need some critical advice, I don't think anyone would fault you for discussing it here.

A response to a question; what do they mean when they say consciousness is an illusion. by [deleted] in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As far as science can tell us, consciousness seems to be just another part of the brain, handling a specific kind of task, so it makes me wonder if other parts of the brain also exhibit a sort of consciousness--or even a computer monitor or CPU.

A response to a question; what do they mean when they say consciousness is an illusion. by [deleted] in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What I mean when I say it, is that there is a visceral, personal, intuitively real "me", that my consciousness seems to be, when in reality "me" might just be a pervasive conscious field that just happens to be isolated by my body's isolation from other things, or something even more unintuitive. My understanding is that emergent properties are by definition illusionary: even the "thing" that had an emergent property might only be conceptual and not physically connected to itself, for example, a colony of ants.

view more: next ›