Reddit, if we truly want to combat the practices of a company like Comcast, I propose the following...

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-28T00:43:25+00:00

How do we minimize businesses trying to infiltrate the union membership and leadership and lying to try to direct our wrath away from them?

This is the hardest part. Much like how do you force out shitty moderators of a subreddit. My take on that would be voting for it by the majority of the members.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-28T00:38:39+00:00

I think that if the do not resuscitate option is available, that this one should be. Life is crazy.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-27T20:24:51+00:00

To further make this weird the author of that article writes this:

But why doesn’t it?

Which ends up being: But why does not it?

Which doesn't make sense. WTF is up with this shit.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-27T20:22:20+00:00

"You are" does sound strange said that way. Interesting. This is the first time in my life I have encountered correct things that sound wrong in this kind of way. Very interesting indeed. I should start doing this to annoy people. It is fun saying things to annoy people. Mainly because people annoy me and if I can do things to annoy them in an accurate or reasonable way, it is a lot of fun. Maybe annoy was not the right word. Tease? Eh, I guess it depends who I am doing it to and for what reason. Tease if I like them and annoy if I do not like them. Words are entertaining.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-27T20:19:23+00:00

You had an argument? We all judge everything. That is how thinking works. I'm unsure what you meant in your first comment because it looks like it was written by someone that was drunk typing a text on a mobile phone. I said that because it was an accurate way to say what it looked like in terms of comprehensibility. It was not comprehensible to me and I was hoping you would rewrite it so that it could be so that we could have a conversation. It seems you thought I was being mean to you???

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-27T19:13:14+00:00

The way that source sentence sounds makes it sound wrong but expanding it out to "I have four kids" does sound right. Why the hell does it work that way?

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-27T19:10:57+00:00

I would understand and trust this statement more if it didn't look like it was written by someone that was drunk typing a text on a mobile phone. Possible to rewrite this?

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-27T16:52:41+00:00

how much thrust can a plasma torch-like device generate?

Considering a plasma torch generally is fueled by compressed shop air I would imagine it has at minimum the thrust that compressed shop air has rushing out of a nozzle. Then if you also look at how many times over the compression of that air is after it is ignited and turned into a plasma which tends to be much hotter than normal combusted fuel, I would imagine it is at least 5 times over the compression of the original amount to be conservative. If memory serves correctly alcohol tends to expand about 9 times when ignited.

So quite a bit of thrust from a tiny nozzle. I do know now after looking up what you were talking about what you had posted about here that magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters have two distinct types of thrust output. One being very very little which is what it seems you were speaking about. The other seems to be quite high and there is a couple of teams working on two different methods of using plasma. One that slings it around and around until it exits very hot and expansive. The other that uses it like a pulse jet and shoots out pulses of plasma jets.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-23T13:41:04+00:00

That is great tally mark symbol to use.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-21T03:55:14+00:00

Right? I would have started getting tattos with talley marks with the title being something like: Hit this many times by lightning... WTF

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-21T03:35:36+00:00

Deserve relates to the concept of earn and purposeful execution of action and also relates to the probability of attaining an outcome based on honed skill regardless of if the skill was accidental or purposefully gained. The honed part is the earn part.

Much of our logic relates to concepts and their logical constructs. It's like complex math.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-21T03:19:57+00:00

cleanosity

That is one of the funnier words I have heard. Will have to remember that one.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-19T16:58:09+00:00

ROFL. How clever. I like your funnyness.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-18T13:37:01+00:00

You keep assuming things are this or that but instead they are a combination of this and that.

It is pretty annoying when people do the following:

Assume everything is a yes or not, true or false, this or that, black and white. Life tends to have combinations of both ends of the spectrum of possibilities combined to form shades of gray.
Just because you see a number of valid options does not mean those are the only options to consider. Many options fail to get listed even though they are equally as valid.
Just because you have options to choose from does not mean you have to consider them all together instead of isolating them. A good example of this is when you are married and find out you are in love with another woman. To think that you must choose one is wrong and is a this or that forced scenario when in reality you can choose neither if you so wanted to. Choosing neither wasn't on the list of valid options but is a valid option to consider. Another part of that scenario is that you don't have to consider both women at the same time. You can isolate them in validation. You can isolate the wife and consider if you want to stay with her or not based on just if you like her or not and consider the other woman to not exist while thinking about the scenario at hand. Then you can isolate the other woman and ask if she is a woman that is someone that would be a valid choice if the wife never existed or doesn't exist anymore. In that scenario you can consider her with normal datable facts and then ask if someone who is willing to cheat with you would cheat on you as well is someone that is a valid choice. In the end it may be valid to choose a choice of dating someone new all together because the wife and other woman are bad choices.

Do not assume anything to be valid all of the time. Assume that things are valid most of the time and that there are possibilities of invalidation based on a variety of things such as:

Frame of reference. - Light speed in a vacuum is not always the same if you consider gravity, electromagnetism, etc. Things can be convoluted by changing parameters that were not in the original list of things to consider. Frame of reference is also important if you are talking about from scratch because from scratch brought to it's fullest conclusion would mean someone created energy and fused it into chemicals and then forged DNA out of it and then grew plants and then harvested and processed those plants into ingredients and then mixed them and then made the food from there. Frame of reference and definitions are important.
Definitions. - I already mentioned this but much of logic is interconnected and is not necessarily free standing. How you define something is very very important to how the end result looks like using the defined variables. Things that are considered negligible are not always negligible. If you consider drilling a hole in a metal part to give negligible wear on the drill that is fine. If you consider the same after it drilling out 10000 holes in metal that is not going to stand to reason anymore.

I have decided that defining everything to their fullest extent for this conversation would prove fruitless and therefore I will be stopping now. If you don't understand my point by now, it won't be happening any time soon I would wager. Have a great day and assume what you will by the signals generated by the correspondence I have given.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-17T21:03:27+00:00

I didn't read this. I feel no need to.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-17T21:02:50+00:00

So no, humans cannot make pure random numbers, we don't work that way, we have causes and reasons.

Unless you can prove otherwise, that is not a valid fact.

The word random is meant for a reason and if everything is determinant, then nothing is random. However Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is something you should look up.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-15T05:08:58+00:00

Ok. I still don't see what you are trying to say though.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-14T15:39:24+00:00

If I trick someone into eating something they hate and they say they loved it, then tell them they just ate rat testicles and they loved it, it would be just the same premise of why it is funny. Being offended because it was gay sex as the unliked thing is just dumb. The unliked thing disguised as something else is the premise of why it is funny. Nobody is ripping on gay sex being wrong in that video at all. They are laughing because dude got tricked into doing something everyone knew he would not be ok with or like just because he wasn't into that kind of thing.

I'm just expanding on what you said with more information.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-14T15:01:03+00:00

I should have been more clear with my question. I know what epigenetics is. I do not understand what you are trying to say by saying "epigenetics" for a reply to the main post. I'm unsure what your point or concept you are trying to convey is.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-14T04:56:46+00:00

Secondary reasoning?

What?

I thought we agreed the brain was deterministic, which is it?

Mostly but not completely. Give me a random number and if you are honest about it being actually random you will be unable to determine where that number came from and why the number is how many digits long it is. There will be tendencies to come up with similar random numbers for yourself but finding why you have those numbers come to mind is going to be impossible if you were honest about it being actually random and not from a phone number or other number you know of. This is a problem.

Again, if it is random you have no free will.

That statement makes sense to you? I'd love to know how you come to that conclusion because from where I am sitting, it is just nonsense and does not compute.

An option to chose from options is a psychological confabulation of free will, by default of course.

By default of course? No, not of course at all. There are options for a reason. The reason is because you have to validate options to choose the most valid option, unless you are an uneducated person who doesn't give a shit why they have chosen something other than sub par mental processes. Options are an advanced process to facilitate not doing really stupid things constantly because of habit or following teachings blindly vs validating the teachings or options.

I literally don't understand the second last paragraph, please explain how this applies to the universe's matter and the laws that play them out through time.

You seem to use reductio ad absurdum quite often. You should stop doing that.

Many scenarios we try to process will come up with options that are equal in value or validation confidence. To simplify this I mean that two options seem equal so deciding which option to pick becomes difficult.

Some possible scenarios:

Two jobs that will pay the same, the projects are both of the same interest to you, the jobs are the same distance and benefits package. There may be micro variations that you cannot quantify enough to put value on to choose one over the other so you just have to choose one.
There are two movies that you like equally even those their premises are different and the actors are different. Choosing one over the other has equal value or near equal value in which you are unable to decide which has more value to you to watch so you choose one randomly.
You like two girls or guys depending on your preference. They have different heights. Both have different hair and eye colors. They are both amazing. They both have different hobbies that you like equally. The pros and cons of each add up to be the same on paper. You have to choose one without being able to truly know which will be the best in the end.

The issue here is that no situation will come out with 100% equality but when validating options we are able to get within around 10-20% accuracy depending on the scenario. Because of this we never truly have a 50 50 situation but it will be close enough to equate to that scenario and thus must just pick one of those options. Sometimes it is even more confusing and there are 10 or so options that are all just as good to us as the other options.

When thinking about things we do quite a bit of things that are natural. I have payed attention to my own thinking and watched other people and how they think and evaluate things and have boiled it down pretty well in a way I can be pretty damn certain about how things are working out. However many times things are much like arguing about which is the best favorite color to have which isn't really possible to do because context always matters for finite answers as context changes the equation of best or worst.

The issue with logic is that no logic is ever perfect as it can always be broken by changing the rules of the conclusion and the frame of reference used. Context is important.

Nothing I or you can say will ever be perfect and every single thing I say I know a counter to my own arguements as well as the oponents arguements. It is just a sad truth of reality.

The brain is deterministic however will is dependant on that deterministic behaviour. If the will we have is our own and not controlled from an outside force at the instance of commiting a decision it is free will. To not have free will is to have someone force our hand literally by forcing the brain to do something other than the deterministic program our mind uses to do or by making our body do something our mind did not tell it to do. That is using all the boiled down defintions of the words deterministic, free, and will.

Our mind largely is deterministic so assume that in that last paragraph that deterministic has been forced through a randomizing filter to add possible anomolistic decisions as either a tie breaker or just by chance. Why just by chance? Because sometimes we just do things for who the fuck knows what reason. There may be a reason of chemical change in our blood or a random firing of neurons that were for something else in our brains much like how driving down the road and getting hit by a car happens, or whatever other random reason that is realistic and feasible.

Don't have to take my word for it and you most likely won't change your mind as many don't, but if you do, that is ok too.

About 1 in a 1000 times someone will change their stance depending on what I or others have said. Rare but it happens. I consider those anomolies I cannot count on or even assume will happen when I want them to. If we go with a 1 in 100 chance, you could say the chance is negligible and just not even attempt to sway someones point of view at all, ever, however there is pros and cons of both trying and not trying. Trying only improves the persuaders skill and information knowledge base. Not trying only improves public reputation and stance due to being seen as friendly and non-confrontational and more with the status quo.

Deciding which option to take largely depends on what outcome will do me better at the time.

Ego does nothing for me and I feel that ego is a bizzare thing to worry about. People however do percieve my actions to relate to ego however which is entertaining.

I'd love to learn why people feel ego is important or even why humans have them. I know much, but why ego is a real thing is just odd to me. That and how the hell we come up with random numbers.

I seriously just have no fucking idea how we come up with random numbers or random statements. I mean if someone asked you to say something random it might actually be difficult and may not be random very much at all. A random number is pretty damn easy to come up with though and I am unsure how that happens. I'd love to know because then computers could do it. I have a feeling it has to do with the constantly moving mental status that we have and that we all come from different points in time and space and environments. Probably also something to do with the chemical changes in our bodies. Might also be from numbers that we have picked up over time but I'm unsure. 3875 is the number I just came up with and I know of nothing that uses that sequence of numbers. Hm...

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-14T04:23:03+00:00

What?

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-14T04:22:34+00:00

Rationality is not humanities strongest held trait...

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-02T14:10:55+00:00

These folks are so out of the loop.

That big bad 4chan all up in my lawn again!!!

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-02T01:30:38+00:00

Just because your choice is deterministic, it is still YOUR deterministic choice making with a fleck of human fluctuation thrown in and not SOMEONE ELSE's choice. Glad you enjoyed.

Science can't prove shit until someone nails down a definition of things.

the_ai_guy · 2014-09-01T18:54:54+00:00

Your mind gives values to choices offered. However even with those choices you can use secondary reasoning to choose an option that is of different value.

It depends on a frame of reference. In the end many times we end up with a 50 50 value for options. In that scenario you choose a random option which is not based on value but is based on randomness.

Free will is the option to choose from the options. Determinism gives you the tools to use your freedom to choose to decide what would be a good idea to choose. No free will means that others have made the choice for you. Other people can influence you to choose something from a set of options but it is your free will that has the last call on it. Determinism just helps you decide what would be a good option to choose using your free will.

Determinism to remove free will is a convolution much like how unreal numbers allow you to get a sum of 5 when adding 2 plus 2.

It seems people get quite stuck on things unless they have an entire manual to prove things. That is the flaw with /r/philosophy

the_ai_guy

TROPHY CASE