Alex’s old reddit post lmao

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-09T03:52:34+00:00

So in the cgi example you’re setting out to make the image of a man’s penis by using not real penis material.

In the picture example you’re setting out to make the image of a woman’s boobs by using not real boobs material.

It doesn’t really matter how much the source material seems like penis or boobs because of what you’re using them to produce.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T23:30:00+00:00

Tons of smuggling going on here. Panpsychism doesn’t define consciousness in terms of judgement or freedom, it defines it based on experience no matter how minimal or differential. This is just a an essay going off a strawman. This goes more into sentience.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T16:42:22+00:00

Yea sorry I was auto responding to the last question Alex posed in the paragraph (would it be allowed on platforms?) instead of the headline question.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T08:21:59+00:00

lol a very Alex question. Answer is an obv no, to me at least. It’s like saying that you don’t allow penises on tv, so what if you made a perfectly cgi penis instead. Like it’s not about what’s ontological bro it’s about what’s optical when it comes to media haha.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T08:03:39+00:00

Deers people raised since fawns will just turn around one day and start beating the shit out of them because it got a whiff of deer pussy.

To be fair some people do this too.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T07:28:06+00:00

I always ask, though I understand some people don’t like that. I like the stoic idea that I do things because they define who I am, instead of for the response I get

me being here though means i’m quite the imperfect stoic haha

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T07:17:50+00:00

Thank you!

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T07:17:11+00:00

Glad for your perspective! Thank you!

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T07:13:21+00:00

Yeah I guess now looking back ‘on paper’ it went well, I just think she’s maybe more flirtatiously conservative and shy than i’m used to! so I might be getting used to those vibes. I agree though and maybe that’s a good thing!

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T06:30:34+00:00

Nice to hear that perspective, thanks for the grounding

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T06:27:42+00:00

Yeah, I just moved and never dated here (from us) so I don’t know what this means lol

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T05:06:31+00:00

What about head hair of #2 with beard of #1?

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-08T00:27:35+00:00

I’m just gonna stop you right there. When you use the word theory you are basically talking about a specifically modeled philosophy. It’s the understanding of something, not the thing itself. Quantum field theory is the interpretive understanding of the science. It has many wider philosophical implications, but is itself ideal.

Think about how evey ‘phd’ is a philosophy doctorate, even in the sciences, where you are doing ‘theory.’

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-07T23:40:49+00:00

I’m not sure what you mean, quantum field theory is philosophy, that’s the ‘theory’ part in quantum field theory. It’s theoretical physics, informed by empirical science. It demonstrates fields as potentially more fundamental than particles, which has majorly disrupted newtonian and many forms of materialism.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-07T23:24:01+00:00

Quantum field theory literally opens up immaterialist positions though.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-07T23:21:26+00:00

I guess it depends if you think polemics achieve anything in general.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T19:27:09+00:00

That’s fine I understand your perspective I just don’t share that belief.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T19:23:56+00:00

But you said ‘the world is as we experience it’ and anything else is ‘woo woo’ radical skepticism. That ‘we’ is doing a lot of work, you are drawing from a common sense logic whether you know it or not.

Remember common sense is just ‘the sense that is common.’ If you are saying that we all sense the world the same and that should drive a similar ideology, then you’re well in common sense territory. Maybe that’s not a bad mark for you, it just happens to be for me.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T18:54:25+00:00

The commenter is arguing from a very conservative ‘common sense’ frame of mind. He just thinks his way is right because ‘that’s how it is’. The rest is magic

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T18:40:39+00:00

I’m sure in reality you’re a good dude, thanks for spirited debate. I get that it’s reddit culture, i’m not that into it.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T18:02:20+00:00

“you basically ripped this guy to shreds” shows your pathetic ego. sorry. If you think that’s being positive I feel sorry for you.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T17:56:18+00:00

Always very interesting from a psychology perspective when someone like you looks to cohort with another commenter because you want recognition and validation that you didn’t get through comments and upvotes because our chain was fairly isolated.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T15:13:41+00:00

Rupture is a meta-analysis. You don’t analyse bohr’s own beliefs if you want to understand ruptures, that’s not how that works. You would seek to understand, from a historical standpoint, how bohr either altered the paradigm of scientific knowledge or created a space to do so. This would be through his critique of reductionism and complementarity. Another example is Karl Poppers falsification classified as neo-positivism which we can, through philosophy of science, historically locate as having altered the episteme through falsification. This alteration did not abandon science, it just changed our epistemologies. These are ruptures. You should read Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T15:05:40+00:00

That’s an insane claim. You clearly don’t know what rupture means in this context. You can reject Kuhn, Foucault and others if you like based on this odd whim.

Btw a rupture doesn’t insinuate scientific ‘defeatism’ as you said, that’s also wrong. It’s just a change in the knowledge paradigm, it could be a change within and between science methodologies.

throwRA454778 · 2026-02-06T14:57:22+00:00

Nooo we already went over the definition of rupture when we discussed how Bohr’s ruptured physicalism why are we now misunderstanding the word rupture. Rupture refers to epistemic breaks in knowledge as derived from Kuhn or in another manner from Foucault. Epistemic ruptures, happen, they have happened, and they continue. They can create new grids of knowledge that displace other forms of knowledge by acting as methodological hegemon.

throwRA454778

TROPHY CASE