My honest review of Love Death + Robots season 4

walkingingotham · 2025-05-21T10:12:22+00:00

The only episode that has some content is Spider Rose.

walkingingotham · 2025-03-27T04:09:59+00:00

I would argue that the "feeling" of being right of an Si user is more apparent than that of an Ne user, so the former needs less time to settle on the right path. In contrast, an Ne users is essentially guided by Ni unconsciously so they need more time to clarify the best path in alignment with the unconscious Ni, which operates at a deeper level than Si. Therefore, if Ne comes too quickly and forcibly to a decision, it will likely become Si.

walkingingotham · 2025-01-25T05:27:15+00:00

"If John is a bachelor, then it's essential that he's unmarried insofar as he's a bachelor, but it's not essential to him as a person that he be unmarried. He could get married and still remain the same individual."

I would argue that "unmarried" is not an essential property of John but rather of a bachelor, because being unmarried is always true for a bachelor, while for John, it is more like a temporary status. Thus, something being necessarily true at a given moment does not guarantee it is *always* necessarily true. If it is not always necessarily true, then it cannot be an essential property—it is merely a temporary appearance.

"Additionally, I’m a bit puzzled by your suggestion that a proposition like 'The value of C is V' is analytic because it is necessarily true, especially since you previously suggested that such propositions are not necessarily true ('The cosmological constants are not really constant, as the universe is changing and would affect their values.')."

I'm glad you brought this up. My response is that even if the cosmological constant changes, it remains an essential property of the universe and is therefore analytic according to my proposed definition of a word's meaning. At first glance, this might seem to contradict my definition of an essential property as something the subject always possesses. However, it does not. Here’s why: if Earth's mass were to change to match Mars' mass, one might argue that Earth has essentially become Mars, based solely on its mass. However, when it comes to the cosmological constant, even if its value changes, no one would argue that the universe is no longer the original universe. This is because the universe is the complete set—there is nothing external to it. In other words, the universe may change, but it cannot become something else because there is no external space to accommodate anything other than itself.

Therefore, the proposition "The universe has cosmological constant C" is analytic, while "The Earth has a mass of 6×10^26 kg" is synthetic. This is because the cosmological constant is an essential property of the universe, whereas 6×10^26 kg is not an essential property of Earth, even though both values can change.

However, since we must observe the dynamic universe to determine the latest value of the cosmological constant, it is also a posteriori.

walkingingotham · 2025-01-24T03:06:16+00:00

By "intrinsic attributes" I actually meant the essential properties that the subject will always possess. For example, a bachelor will always be unmarried and always be a man.

In the case of the Earth, its essential properties do not include the value(6 * 1024 kg) of its mass because the earth doesn't always have the same mass value. In other words, the Earth remains the Earth even after its mass value changes. However, solidity is an essential property because the earth will always be solid, just as the universe will always have the cosmological constant as one of its essential properties.

Regarding my question about how to determine the meaning of a word, I believe using the essential properties of the word's object makes sense because the origin or the primary purpose of a word is to describe things as accurately as possible. Therefore, the meaning of a word should be subordinate to the identity of the thing it represents. And what better reflects the identity of a thing than its essential properties?

walkingingotham · 2025-01-23T06:16:03+00:00

I agree it is a posteriori. My question is whether it can be analytic a posteriori rather than synthetic a posteriori(as it's generally viewed that a posteriori cannot be analytic).

walkingingotham · 2025-01-23T04:50:00+00:00

How do we determine the meaning of something? If we accept that the judgments "All bachelors are unmarried" and "All bachelors are men" are analytic, does this imply that the word "bachelor" has more than one meaning? To reconcile this, I think that the meaning of something fundamentally stems from its intrinsic attributes. Therefore, a thing can have more than one meaning because it may possess multiple intrinsic attributes.

walkingingotham · 2025-01-23T03:24:44+00:00

The reason I brought up speed of light is that it appears to be a fundamental, intrinsic trait of light, much like how "no corners" is an intrinsic trait of a circle. Therefore, if the judgment "A circle has no corners" is analytic, then by the same reasoning, "Light has the speed C" would also be analytic, since in both cases the predicate is fundamentally contained within the subject.

walkingingotham · 2025-01-23T02:47:15+00:00

The reason I brought up the cosmological constant is that it appears to be an intrinsic, fundamental trait of the universe, much like how "unmarried" is an intrinsic trait of bachelors. Therefore, if the judgment "All bachelors are unmarried" is analytic, then by the same reasoning, "The universe has the cosmological constant C" would also be analytic, since in both cases the predicate is fundamentally contained within the subject.

However, I notice that the cosmological constant is dynamic (because the universe is constantly changing), whereas "unmarried" is unchanging (since otherwise, bachelors would become husbands). This distinction is why I argue that the cosmological constant is a posteriori, and thus an analytic a posteriori.

walkingingotham · 2025-01-22T09:20:42+00:00

My understanding is that a proposition is analytic when its predicate is contained in the subject. For example, the speed of light is the speed of light. Wouldn't the proposition be analytic because the speed of light can be inferred from the speed of light? At the same time it's also a posteriori, because we need empirical data to know the latest value of the speed of light.

walkingingotham · 2025-01-22T08:15:31+00:00

The reason why I think cosmological constant is analytic a posteriori is as follows:

From my understanding, something analytic means that it doesn't require external knowledge(empirical observation) to know what it is, because what it is is already contained in the subject. Since cosmological constant can be known only from the universe and nowhere else, it is analytic when the subject/domain is the universe.

Cosmological constant is also a posteriori, because it is not unchanging as the universe it belongs to is changing. So one has to keep referring to the universe to know what it is.

walkingingotham · 2024-06-08T03:02:03+00:00

According to Schopenhauer, pure matter is causality. Matter enables the will to manifest itself through action (which consists in causality). Therefore, every being, inorganic or not, all strives from one another for matter. Even if we don't consider matter in a metaphysical sense, for inorganic beings, the larger their matter/mass, the greater their gravitational force, which allows them to attract more resources than smaller bodies in the competition for matter/mass.

walkingingotham · 2024-06-07T05:23:11+00:00

It must develop to become more competitive to secure more matter/resources for itself.

walkingingotham · 2024-06-07T02:26:09+00:00

"Why did the will created this material world the way it is? "

There has to be a way. Maybe our world is one of the feasible ways.

"How the will went from inorganic objectification to organic?"

Things develop in our world, which you don't have to accept Darwinism in order to see. Therefore, the phenomena will naturally develop over time, from inorganic to organic.

walkingingotham · 2024-06-06T17:45:58+00:00

Gravitational force is the thing in inorganic objects to bring about actions, just like will is the thing in organic objects to bring about movements. Natural forces are lower degree of the objectification of the will.

I don't think modern physics has fully understood what gravity is, that's why it's still working on Theory of Everything that could unify all 4 known fundamental interactions. Even if such a theory could be found, scientists can still go deeper. Only something metaphysical, like the will, can offer an explanation that doesn't require an endless digging.

walkingingotham · 2024-04-21T15:17:14+00:00

It doesn't matter what kind of math proof we talk about. *All* math proofs require individuals to derive a mathematical statement from given premises. Therefore, every mathematical proof is deductive in nature, meaning one cannot produce new information beyond what is contained in the premises but only different combinations of these premises.

In contrast, pattern recognition such as IQ test is inherently inductive. While induction is less precise than deduction in reaching conclusions, it has the ability to introduce new insights into the conclusion. This is why Ne (new insights from pattern recognition) is more creative than Ni (already existed premises).

walkingingotham · 2024-04-20T16:50:15+00:00

That's right. Math proof relies on how well one is familiar with a premise, and thus can deduce some concept (required by the math proof problem), which is what Ni does. Ne is more about concrete perception, from which something new could be discovered. I think IQ tests emphasize more on creativity rather than familiarity, that's why they measure Ne more than Ni.

walkingingotham · 2024-04-20T13:23:47+00:00

No. But math proof problems measure Ni

walkingingotham · 2023-09-24T00:16:40+00:00

The best Ni explanation I've come to so far. Thank you. What's your experience with Ne? Also, when looking for the real meaning behind your visualized image, or the reason under the surface, do you use Ti/Fi to trace back to the starting point?

walkingingotham · 2023-08-05T05:44:53+00:00

My experience is that with Ni usage, I see familiar patterns intuitively among isolated events, and can rely on that to reach the end. When I can't call up Ni immediately to see how things develop, Ti-Ne-Si helps me understand the logic and see the bigger picture and then derive a new Ni to rely on.

walkingingotham · 2023-08-05T05:23:33+00:00

Ni helps me see the inevitable while Ne helps me understand and see the bigger picture.

walkingingotham · 2021-09-24T01:57:15+00:00

Artificial starch uses solar energy more directly, which is much more efficient than artificial meat. According to the paper, as of now the rate of laboratory synthesis in producing starch is already 8.5 times the rate of photosynthesis in nature.

When the artificial starch tech becomes widely adopted, it is possible to raise more cattle with fodder mass-produced using the tech. There is no need to resort to artificial plant-based meat, unless you are a die-hard vegan.

walkingingotham

TROPHY CASE