What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't?
-
I agree with you on experience is computation. To me any interaction/change is computation. A ball rolling down a hill is a complex interaction with computation. Humans are a very specific and interesting reaction that feel in cool ways.
To me more matter could be worth more if more matter meant more interactions. Yet if matter is infinitely devisable then the amount of possible interactions is infinite. If matter is continuous rather than discrete then I don't know enough about the math of infinities to compare organisms. My rudimentary knowledge says they are equivalent infinities but I'm not confident.
However, if more interactions means more worthy, then at near any scale that would benefit those with resources and those in an environment that already suits them. It would favor heat over cold. Change over stability. Anxiety over calm. Psychedelics over alcohol. Those with access to more calories. It gets really weird when applied at different scales IMO.
So in summary: I don't think we can compare how much two systems compute. If we could, then using that comparison to assign moral worth still has a ton of very odd outputs.
Measure theory was discovered to be able to say that a rock twice as large as another rock can be accurately described as being twice as large as another rock, even if it's not discrete. (Detractors will point to the paradox that something can be cut up and reassembled to have more measure with a finite number of cuts, but the cuts have to be infinitely complex so it doesn't apply in reality.)
-
I think the biggest issue here is that we aren't really speaking on common ground. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and can offer theory to show what that means but will put that aside for now.
The "tragedy of the commons" is not what you are using it to mean. You are referring to a lack of regulation as "tragedy of the commons," which is not the correct usage of it.
Secondly, Capitalism erases its own foundations, it naturally centralizes and erases profit and competition, ergo it inevitably produces crisis and its own erasure.
I am correctly using tragedy of the commons. A well-understood solution to the tragedy of the commons is regulation. This is equivalent to saying a lack of regulation can cause the tragedy of the commons.
-
I am correctly using tragedy of the commons. A well-understood solution to the tragedy of the commons is regulation. This is equivalent to saying a lack of regulation can cause the tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons is about random people misusing public goods, not corporations practicing unsafe dumping.
-
Measure theory was discovered to be able to say that a rock twice as large as another rock can be accurately described as being twice as large as another rock, even if it's not discrete. (Detractors will point to the paradox that something can be cut up and reassembled to have more measure with a finite number of cuts, but the cuts have to be infinitely complex so it doesn't apply in reality.)
I agree a rock can be bigger than another rock. Yet 2 times infinity is not greater than infinity.
-
I'm mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.
The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
I help with a social group. We jokingly refer to it as anarchism under a lazy iron fist.
Day to day decisions are made in a fairly ad-hoc manner, by those involved. If there is a disagreement that can't be resolved, or if it will have large repercussions (e.g. changing the fabric of the building) it gets raised to the committee and chairman.
The chairman is the sort who is only there because no one better wanted the role. He has no interest in micromanaging, but will resolve issues to get them to go away.
It's a remarkably effective system. Unfortunately it's a bit unstable in large groups. Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don't want with that power. No one has yet solved the issue however. How the f@#£ do you keep the troublemakers out, when they are also the ones most willing to work towards getting the role?
The other problem with anarchism is that the natural self policing systems break down by the Dunbar limit. Parasitical or cancerous behaviours tend to become crippling, forcing people to adopt other unofficial power structures.
-
I'm working on transitioning to using They/Them pronouns for everyone since they're completely neutral and fit every context. If your preference is Xe/Xem, I respect that—but unfortunately, my brain just doesn't have the bandwidth to keep track of multiple pronouns consistently. You get They/Them.
I agree with the mental bandwidth. I'm fine with he/him, she/her, they/them. I'll also tend to default to appearance, though I will try and correct if asked to do so.
I've yet to find anyone who wasn't also an arsehole who has an issue with this. That includes places where seeing an obvious male in a dress could equally be someone taking their first steps away from norm, or just a guy that likes wearing dresses. Also, neither was seen as unusual at the event.
-
I believe that the stance against nuclear power (specifically, nuclear fission, as opposed to radioisotope power used by spacecraft) by greens undermines the fight to stop global warming, and that many of the purported issues with nuclear power have been solved or were never really issues in the first place.
For instance: the nuclear waste produced by old-gen reactors can be used by newer generations.
I fully agree that nuclear SHOULD have been part of the solution. I disagree that it should now be part of it. We have lost too much knowledge regarding nuclear power to lack of investment. We no longer have time to rebuild that to get it online. Hopefully it can become part of the solution eventually, but 10-20 years is now far too long to wait.
-
Protests are definitely meant to be noticed, and should also make you think. Ideally they should also be attractive for others to join, allowing the protest to gain momentum. But being annoying (at least to regular people) seems counter productive to that? Sometimes it is unavoidable, but I don't think it should be desired.
Of course being annoying to the body being protested against is definitely desired.
Protests are not made for other people to join, protests are made to show the government/ruling class that the workers are angry and how much harm they could do to their business. People joining in and becoming interested in the fight is a nice side effect.
-
I help with a social group. We jokingly refer to it as anarchism under a lazy iron fist.
Day to day decisions are made in a fairly ad-hoc manner, by those involved. If there is a disagreement that can't be resolved, or if it will have large repercussions (e.g. changing the fabric of the building) it gets raised to the committee and chairman.
The chairman is the sort who is only there because no one better wanted the role. He has no interest in micromanaging, but will resolve issues to get them to go away.
It's a remarkably effective system. Unfortunately it's a bit unstable in large groups. Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don't want with that power. No one has yet solved the issue however. How the f@#£ do you keep the troublemakers out, when they are also the ones most willing to work towards getting the role?
The other problem with anarchism is that the natural self policing systems break down by the Dunbar limit. Parasitical or cancerous behaviours tend to become crippling, forcing people to adopt other unofficial power structures.
I def. agree with the issues in re: Dunbar's number. Anarchism can, and does, work pretty well in small groups and communes. But scaling it to the size of a country... Well, that's the hard part. But if you don't, then authoritarian countries will eat you alive.
Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don’t want with that power.
That unfortunately seems to be the case with most cops as well; the ones that want to do it out of a sense of civic responsibility seem to get pushed out pretty quickly by the ones that should never have been cops in the first place. And--looping back around to anarchism--cops are a necessary evil because otherwise you quickly end up with vigilante groups that enforce a capricious set of morality and ethics.
-
I agree a rock can be bigger than another rock. Yet 2 times infinity is not greater than infinity.
Measure theory can still describe the volume of fractal shapes, for instance using squeeze theorem if you can find an iterative upper and lower bound. Just because something's surface area isn't well-defined doesn't mean the volume isn't. Similarly, the coastline problem may preclude meaningfully measuring a country's perimeter, but its (projected) area is still measurable.
-
The tragedy of the commons is about random people misusing public goods, not corporations practicing unsafe dumping.
The tragedy of the commons is a general-purpose game theory concept. It applies any time there is a communal resource exploitable by multiple participants. Admittedly, in the case of unsafe dumping, the resource must be unintuitively defined as the cleanliness of the river, but the same principle applies as in the more clear-cut (heh) example of foresting.
-
The tragedy of the commons is a general-purpose game theory concept. It applies any time there is a communal resource exploitable by multiple participants. Admittedly, in the case of unsafe dumping, the resource must be unintuitively defined as the cleanliness of the river, but the same principle applies as in the more clear-cut (heh) example of foresting.
I feel we are getting into the weeds about something that doesn't matter, ultimately, I still don't know what identifying as an "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" even means.
-
I feel we are getting into the weeds about something that doesn't matter, ultimately, I still don't know what identifying as an "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" even means.
I don't really use those words tbh. I just think anarchism doesn't account for how to solve the tragedy of the commons, so a global authority is needed.
-
Measure theory can still describe the volume of fractal shapes, for instance using squeeze theorem if you can find an iterative upper and lower bound. Just because something's surface area isn't well-defined doesn't mean the volume isn't. Similarly, the coastline problem may preclude meaningfully measuring a country's perimeter, but its (projected) area is still measurable.
Wouldn't you agree that surface area is more important to computation and interaction than volume? Things interact at their surface. Therefore computation is infact subject to the coastline paradox?
If you actually try to measure the top surface of a country you run into the same issues as measuring the coast: infinite complexity.
Those projected volumes are practical to calculate, but must be interacted with through the surface.
-
For years I've been hearing "the media has a left bias" though. I guess that's left=democrat party, not left=leftist.
The fox news viewer see CNN as "leftist" and anything further as "The Commies". CNN/MSNBC/whatever "liberal” orgs see themselves as the leading charge of the liberal movement and anything more progressive or actually leftist as "The Commies".
Ehh, can't expect anything short of that sort of bias from corporate media.
-
I feel we are getting into the weeds about something that doesn't matter, ultimately, I still don't know what identifying as an "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" even means.
What no reading does to a mf
-
You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed).
There's countless invaluable Jewish voices in the anti-zionist movement of course, but what Jewish homeland could you support that wouldn't be an ethno-state? /g
-
Now I said let’s murder them?
You're advocating for death penalty.
In countries that abolished it, if someone was executed it would be considered murder. So yes, you are advocating for murder.
Interestingly you still only talk about the perpetrators and not the victims.
What do victims have to do with this? I'm not proposing we kill them.
Surviving victims should of course be offered treatment, both physical and mental, as well as fair compensation. It is irrelevant to the question of the death penalty.
I'm not advocating for the death penalty, stop lying.
Are you some new type of troll or what? Or can't you fathom people having a thought experiment without actually thinking it is the right thing to do?
-
Wouldn't you agree that surface area is more important to computation and interaction than volume? Things interact at their surface. Therefore computation is infact subject to the coastline paradox?
If you actually try to measure the top surface of a country you run into the same issues as measuring the coast: infinite complexity.
Those projected volumes are practical to calculate, but must be interacted with through the surface.
True, but I don't agree with you in the first place that number of physical interactions is a good way to measure computation (for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation.). I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight, I just think that without it there is no consciousness.
-
True, but I don't agree with you in the first place that number of physical interactions is a good way to measure computation (for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation.). I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight, I just think that without it there is no consciousness.
First, a minor correction:
for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation
This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn't contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don't see interaction and computation as the same.
In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn't, how do you reconcile that with:
I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,
Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?
