Daily reminder that the analytics are the worst people around

How perfectly this quote again ties into the main point Lawrence had to make about Russell.

Prizing rigor above utility is the fundamental flaw of logocentricity.

At least D. H. Lawrence saying this makes it tangentially related to Veeky Forums

why isn't the brain like a computer? it seems to me that way :/

It's meta-Veeky Forums. I hope that the admins continue to be sympathetic to our cause and not remove threads like these.

how did you write so much without actually saying anything

Damn, he's not pulling any punches.

There's no binary bag of data to a thought form. We cannot look into a thought form and 'discover' a more true representation of it. We only create (invent, conjure) other thoughts (models) of it. Computers are truly idiotic devices when you compare them to this process.

Russell planned to commit suicide after reading it.

Is it just me or does it feel like Lawrence took pleasure in writing this?

You wouldn't be the first to associate truth with pleasure.

BTFO. Someone post the full letter.

This thread is now Analytic Hate General.

Welcome to the movement.

Analytics should be redirected to continue to rape their own being in a more appropriate enviroment >>>>lesswrong.com

Russell wouldn't kowtow to Lawrence's mystical mumbo jumbo about the Infinite, the Absolute, and 'blood-consciousness' (lol), so Lawrence rage quit the relationship.

I believe I am sympathetic to your point, I really am, but I can't understand for the life of me what you are talking about. Could you please be a little more clear? Or use an example? What's a "binary bag of data"?

Why are analytics such cowards? They're afraid to assert anything without putting in their 'safe' phrases like "it seems that..." or "prima facie", etc. They will probably say that it's a matter of being humble about their beliefs but this is clearly not true: analytics are not humble about anything, and this is clear from their rabid hatred of anyone who has commitments that are incommensurable with the beliefs that they're too afraid to even admit they're certain about.

lol what a pussty

Not him, but just think about what it means to liken the brain to a human technology. It's utterly reductive and operational. My professor put it more eloquently but when you consider it, it doesn't make any sense.

I think you guys are going pretty overboard on this analytic hate thing and I can't help but wonder why.

Just take what from them what helps and leave what doesn't.

Binary bag of data is what's underlying any technology that you interact with. The sum of everything you see on the screen can be broken down to a long string ("sentence") of 0s and 1s which are stored and moved around on a group of devices made for that express purpose. These are 'atomic' parts of computer hardware and software that cannot be broken down any further. There's nothing analogous to this in the human (or any other) organism. You cannot take a thought and say, this part of the thought, about the refridgerator, is stored in this place in this way. There are no cycles of processing of information from bottom (0s and 1s) to a more human friendly form (say a png of Stirner) going on in the brain. We simple conjure up Stirner any time we wish, and he's there with us. Nobody knows how this works and all theories about it pathetic in that particular analytic pathectiness - if we only threw more brute intelligence we'd come up with a sufficient model.

Russell was a cuckold as well. What a pathetic human being.

yeah, it's probably like blood-consciousness or something, man.

Ok, that makes more sense to me. Thank you. I guess I've got to work on catching up on my comp sci terminology.

We don't sarcastically disrespect the body like that bud, not in this thread.

What are you talking about?

You are partially correct, it's nothing like a computer, but your memory is in your brain, it's not just conjuring something.

So you're telling me I should endorse the 'views' (closer to neuroses) of the nutjob in that image? No thanks. Look, I don't agree with Russell on everything (perhaps not most things), but to call the mere practice of logic 'mental blood-lust' is utterly beyond the pail, and far worse than anything a positivistic philistine like Stephen Hawking might say about philosophy or literature.

4/10. I knew this was bait, but nonetheless I felt compelled to reply.

Look into Dreyfus' book What Computers Can't Do. It has a more recent update, What Computers Still Can't Do. He's a (famous-y) Heideggerian scholar who critiques AI researchers' assumptions that synthetic consciousness can arise from data sets and protocols, because it lacks fundamental understanding of minds we've hitherto encountered, or at least our best guesses at an understanding of them based on current philosophy.

Basically the GOFAI people, and now the algorithmic and neural net people who are doing the same shit in a different box, are incapable of simulating "embeddedness," intentionality, and higher-order symbolic manipulation and the existence of "symbolic orders" (or some other wiggly-ass term like that) as necessary bases for thought.

I'm not aware of any really good answers from the mechanistic people, who could theoretically say
>well, even if it's greater than the sum of its parts, and there are a LOT of parts and many of them are counterintuitive or even anti-intuitive, and something about that makes thought necessary, that doesn't mean we can't understand the brain computationally!
But it'd be a loooooong way off. And the vast majority of AI people are still weirdly naive Lockean behavioralists or just blindly optimistic autismos who think of the brain as an especially complex set of binary switches like it's a microchip.

The long-and-short is:
"Brains are weird"
and
"Pretty much the past hundred straight years of philosophical and psychosocial investigation has been hammering at the idea, over and over again, that human consciousness and willful action is founded in crazy-ass structural-functional symbolic orders!!!! Language is really confusing and relative and what even is a word, words don't click into real epiphenomenal things in the real world! We can't access the noumenon!!! AHHHHHHHH I'M FREAKING OUT" over and over again, and AI people are just like
"If I put enough diodes on it, it'll be a people, and then I can just multiply the diodes to get a SUPER people, and task it with cleaning my car :^)"

It's why the analytics didn't like late Wittgenstein and Wittgenstein didn't like the analytics.

its a bit of a strawman to say that people who define consciousness as an emergent rather than supranatural phenomenon insist that it is exactly like a man-made computer. The argument at its most basic is that the same banal and brutish principles found in nature pervade even our most sacred spaces, including the human conscience. Whether the brain is merely a complex compiler of information, or does something totally foreign with information, is yet to be known.

Yeah and then you get another analytic like Searle who says wait for biochemistry and neuroscience to understand consciousness before you try to replicate it.

People in AI now are not doing useless work. The languages they are working on will become useful once more properties of consciousness are understood.

Was subtly trolling with the word 'conjure', but the point is that memories are not 'retrieved' as they are from a hard drive.

finally, the leftist reaction this board has been waiting for. thank you for this thread

technologyreview.com/s/513696/deep-learning/

I don't really see how endorsement of irrationalist shaming of pacifism is leftist at all, but alright. You know, just because a famous poet says something doesn't mean you have to agree. I put this little coniption on par with Pound's rambling Italian broadcasts about the Jewry.

Excellent contribution. Thank you.

It's also interesting that Wittgenstein is the best of the analytics, and using the analytic method he disproved analytic philosophy as something worth pursuing. The fact that it's still practiced shows how inhumane in a way it is, because others that don't have the brute intelligence or time of Wittgenstein to reach the same conclusions and are in effect condemned to roam the lower corridors only catching glimpses of the more 'correct' floors above them. It's fundamentally an ableist and fascist mode of thinking.

>Why are analytics such cowards?

This is a joke, right? Continentals are the very embodiment of cowardice -- too scared to admit they have no actual ideas, so they wrap their trivialities in baroque flowery nonsense. It's disgraceful and sickening.

>It's also interesting that Wittgenstein is the best of the analytics

WHOOP, WHOOP! PSEUD DETECTED!

There's nothing "leftist" about spewing out a bunch of irrational nonsense, user. Get a grip.

How can you miss the point of Lawrence's letter so badly - he explicitly says that Russell's pacifism is a put on, that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing and that lie is what Lawrence is attacking - not 'true' pacifism. Russell reportedly agreed so much with Lawrence's 'reading' of him that he wanted to kill himself for up to a couple of months after the event.

Holy shit. This isn't banter. This is the destruction of a man by someone who knew him personally and was on his level intellectually. I completely believe that a vicious weakling like Russell would contemplate suicide after reading this.

>irrational
adults are talking
>>>>lesswrong

Well, let's see. Lawrence was a talentless hack, and Russell was GOAT. Enough said.

Yeah, because only children are rational.

Go back to /b/ and kill yourself ASAP - you epic fucking retard.

You're the retard in your use of the word 'irrational' to describe a complex situation you can't begin to understand. And now you follow with this even more stupefying post. Again please find a different thread, adults are talking here.

I understand what Lawrence is saying; I just think it's ridiculous. And what is even more ridiculous is that people are flocking to it as a work of creative genius which disproves this bogeyman of 'Analytic philosophy.' Lawrence's poems spring from a certain amount of creative genius, but not this character assassination which is ironically bloodthirsty. Also, who is 'reporting' Russell's reaction? The bozos in this thread?

Holy fuck. You have no idea at all what you are talking about, do you?

he also cucked other men

Maybe you just don't understand what is being talked about here? Has a wild thought like that occurred to you?

Russell' reaction is described in more detail in the same biography of Russell that that letter was taken from. He did schedule to kill himself in summer according to this biography.

>I would rather have the German soldiers with their rapine and cruelty, than you with your words of goodness.

>If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I'd go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the "Hallelujah Chorus"

>Rather than a republic, Lawrence called for an absolute Dictator and equivalent Dictatrix to lord over the lower peoples.

Bravo, great pacifist leftist thinker. Give me a fucking break.

You on the other hand have said many important things:

>this is irrational
>only children are rational
>calls to kys
>vague questioning

At least learn to form a question if you have a problem..

>assigning the arbitrary vaule of 'nothing wrong' to hating people.

Because WWI was such a FANTASTIC idea.

Moron.

Do you have Down Syndrome or something? Jesus fucking Christ.

Indeed a wild thought like that has occurred to me. I do not roundly reject it, but I do roundly reject that you know what you're talking about better than I do. Under no circumstances is a letter like Lawrence's acceptable, particularly when dealing with someone like Russell. As far as I can tell, Russell hurty nobody with his pacificism, regardless of its authenticity--yet Lawrence is acting like he's a mass murderer, and indeed a worse mass murderer than the war machines involved in WWI. And again, it's fine if Lawrence believes these crazy things. He's entitled to that, and he has his better points which at least partially make up for this kind of craziness. But what isn't fine is the idolization of this craziness as the answer to the ills of the 'modern world' (whatever you people take that to mean).

Nah Russell somehow reminds me of the very most irritating people I know. I think Lawrence was just sick of his shenanigans and smugness and wanted to tell him off. You're reading too much into what is just an over the top personal insult.

>this is irrational
>only children are rational
>calls to kys
>vague questioning
>down syndrome insult
>invoke lord's name in vain

Why don't you go scuttle along now?

Rustle HURT nobody* rather, although I suspect you won't be paying very close attention to what I write.

By the way, what evidence is there that Russell contemplated suicide BECAUSE of Lawrence's hate mail? and might it not be that he was so perturbed merely because of a sensitive personality?

Well then why even bring it up? If you admit this is just a slightly unhinged person throwing a (remarkably ineloquent, given the quality of his writing) shitfit, that is all I meant to say in the first place. Not something to put forward as impressive in any way.

Please refrain from offering opinions as basic as these. Thank you.

Lawrence was a truly great man, he might've saved Russell's soul. A brother worth having, and few of us in this thread will understand. Analytic filth is creeping in though.

Lawrence was essentially Larry Flynt with tuberculosis. A pornographer and shit prose stylist, lashing out irrationally at his betters.

Oh ok. You actually don't know what analytic philosophy is.

You've been spooked my good fuckboi

Thoughts appear this way as an end state. You are comparing the atomic constitution of a system on the one hand (binary data) and the whole orchestration on the other ("thought form") for all we can tell, the mind is a mechanical function.

It is not like a computer in many senses, I agree, but it has some basic logical structure. Or it at least appears that way.

Is this a one-off 4cahn thing, or do many continentals admire this proto-fascist's ideas?

>We don't sarcastically disrespect the body like that bud, not in this thread.
was for not you, pardon

>this from the would be fascist
lol

No this is some dude having his moment. I mean it's a "time for our daily x".

>fascism is bad
>>>>Tumblr

>muh edgy contrarianism

the world rejected you first, you aren't fooling anyone

You missed the point. It's a human invention in the operation of a machine to have these seperate stages of the system. It does not mean it applies to how we work, for all we know all we have is the orchestra.

>organisms are mechanical
you're one of the confused eggs

i hope 'woke' among here, who are down with the movement, can see the crazyness at display here and the reach of the analytic mindset

This has nothing to do with Lawrence really.

This is an analytic hate general.

Okay, and the best way you have of doing that is by using hate mail from a proto-fascist. Got it.

You can be a misanthrope and still believe WWI was fucking retarded.

Let's cut the horseshit. You are a fascist, and the purpose of this thread is to promote fascism.

Why don't you own it.

Nice try at severe simplification and/or reductionism there bu-ddy. Maybe this thread is not for you.

>Let us becomes strangers again, I think it better.

>tfwyktf

>It's fundamentally an ableist and fascist mode of thinking.

There is nothing wrong with either of these things.

Nothing at all.

Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.

mathematics are about formalizations of your speculations (which you form from your desire to see things that you experience [the empirical world, once you chose to objectify what you feel] through induction, as similar or dissimilar) to the point that you have a structure more formalized than your speculations structured in natural languages.

Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.

It turns out that plenty of mathematical structures are cast into some formal deductive logic (like set theory formalizes your structures of numbers).
I meant your usual set theory cast in FOL. Set theory is just a structure too and it turns out that you can interpret a part of this structure as some kind of numbers.

Science is just claiming that your formalized structures (in formal languages or not) gives you access to some *reality*, more or less hidden with respect to what you are conscious of[=the empirical world, once you choose to ''externalize, objectify'' what you feel].
Same thing for the religions which go beyond empiricism [=claiming that you feel and think is **not** enough from which you choose to dwell in your mental proliferations].

Some mathematicians, typically Brouwer, think that mathematics should, equally to the speculations (however formalized) of the scientists, talk about the empirical world. So typically, your formal symbols are real entities: these entities belong to some world and they connect or not back to the empirical world.
to be clearer, the symbols are names of real entities and, since you begin always from the empirical world, this world constrains you on the creation and usage of these real entities. then these real entities can or cannot belong to some other world as well.

yeah he is a good illustration of a liberal-libertarian hedonist

I hope you're just playing dumb and actually realize that was from the pomo generator and not actually Foucault.

Moral nihilism, everyone

>Philosophy is just structuring and formalizing in natural languages.
wew lad

I don't even want to know what you have to say about fictional literature

the sad thing is that you could probably make a similar generator for analytic jargon

For all we know is quite small. But it looks more mechanical than mystical at this stage.

>Lawrence
>leftist

dumbest post on the board right now

>pining for a "leftist reaction"

What article is Lawrence referring to? He made me want to read it now.

Also, it reminded me of these nutjobs:
youtube.com/watch?v=2rNBz_CvYCc

youtube.com/watch?v=66l94Cedz3E

youtube.com/watch?v=9Ub9MOOZAxI

>Logic is just a the formalization of your speculations about *validity of inferences*, so here logic is a formal part of mathematics.

You have it backwards. Logic is the study of formal systems, and mathematics is the study of formal systems that specifically attempt to formalize notions of "quantity" (viz., the notions of succession and of part-whole relations).

>>If I had my way, I would build a lethal chamber as big as the Crystal Palace, with a military band playing softly, and a Cinematograph working brightly; then I'd go out in the back streets and main streets and bring them in, all the sick, the halt, and the maimed; I would lead them gently, and they would smile me a weary thanks; and the band would softly bubble out the "Hallelujah Chorus"
This is how I feel every time I have to take public transit

you can recognize that russell's atheism was correct without approving of his irrational hatred of the noumenous, and without denouncing the importance of religion as an important social tool and an aesthetic curiosity, while at the same time realizing he was, in his personal life, a duplicitous beta male and a cuckold who pontificated on the virtue of open relationships. people often act like a criticism against someone is all-encompassing. lawrence's letter to russell is spot on, it's also a criticism of the progressive "I Fucking Love Science" crowd we have today, as they are descended from russel.

>I believe myself that romantic love is the source of the most intense delights that life has to offer. In the relation of a man and woman who love each other with passion and imagination and tenderness, there is something of inestimable value, to be ignorant of which is a great misfortune to any human being.

-Bertrand Russell. He had 4 wives, 3 children. Got cucked by his wife.

>The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

-Gengis Khan. Had thousands of wives, thousands of children. Nietzschean ubermensch.

>Most of the population doesn’t know the difference between reason and logic. Reason is not logic. Human beings do not think in a logical form. Logical forms are the way the computers are programmed. Human beings do not think logically.
>But people have this misconception that what thinking is. It's not. There is no thinking in logic. So what happens is the population does not develop the culture that promotes the kind of thinking, like the kind of thinking Socrates has in Plato's Dialogues, which is the actual form in which thinking actually takes place, is in the form of a dialogue.
>So we have destruction of that whole process, so that the population does not have confidence in their own thinking, and they're presented with this view that they're not logicians, they have not developed the power of logic and therefore they're not 'qualified' to think.
How did you find this godly bastion of light and reason? On this day special day and in this special thread?

>one analytic philosopher writes like an autistic fedora
>all analytics are autistic fedoras

Veeky Forums everyone

>implying analytics is not cancer
We haven't gotten around to the other ones yet you little impatient faggot.