You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
One weird aspect of my dreams: I can often shift between driving a car and not driving a car without even noticing it.
Like, a few nights ago, I dreamed I was driving along the highway, and then I was walking through a hospital. There was no transitional step of getting out of the car; I just went from being in the car approaching the hospital to walking around inside the hospital.
One weird aspect of my dreams: I can often shift between driving a car and not driving a car without even noticing it.
Like, a few nights ago, I dreamed I was driving along the highway, and then I was walking through a hospital. There was no transitional step of getting out of the car; I just went from being in the car approaching the hospital to walking around inside the hospital.
i get this, and not just with cars; i can go from cycling to not cycling, from watching something on TV to interacting with the characters, and from playing a video game to being myself in 3rd person
also sometimes someone will be one person, then do something 'wrong' and i'll realize they're actually someone else, whereupon they will look like that person
and other weirdness regarding my identity, like sometimes i will see something, but the "i" in the dream can't see it so i'm unable to do anything about it
A first difficulty is the idea, drilled into people's heads in online apologetics but foreign in every other context, that atheism is merely a lack of beliefs on the matter. It's obfuscatory to use the term this way, in the first place, simply because that's not how it's used outside of online apologetics, and it's obfuscatory to suddenly change the meaning of significant words like this. But, more importantly, there's a good reason why terminology outside of online apologetics distinguishes between lacking a belief in the existence of God and having a belief that God doesn't exist. To put the matter simply, these are two different ideas, and accurate terminology gives us different words for different ideas, while obfuscatory terminology conflates different ideas under a single word. The position on our knowledge of God's existence which Kant argues for in The Critique of Pure Reason is quite different than the position on this which Dawkins argues for in The God Delusion. Indeed, they're not only different, they're mutually exclusive: one of Kant's main aims in the Critique is to refute a position like Dawkins'. This is really important, since the arguments for agnosticism, paradigmatically associated with Hume and Kant, and then popular throughout the nineteenth century among people like Spencer and Huxley, are perhaps the most important developments in the modern period on the dispute about theism and atheism. But if we adopt the terminology of online apologetics, we literally lose the linguistic ability to refer to them. The entire meaning of the most important development in the dispute disappears under the obfuscation of the wordplay. This is, of course, a bad idea: it's a merit of the normal way of speaking that it gives us the words to distinguish, e.g., Kant's position from Dawkins', and a great fault of the terminology of online apologetics that it prohibits us from distinguishing these positions.
i'm not clear on the details but i think this was the view of the Pythagorean school of philosophy.
However the Greeks didn't see math the same way we do now, for example the idea that there was any relation between arithmetic and geometry was controversial due to their rejection of irrational numbers. Also there was a lot of mysticism involved - numbers were used to stand for various concepts, like 'man' or 'woman' or 'marriage'.
A first difficulty is the idea, drilled into people's heads in online apologetics but foreign in every other context, that atheism is merely a lack of beliefs on the matter. It's obfuscatory to use the term this way, in the first place, simply because that's not how it's used outside of online apologetics, and it's obfuscatory to suddenly change the meaning of significant words like this. But, more importantly, there's a good reason why terminology outside of online apologetics distinguishes between lacking a belief in the existence of God and having a belief that God doesn't exist. To put the matter simply, these are two different ideas, and accurate terminology gives us different words for different ideas, while obfuscatory terminology conflates different ideas under a single word. The position on our knowledge of God's existence which Kant argues for in The Critique of Pure Reason is quite different than the position on this which Dawkins argues for in The God Delusion. Indeed, they're not only different, they're mutually exclusive: one of Kant's main aims in the Critique is to refute a position like Dawkins'. This is really important, since the arguments for agnosticism, paradigmatically associated with Hume and Kant, and then popular throughout the nineteenth century among people like Spencer and Huxley, are perhaps the most important developments in the modern period on the dispute about theism and atheism. But if we adopt the terminology of online apologetics, we literally lose the linguistic ability to refer to them. The entire meaning of the most important development in the dispute disappears under the obfuscation of the wordplay. This is, of course, a bad idea: it's a merit of the normal way of speaking that it gives us the words to distinguish, e.g., Kant's position from Dawkins', and a great fault of the terminology of online apologetics that it prohibits us from distinguishing these positions.
i didn't know about this but if this is the case it's really annoying.
i'm actually used to atheists pushing the dsitinction from agnosticism strongly... for that matter, agnostics pushing the distinction from a lack of belief
i think maybe that post is referring to Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability, on which he defines himself as a de facto atheist, not a strong atheist, on the basis that he'd be open to persuasion that God exists, and therefore isn't dogmatic.
i think maybe that post is referring to Dawkins' spectrum of theistic probability, on which he defines himself as a de facto atheist, not a strong atheist, on the basis that he'd be open to persuasion that God exists, and therefore isn't dogmatic.
Having read the thread that Odradek's post came from, i was too hard on Dawkins here - he does recognize that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' mean different things, and was arguing for atheism over agnosticism.
Los parámetros estimados son del signo esperado y significativo al 98% para las varaibles de predicción 'índice promedio de cercanía a caminos de la región'y 'porcentaje de cobertura boscosa con pago de servicios ambientales de la región'.
> de la región'.
> región'.
Spanish agrees with me too. :PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Most nouns can appear before another noun, modifying it in an adjectival manner, called attributive. The adjectival meaning is directly derived from the meaning of the noun. In attributive use the modifying noun, sometimes called a noun adjunct, is considered to remain a noun. A multiple-word noun phrase is often written with hyphens instead of spaces to help the reader treat the phrase as a unit.
We usually eat dinner from the dinner table.
The dinner-table manufacturer is in North Carolina.
To determine that "amazon physique" contains a noun adjunct while "amazonian physique" contains an adjective, note these linguistic tests:
Her physique is amazonian, but not *Her physique is amazon
Adjectives can be graded, accepting more or less
She is more amazonian than I remember, but not *She is more amazon than I remember
Do note that the use of attributive nouns in ways that "should" only be used by adjectives is a growing trend in slang/informal usage in English, especially on the internet.
What is the truth but something that is inherently subjective.
What is reality but also the same.
Human beings are living breathing creatures, but we are also creatures that exist with the scope of reality, our own beings, the thing we see as ourself is also capable of being affected.
Brain damage in that sense, is a very worrying prospect.
The prospect that you exist within a very limited space, that this space is defined wholly by a vessel fragile enough to break, is very worrying.
Have you ever been stricken by the thought that we don't do enough to safe-guard the tether of our very cores? Like, this is not a micro-question that one person can answer with any certainty.
From the minute we found what links us to our forms, what have we truly done to safeguard this link?
I can actually kinda see it as the kind of show Toonami would broadcast.
Shinichirō Watanabe did a fair bit of work on it, IIRC.
Yeah, though he mainly worked as the music producer for that show. I remember the music being excellent. He was also in charge of the music for The woman called Fujiko Mine, which might be one of my favorite anime soundtracks, after Bebop and Champloo.
Comments
Fair and Balanced.
in which alice very gently reminds her players that they completely screwed up
also sometimes someone will be one person, then do something 'wrong' and i'll realize they're actually someone else, whereupon they will look like that person
and other weirdness regarding my identity, like sometimes i will see something, but the "i" in the dream can't see it so i'm unable to do anything about it
i sometimes meet people i know only over the internet, and sometimes they look like their avatars rather than their photos
and sometimes an internet conversation will mutate into an offline conversation or vice versa
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
However the Greeks didn't see math the same way we do now, for example the idea that there was any relation between arithmetic and geometry was controversial due to their rejection of irrational numbers. Also there was a lot of mysticism involved - numbers were used to stand for various concepts, like 'man' or 'woman' or 'marriage'.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
i haven't read any of his, but sad news.
RIP.
R.I.P.
I like that
Personally I started watching Akame ga Kill and I'm not interested in watching Parasyte and Michiko & Hatchin is on my to-finish list.
> de la región'.
> región'.
Spanish agrees with me too. :PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
*turns red*
*walks around angrily*
Fun way to start the day.
It has only 2 HP but it has like damage reduction 5 or something.
Attributive
Most nouns can appear before another noun, modifying it in an adjectival manner, called attributive.
The adjectival meaning is directly derived from the meaning of the
noun. In attributive use the modifying noun, sometimes called a noun adjunct,
is considered to remain a noun. A multiple-word noun phrase is often
written with hyphens instead of spaces to help the reader treat the
phrase as a unit.
To determine that "amazon physique" contains a noun adjunct while "amazonian physique" contains an adjective, note these linguistic tests:
Do note that the use of attributive nouns in ways that "should" only be used by adjectives is a growing trend in slang/informal usage in English, especially on the internet.