General Philosophical discussion

[rubbish heap two]

Man I expected alot more from your recomendation.

The secret is new age rubbish!

The only thing I found interesting (in the 15mins I could bare to watch) was how common it is for these new age type clowns to constantly falsely reference quantam physics to explain something or another. Credability? Out the window.

 

Yeah, The Secret was kind of crap. I can't think of any form of genuine mysticism or religion that has anything remotely bearing that "law". If anything, it's better to stamp out desire a la Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism rather then endlessly chase it's empty essence via "The Secret". New age bullshit.

[the.crooked]

The question is when we move down to the simplest of things, the building blocks for all things, and we look at their interaction do they include random variables in this interaction. If the answer is yes then chaos does rain. If it is no, well then we are a very complex snowball rolling down a very large hill. The question then beckons if God arranged the pieces and lit the fuse (the big bang) he is therefore free of this order, and is that the essence of our soul? An insertion of randomness outside of the orderly bound to us that truly does make us free?

 

The chaos that you ask about exists, at least obviously, in so much as you have ever told someone "i don't understand" when they assert something to you. What does it mean to get to "the simplest of things?" The relative size of any linguistic molecule is only beholden to the compositional elements and futures of that molecular level.

 

Chaos is only so scary when you realize it perpetually ruins any formalized conception of truth that one may hold. Yet it is this uniformity of difference and unique data that leads to our very conceptions of formalization and causation at all.

 

We may be the product of formally constrained logic and systematization, but the constant influx of new and random data keeps our formal systems as dynamic as the world that informs them.

 

 

 

 

No need to worry about chaos. The relationship between random events and formal appreciation of this is the underlying principle of our own rational thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another note,

 

I changed what I am writing my senior's thesis on. I will post up the new outline and abstract soon. The new change reflects a much more applied vision of what I was trying to do before.

 

Rather than create a schema of translation between 20th Century Analytic Philosophy and French Metaphysics from the same time period, I would like to focus on the connection between principles from 20th Century Analytic Philosophy and current research being done on Semantic Webs.

 

These webs are the the envisioned relationship between the current total of information on the internet and the presentation of that information in a machine interpretable way.

 

The assumption is that through syntactic representation and manipulation we may manifest within a machine the same semantic understanding we give credit to ourselves. For all intents and purposes, to effectively pass a Turing Test.

 

I want to either answer a specific question within the current literature about such research, or to give a set of recommendations on ideals of future research based off arguments of existing issues in the literature framed through 20th Century Analytic Philosophy.

 

 

 

Blahh, I will be back here when the adderol wears off and when I have produced something worth reading.

 

 

 

ugh.

[the.crooked]

cmon kids....

[the.crooked]

So I wrote the new contract for my Senior's Thesis.

 

I will post it and another two page thing I wrote while getting my ideas out for the contract at all.

Abstract.Contract.doc

Thoughts on New Project.doc

[El Mamerro]

Crooked, check this story out. The guys involved were doing stuff somewhat related to what you're interested in.

 

Unfortunately they were kind of crazy and ended up killing themselves.

[the.crooked]

I read that article bout a week ago.

 

 

Yeah, it sorta threw me for a loop as I was studyin all this new stuff.

 

 

 

They had such a weird relationship.

 

But yes, that program is somewhat like what I am interested in yet in a slightly different bent. It is trying to take random pieces of common sense information or statements and link them together piecemeal. The semantic web stuff I am interested in works more like us, from the ground up. Constructing entire responses, or ontologies, by reasoning about the connective tissue of any set of statements.

[ricecube]

Has anyone else here read the Intention Experiment by Lynne McTaggart?

[Module X]

These webs are the the envisioned relationship between the current total of information on the internet and the presentation of that information in a machine interpretable way.

 

The assumption is that through syntactic representation and manipulation we may manifest within a machine the same semantic understanding we give credit to ourselves. For all intents and purposes, to effectively pass a Turing Test.

 

This seems to be the crux of this whole concept but between what I've read in here and that Wired article (not much info at all, I know) it still seems extremeley vague. In all of this talk about semantic webs arising from large amounts of information "bits" I don't see anything indicating what people are doing to try and build the physical framework with which a machine might have effective access to all of this information. That is, the theory of intelligence is well and good but who's building the actual mechanical brain? From the perspective of someone who knows very little about AI technology, I would imagine this would need to be based on the human brain, and that our understanding of both mechanical and biological brains is still seriously deficient. Shouldn't semantic webs arise in synaptic webs? I'm just looking for the hard science here. Or are we just talking about feeding an unprecedented amount of information into a powerful conventional computer? If you know of any good resources on this topic I'd be real interested. Oh and fuck a Turing Test, why should emulation of language be put before emulation of human 'thought' (a slippery thing to define, to be sure.)?

 

On a similar note, I haven't heard anything about Quantum Computing for a while. It's not really a philosophical discussion, but I've come across theories that the human brain operates using quantum processes, and a true mechanical approximation would have to be a quantum computer. It had something to do with the way in which quantum computing allows greater connectivity than conventional linear circuits. Again it's not a topic I've really studied in depth; if you've looked into this I'd be interested hear about it/check out some resources.

[Poesia [ ] T]

You guys are sleeping on http://seedmagazine.com/ .

[the.crooked]

I read part of their blue brain article in the school store.

 

Ill finish it tomorrow.

[graffiti_dood]

not sure if you have discussed this already, but i didn't want to make a new thread.

some of your wording goes over my head a little so forgive me if this is written pretty simple.

 

so we all moan about kids and there bad gramma, spelling (lexicon?) and the use of text language and internet language.

but isn't this what happens within language, a sort of evolution?

if it wasn't for every generation X dismantling language and recreating it there own form there would be no progression. we would all probably still be talking like shakespeare (which would be kinda cool but, hopefully, you can see what i'm trying to say.

 

also, the use of internet language has become pretty unversal nowdays. so surely we a progressing by removing language barriers?

 

anyone else input to this as i can't really convey my thoughts into words too well.

[the.crooked]

Oh yeah, I agree completely.

 

 

The notion of human natural language is such a dynamic thing that it can never be conceived of in a static sense.

 

Slang has always driven new customs of use. Internet syntax is an important thing. It shows very clearly our ability to construe meaning and translate among disparate syntaxes even when there is no clear manual for how to put the characters and words of either in relation to each other.

 

 

but yes, I agree.

 

 

people who don't see the interesting nature of how children are now perceiving language are fools.

 

 

Imagine how kids will think of language in thirty years.

[Decyferon]

even in my own head I think LOL instead of laughing

 

then I feel shame

[the.crooked]

hell, i gave my senior's thesis a lolcat title.

[graffiti_dood]

so are we wrong to be teaching our youth to spell correctly when technically they are already surpassing our knowledge of language.

 

it's funny when kids spell words wrong. like words without the silent letters or longer complex words that are spelled wrongly but yet are easily understandable as to what word it is. would it not make more sense to praise them for making life easier...?

[the.crooked]

such is the problem with progression.

 

 

 

 

 

the old hate the new for it confounds them.

 

 

 

 

the new hate the old for not seeing why what they do is better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so is life.

[the.crooked]

So, I got this email from my school:

 

Dear Division III student,

 

Hampshire is involved in a grant-funded study to assess college level

writing proficiency. The study evaluates student writing developed

through the undergraduate years and requires a substantial sample of

essays from students in their final year at Hampshire. Papers should be

analytical in nature and 10-25 pages in length. A first chapter of a

Division III or a 300 level paper for a course would be ideal.

 

If you have no objections, we would be grateful if you could e-mail us

the first chapter of, or the introduction to, your project. We will

remove names from all work to protect student confidentiality.

 

Thank you very much for your help.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Writing Program

 

 

I drunkenly wrote this back:

 

 

Please take this for what it is worth;

 

What is adequate writing? What is it to write to a standard? The concept of assessing the level of senior writing at this school is unfortunate. You have people from all disciplines and yet you only want analytic writing? While I fall under the category I fear giving you a sample of writing. To what end... Will I see any of this funding? You deny the validity of writing across this campus by only inquiring to analytic writing. Even at that, who the fuck cares about that? The standards of the analytic fields are half the problem with todays current research. The insulation that all fields feel are requisite of them is goddamn retarded. Everyone needs to stop sucking their own dicks and realize all fields of study are on par with each other.

 

We are will be who determines what writing standards are when all of you are dead. Who cares what some fuck who doles out money based on how well you conform to their conception of adequate analysis thinks about how we write. They will die, and we will still be writing. I will change the world and they will rot in their grave.

 

What does this grant funding go towards? Figuring out what colleges write the best?

 

You people are no better than an ad campaign. "GRANT FUNDED" or rather "EXPERIMENTALLY TESTED." Honestly...

 

Why do we care? For future generations of Hampshire students? I could give a fuck about them. If they are foolish enough to buy into this school's false promises then by all means let them flounder in a system which is not what they thought they were paying for. We all got fucked when we came here. The only thing that pushed us through Hampshire's turnout rate was knowing we were better than Hampshire.

 

We will write as we will and you will not be here to tell us otherwise much longer. See your own death and feel it. We are the now and you are nothing but a passing moment's thought.

 

 

 

 

 

now the question is....

 

 

 

 

do I send it?

[the.crooked]

and yes, before you correct my minor errors such as:

 

 

"today's" vs "todays"

 

or

 

"We will be" vs "We are will..."

 

 

fuck off.

[graffiti_dood]

yes.

though you should probably remove the profanities.

[the.crooked]

things i learned that day:

 

 

do not drink whiskey before playing basketball

do not drink whiskey before playing basketball

do not drink whiskey before playing basketball

do not drink whiskey before playing basketball

do not drink whiskey before playing basketball

do not write emails to people after drinking whiskey and playing basketball.

[Cracked Ass]

That shit was juvenile.

I have problems with authority figures and establishments myself, but that email is just a waste of someone's time, and beneath your actual talent/intelligence level.

On a pragmatic note, if you plan to write in any pro or career capacity, your slovenly grammar will lose you credibility with most of your readers. It has with me.

 

As for V. discharge: today's students are not "surpassing" our knowledge of language. They are taking shortcuts without ever having traveled the main road. They will therefore be at a disadvantage when trying to interact with main-roaders. The best and brightest in any field have typically been those who learned the rules before making educated decisions about which ones to break.

[Module X]

^So am I right to assume you're voting for Clinton?

 

I think the main idea here is that the "main road" is changing, largely due to the acceleration of information technology. You're right to say that a serious writer should know where he's coming from, but more reckless writing often becomes part of the establishment if it speaks to people. I think your statement is too broad.

[the.crooked]

cracked ass.

 

 

 

you are right. thus the reason i did not send it

[the.crooked]

also, are you referring to my grammar at large or in that specific post?

 

 

i also have personal qualms with notions of "correct" grammar.

 

ever since i was a little kid I have had a strong disdain for the incongruities of the english language and its supposed rules of construction.

 

 

the only one I adhere to is: subject-predicate. even at that it is a slippery slope.

[Cracked Ass]

Chalmers: Was that Clinton comment aimed at me? I don't know how anyone could infer that about me from anything I've said, in this post or anywhere else. For the record I did not vote in the primary, but I will vote democrat in the general election, just to make sure McCain doesn't get in.

 

As for the main road: it has always been twisting and turning as technology and language go through their progressions. And there have always been generation gaps as far as what's correct, acceptable, cool, obsolete, etc. Advances in information technology and the jargon and language changes that follow are normal and even inevitable.

If by "reckless" writing you mean people with lousy grammar and lousy ideas, they will be ignored. If you mean young, brash up-and-comers with new ideas, they will always be better received if they speak the language, and by that I mean both fluency with English and fluency with the orthodoxy of ideas in their field that they seek to update.

 

Which brings me to crooked: if you seek to be one of those brash up-and-comers writing about your ideas in philosophy, it's going to be an uphill battle to win acceptance even for good ideas if you insist on displaying your disdain for correct grammar, which your readers will not share. Most academics have a love for both language and their chosen field of study, and they will be the ones evaluating your ideas for merit; grammatical errors will stick in their craw the same way a skipping CD disrupts the avid musician listening to it. Good writing has a rhythm. You might have some interesting music but your CDs skip so much I'm reluctant to listen anymore.

You might try writing a critique of "correct" grammar but it'll be a hard sell even if there's a genius to your argument, because it will be couched in the very structures you seek to impugn.

[Module X]

The Clinton comment was a joke...your comment just seemed to be leaning toward the older, more conservative side of the "generation gap," to borrow from what you just said. Many people see Clinton as a main-roader and Obama as an up-and-comer, bringing change, so you were sort of on the "Clinton" side of things. Maybe that only makes sense to me.

 

While what you're saying sounds reasonable in general, the crux of the matter, and I think this is something that crooked has discussed on here before, is that the twisting and turning of the "main road" of language might be at a significant turning point. We are consistently reminded of the fact that we are experiencing an unprecedented acceleration in communications and information technology. People have never been this connected before, and it would stand to reason that this would affect a tantamount change in the language we use. Could this extend to the point that even slovenly grammar falls into the emerging definition of established language? I don't mean this in an extreme sense. Internet speak isn't necessarily going to take over orthodox writing. It's a question of degree.

 

I don't think I'm really disagreeing with you, I just wanted to put that out there.

[the.crooked]

good thoughts.

 

 

Cracked Ass- I know I am not the best writer. I try to focus on the ideas I have rather than the presentation of them. I know this seems wrong as far as trying to get ahead in a field of study, but I am just more concerned about the ideas.

 

I can only hope that the actual papers I turn in are not so overrun with my own convoluted sense of grammar that people will not overlook what ideas are represented within.

 

Please keep in mind that while I try to show a certain disdain for existing structures of academia and language, I do a lot of that, just on here.

 

I do not proof read what I write on here. I do not feel like I should need to.

 

The conversational aspect of an anonymous message board prevents me from feeling the necessity of cleaning up my language for people on here.

 

Incentive breeds results and I lack a reason on here to assure that I speak in succinct and economically sparing ways.

 

A lot of time I write things on here quite late at night.

 

If anything, I suppose I am sayin cut me a little slack.

 

I know the areas of my work where I need to pay attention to how I write, and I am working on them. But in as much as you say I need to focus on the clarity of my writing, perhaps you should extend the boundaries of what you consider worth reading.

 

Some of the most important texts in the history of philosophy and any other field could have used some intense editing before they were released, but they were released all the same. Uncompromising and as it came from that thinkers head. I am not saying good ideas are an excuse for poor grammar, but that perhaps grammar isn't as important as one thinks.

 

If when you read my comments, you get some sense of what I am trying to convey, I am happy. I do not expect anyone to know exactly what I am saying, but the closer one may come, particularly if my syntax is distinctly mine in its peculiarities.

 

 

On a different note, as Chalmers correctly says of me, I do believe we are at a cusp of how language will be conceived of from now on. The structures of information dissemination and interpersonal communication are becoming so intuitive and specific to each user that we are more than ever exposed to how a person thinks language should be constructed. This unmediated view of people's personal syntax is a better clue at getting what they mean then any attempt of theirs at brevity.

 

A little complexity and syntactic ambiguity are fine with me. It is what defines our ability to understand other peoples languages at all.

 

Anywho,

 

 

thanks for the thoughts.

[the.crooked]

Today is a perfect example of the anger I hold for insulated academics.

 

 

I will come back here and vent more later. Suffice to say, this proff is a dick and expresses everything I can not stand about old time academics.

 

He is an insanely bright dude, and I keep trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about the way he interacts with his students, but I cannot stand when people clearly say very little to you purely as a power move.

 

 

UUUGGGGGHHH, fuck this guy.

 

We have to write a five to seven page paper for him on a topic of our choosing, and I chose a section of my senior's thesis to turn in. This is not uncommon, people do this in the valley here all the time. Why not turn your work in to get it critiqued all the further? Who cares if I tailor a specific section of a paper I am working on for the requirements of a class?

 

Apparently this fuck. God he sucks. Of the two classes I have had with him thus far, he has never once conceded that I have a good idea. Time and time again I have watched him flounder trying to teach us how to read Wittgenstein, when all I can think about is how well I watched another professor teach it the semester before. Only to have to sit and listen to him tell me he doesn't think it is appropriate to turn in part of my Thesis for his paper.

 

The thing that irks me the most about this guy, is not that he even found it inappropriate, but that he acted as though it wasn't relevant to the class.

 

"I'm not inclined to think it's acceptable to use part of your thesis

for your paper. I'd like a fresh paper from you, one that focuses on

the material most central to this course."

 

Focuses on the material most central to this course? Two of my main sources are the first two books we are reading in the class. What the fuck can be more central? How is what I am proposing not central to the topics of this course?

 

This is why I do not care what most people in places of academic judgment say, because they give you no answers. Tell me what you mean when you say "most central to this course." Fuck it, if we are lookin to clear up ambiguity here, what the hell did every pedantic condescending comment you have ever left on any of my papers mean?

 

Even when I have pushed him further in person to give me an account of how to fill in conceptual gaps of what I have written he sticks only to his bullshit maxim of brevity in writing.

 

Ugh, stupid fucking intellectuals who cling to their tiny perspective on knowledge.

 

I hate when smart people are retarded.

 

Now I have to go sit through two and a half hours of painful pedagogical wafering while he tries to act as though he is that much smarter than his students by himself speaking unclearly and repeating it to students as though his brilliance should wash over us.

 

 

You want a rebuke of contemporary grammar? Fine, I do it on account that the people who hold such tenets are more oft then not assholes who cant express anything with their clarity beyond their inability to think outside their own perspective.

 

Fuck this fuck and fuck the extra work he is going to make me do while going crazy trying to write a senior's thesis. If his little bitch boy in class had suggested this topic, I'm sure he would be all over its conceptual dick.

 

Cracked ass, I was always taught to give respect when it is reciprocated to me. And that people who I see as bastion's of the conception of language you put forth are complete assholes to me, I do not give them any of my respect. I have no problem with a professor telling me my writing is shit, just talk to me about something more than that as well. If you got where my paper failed then you also got what I was trying to convey at all. Give me more than some mundane statement that if I wrote more clear things would be better. Professors who actually care about the intellectual content of their student's works are the ones I support and if I can discern that it is from that concern that they criticize my writing, I am all for it. But the moment I catch that it is being done as a power play to assert their status in a bullshit hierarchy, that is when you can start suckin my dick (not you CA, just speaking generally here).

 

Authority is only as good as the respect it commands, and in most cases I will give it accordingly, but not with people like this.

[the.crooked]

todays class is gonna be good, i feel it in me bones.

[Module X]

I hate when smart people are retarded.

 

You want a rebuke of contemporary grammar? Fine, I do it on account that the people who hold such tenets are more oft then not assholes who cant express anything with their clarity beyond their inability to think outside their own perspective.

 

Amen. This is the cancer of humanities departments everywhere. You basically just described the experience I had with the only undergrad course I ever took in the Philosophy department. It was an intro Chinese philosophy class. Somehow, this dude managed to make the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi completely bland, without communicating to the class anything remotely valuable other than the fact that he knew how to talk the talk. I stopped going and just turned the papers in.