/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

You are not your thoughts. You are not your feelings. There is no stable eternal and atomistic you which doesn't change.

You don't assert by wordplay "this is what the world is" and force the world to conform to it. Every philosophy, religion, and everything we do to navigate this world is something we follow and believe because it serves some purpose, rather than being a just-so story. It may not be a good purpose, and we may lie and change our thinking, hold two different models for approaching the world based on the situation we are in. What is not contested is that for us to hold any meaningful dialogue - and this would include any expression of symbolic language we might entertain - we would require mutual intelligibility. We don't just say axioms to say them. We consider axioms because they tell us something, and we seek to demonstrate their truth or falsity if we wish to keep them. We would be able to speak to each other about what these things mean, without needing any particular ontology to circumscribe the boundaries of acceptable communication. At a basic level, the only thing we can all agree on, if we wish to hold a conversation, is that there is a world to speak of. If there is no world to speak of at all, then there is nothing to say, and if someone insists there is a different world for them that is beyond ours, then there isn't going to be a serious dialogue. That has been the sad case for us. Certain people decided that any world that doesn't conform to their conceits and sentiments and desires to change the world to their desired form is a world that cannot be spoken of or even understood theoretically. They do not engage in dialogue. They bullbait, cajole, intimidate, and conduct politics, often without a really serious understanding of what politics is scientifically. They just go off of what they can project, as long as they find enough people to attack to make their vision come true. So long as they can do this, and this is not particular to one philosophy or faction, there is nothing in the world that would stop someone from dictating reality as they please. It would be possible in the extreme to claim that a bullet shooting someone dead did not actually kill someone or terminate a life force, by redefining what it means to even be, or live. There is a reason "life unworthy of life" became a stock phrase and has been the rule ever since.

I said this in the other thread - that the laws of logic were derived from claims about metaphysics and about what the world is generally, rather than claims about any particular thing "just being". In particular, you are invoking a Heidegger concept of "dasein", or one of the more flagrant violations Germanic thought poisoned the world with. That is, things "just are", by some assertion of primal will that makes reality conform to thought. Whatever elaborate wordplay is made to sell this concept, the truth is that so long as no one will tell this person no, someone can compel the world and other people to make others obey. In the end, this is what philosophy is there to do. If we wished to understand the world as our senses allow us to do, we would use the language of science or spiritual understandings, and we would speak of a full existence most of humanity can readily sense, in one way or another. Very few humans are truly "cut off from reality" in the way today's ruling ideas insist reality is ideological and dictated by thought leaders. While we are capable of extensive thought control through so many mecahnisms, this thought control is expensive and requires definite material inputs.

I'm writing a book about this very question and it's in proofreading stage. I will share here when it's complete.

I should also add that materialisms and idealisms will treat logic differently, and the application of logic to science and the natural world is not the same as the application of logic to purely abstract concepts. In the abstract world, absent any compelling reason to believe otherwise, we construct ideas as we need them.

There are problems with using the language of science to describe the humanities or political thought, without proper caveats. There is also confusion on what "science" means in modernity. The British Empire is dominated by particular conceits about science, while the nascent German Empire is premised on repudiating that concept of science. The German concept of "science" does not translate exactly to what we in America consider "science", as it invokes institutional authority and the study of humanity in a particular way. There is a whole religious argument, and all of our modern theories of science derive from a tradition and institutions of organized religion, and Christianity in particular. The rest of the world did have concepts of science and institutions, but the particularly European attitude towards science or "The Science" only happened and then spread to the rest of the world, and not always in the original form. You can talk to people in India and China and how they interpreted modern European science and the whole of modernity, and you can find a whole lot of writing if you want to listen to them. The particular autism around "The Science" stems particularly from a background in Christianity and its institutions, and the origins of those institutions in Greco-Roman society and its particular political forms. Basically, the republican idea in the form we recognize it as such was particular to one place, and that informed how we viewed institutions of science and philosophy in a way that didn't happen in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, organized religion, gurus, and so on were established earlier, and there wasn't the same tension between religion and secularism; nor did the religion make the political and spiritual claims Christianity made, which were highly specific and would show in time what the religion really was. And so, this autistic debate is something that wouldn't translate well outside of a very particular tradition, or at least it doesn't hold the exact same meaning. You can find stupidity around the world, and you can find wise men outside of the European tradition who have said all along that this shit is weird and annoying; and it should be clear that modernity begins with European exposure to much of the world's philosophy and increased economic and military entanglement.

You're seeing now a lot of the ugly underbelly in the entire European tradition, the rot in the system that was long criticized from within but has taken it over completely. Basically, the regimentation of thought that this civilization suggested has expanded knowledge in a particular way, and now that regimentation of knowledge in the university is choking the potential for knowledge even at a basic level. This didn't happen the same way anywhere else. Only white people are this fucking crazy. The pre-eminence of the university and its invasion of private life is a contributor to the rot. The same problem afflicts much of the world, which adopted this model in one way or another.

>>469117
You are going for the big philosophical questions, but there are more mundane questions that have to be answered before that.

If you build a machine that does logical operations like a computer, you can't actually build one that strictly confirms the law of identity unless you cheat a little bit. But on the other hand the logical instruction sets that you use with those logic machines, like software on a computer those usually are based on the law of identity being strictly true.

If you a materialist and you want your theories to reflect objective reality as closely as possible. You could look at the logical machines and conclude that if we can't build it, the law of identity must be wrong. We'd have to change a lot of math and rethink what axioms are. And we'd probably also have to change software which seems to work perfectly fine as is and produce extremely accurate calculations.

So where do go from here ?

>>469124
We specifically built computers to carry out the law of identity - that is, anything that didn't allow for logical operations was recognized as an error, and we build computers speficiallly to eliminate errors for the task we built them to do. I think I gave you the book on cybernetics, and its application to electronic circuits was an immediate outcome. This is what the guy who wrote that book did with technology and extrapolated into a general rule.

A computer in the end is a machine we built, not an "idea". All computers to be what they are would be some sort of physical device, or rooted in some physical activity taking place. There is no "computation" that happens in the abstract that is actually computation, which is why we can only answer certain problems in computation. There are problems in computability theory which have no solution, and we can prove by logic that they are unsolvable.

If you are saying "the world is fuzzy" that is not useful for engineering, science, or any purpose. That's just a vague generality that is useless for logic, whether we are working with science or politics. In politics, abstract opposites are more pronounced than they are in the natural world. It is in politics where we see contradiction. There are no "contradictions in nature", because the concept of contradiction is particular to us. The point of contradiction isn't to keep them unresolved or make mystifications, but to see what the contradiction is and either resolve it, or predict how this is going to turn out in a conflict. That is all a very political concern. The natural world at a basic level doesn't have a concept of "struggle" - things in the world just do as they will do. We see struggle in many things, for example the "struggle for life", only after importing political concepts to answer a scientific question. Darwin's theory of evolution for example presumes that you can speak of life possessing particular qualities that allow living things to struggle on their own power. Only then would it make sense to apply Malthus' population principle to answer a question of natural history.

>>469124
This reminds me of how modern “AI” has been essentially overrided to contort to modern neoliberal identities. Do you really think a machine cares about fat phobia or actually believes that man in a dress is a woman? Do you think anyone sees these responses and thinks
>damn you know if a purely logical machine is saying this it must be true
No they instantly realize that a useless human ideological element has been hamfisted into it. Practicality degrading the purpose and efficiency of the technology

>>469117
I agree. This is also why psychology and “experience” as a basis for self is bs. You or a professional analyzing your “self” is like Schrödingers cat
>you only see what’s presented to you
>you only see what appears in that moment
>you only see when you look
I’m not a transhumanist or anything, but I believe that self actualización is achieved through documenting and legitimizing memories, not just in the visual sense like replaying a tape, but in the sense that you can remember with all your senses, feelings and thoughts at the time as well as process it with your current state of “self”

>>469130
The only people who actually take the absurd claims of genderism literally are the fools who are cast out. When push comes to shove, the actual nature of these things is always asserted by authority. The entire thing is premised on human subjects having no authority over knowledge. It has nothing to do with what the computer does. Neither the computer nor the human believes in this nonsense with any seriousness, and the computer is not by its nature something which will impose brainrot on the user. What is happening is that human beings are, by institutional authority, told over and over again that they are not allowed to think even the simplest things, and that they should be ashamed for sentiments or thoughts that were basic to being independent at all. The only way this idea can be maintained is if eugenics and death are the dominant values, and so the entire "gender debate" has the effect of shouting "die die die die die" with orgiastic thrill, making the rubes who are not permitted to speak utter lies and forbidding them to acknowledge the simplest genuine knowledge about sex. It's all Galtonism.

>>469131
"Self-actualization" is ideology from the outset. You are yourself whether you want to be or not, or whether you have any political consciousness or rights to speak of. Politics informs our existence and we are acutely aware of when we have no political rights or status in society, but it does not define us. We have a life other than politics or "society" in this sense.

This would make more sense after reading my book, which I will get back to shortly.

>>469147
I should also note that for the people who actually live the trans / gender nonconforming life, this debate is not what they are actually interested in. The extreme vanguard that is into "queerness" or things like it is really referencing something other than sex entirely, and doesn't place moral value on sex in the way some people will. In a way, the "queer" idea is a reaction to a pre-eugenic concept of sex, where sexual orientation is ultimately a moral choice. The difference is that on one end, patriarchal norms and the expectations of an earlier society are superficially upheld and there is a sense of decency to not let the hidden world come out, with severe punishments for behavior that violates the norm. On the other end, moral philosophy encourages depravity to weed out who is "allowed" self-expression, with the expectation that those who cannot handle "the truth" are outed and exposed, accomplishing the same aims as "smear the queer" and other such games that were normal beforehand. It is ultimately questioning this period where we might have considered that getting on a moral high horse about sex was not a great moral principle to organize society. Now, in the past, patriarchal society was not sexually obsessive at all. In the past, men wrote openly about sex being a bitter waste of time and a vice, and it would be men since women often did not publish and women had no interest in undermining whatever position they held if they could write. What changed was eugenics, and the presumption of patriarchal rights and duties being replaced by the community of women being held by the eugenic interest alone. The idea that women were "liberated" in their sexual behavior is channeled instead into a practice which regulates human sexual mores in a new way. In either case, the objective was to discipline who people mate with and how children are born. This idea goes back to classical times, but it is not something that was eternal or natural at any stage. The actual natural state is that a man and a woman make a baby, for whatever reason they have, and the political and economic and social consequences are not inherently an obligation of them. In some sense, anyone who wants to make a baby or engages in the act is accountable to society in some way, but the idea that this became a political or legal struggle or a culture war is something that required a philosophical conceit of the state, and then the invasion of that state into private life and the earlier sociality we possessed. The whole of recorded history has been one procession of invasion, where the primitive life of mankind has been invaded by intellectual mind viruses and knowledge of institutions. This process continues to today, and developed in modernity in ways that made it impossible to speak of these things with trite sayings or taboos or dogmas with the same meaning they held in the past.

>>469149
Ultimately, this whole debate is silly and stupid, but for the "queer" types themselves or those who are drawn into that way of thinking, they really don't give a shit about this posturing, and if anything they hate the whole eugenics ideology being pushed into their spaces. They started out on Tumblr doing random freaky shit and making their porn or whatever they do. A lot of them are disgusted as seeing this turn into a political matter at all, and didn't care about this idea of "queer rights" in the way the narrative says. They don't give a fuck what Judith Butler wrote.
There is a lot going on in that world that is more than sexual, and you'd have to be around them enough and actually listen to them and compile an understanding to get what that is, and how their community was gamed and transformed by influencers. I keep my distance from it but I do speak to them, and since I'm not "normal" and never will be, I have too much time on my hands and find it interesting to fuck with the narrative that has been constructed around it.

>>469148
>You are yourself whether you want to be or not
State of being is idealism at its peak stfu hypocrite
>Politics informs our existence and we are acutely aware of when we have no political rights or status in society, but it does not define us. We have a life other than politics or "society" in this sense.
Sounds like some Hegelian bs. Polítics is a reflection of material reality.

>This would make more sense after reading my book, which I will get back to shortly.
Charlatan

>>469152
To say you are anything other than "you" is to engage in symbolic wordplay. We are instinctively aware of ourselves to a sufficient degree because that is a real connection we have with the world, of which we are a part. All the nerves, impulses, and so on could only be relevant if they were real and did not require a mediator to exist or be understood. We are aware of this existence and that, at the least, there is a thought process active to speak of any consciousness. To suggest this process is anything other than a real, material event - and in our case, a physical event and an event of living things in its origin - requires invoking a whole different model of reality, which would be contingent on the existence of some world to allow the idea of "us" to exist.

It is possible to say that you can be something other than "you" as defined by another, or some static concept of yourself, but you can't decide that you don't exist by thought alone, or that anyone changes simply because of symbolic language far removed from their actual existence. If you are making that claim, first of all that has no material basis whatsoever, which makes this whole screeching about me being "idealist" absurd. Strictly speaking, what I describe would be some sort of physicalism, but I find that to be a limiting understanding of the concept. All I said is that some thought process has to exist to speak of anything being conscious in the sense we appreciate it. If you are speaking of a wholly disembodied abstract mind, you are speaking of something very different from us who are by all accounts a series of events. Even if you suggested an idealist framework from on high, you would have to suggest a reason why our lives are consistently like this, and that is what God or religion typically does - provide answers that the adherent can accept or not, or understand through the faculties available to them. In our rational thought and symbolic language, we only have ideas, but we are aware that those ideas point to some world outside of us or any conceit we hold about it.

I don't know why this autism repeats, but the people who are this committed to the bit are not running a script. They actually do believe this - and I know because I know the mentality and how this is drilled into people, the fear of people who simply do not get it and have this triggered response.

>>469155
>that TLDR
You are literally arguing at nothing. Most of what you’re arguing to isn’t my positions or anything similar. It’s like you conjured your own straw man and replied to it. My argument is
>there is no static concept of self, to try to prove so is literally just entering idealist arguments
>”self” is constantly changing in response to objective material conditions, not “experience” which is too subjective and susceptible to idealism
>memory should be the materialist conception of consciousness, it’s what results as a response to material conditions
>if one could, through either biological or cybernetic means, materialize memory so that one could perfectly remember in every way including how they felt and thought in that exact memory; humans would truly achieve full self actualización
>humans would have objective materialized memories that could be analyzed over and over again to understand who they are as a person
Essentially I’m going a step above your “physicalist” argument by actually transforming “experience”(a subjective idealist basis for consciousness) into hard material data

>>469222
You're not going "above" anything. Fetishizing data is an old conceit about consciousness - very old actually. It isn't saying anything except, essentially, there is no knowledge, but just matter in motion that can be anything you interpret it as. You do understand what "data" means in information theory and computer science, right? What "data" means in philosophy of science?

This is what makes things like Galton's statistical pseudoscience appear viable - i.e., you insist over and over that correlations you choose to collect are themselves the "truth", and then fit your theory of knowledge to this highly curated selection of data, intended to suggest a just-so story. It is very easy to disprove this theory of mind or knowledge, or at least to say what it would imply if its origins are followed through to their conclusion. It is an intentional pseudoscience, which obscures anything meaningful about statistical analysis.

Long story short:
Entropy as a concept is wildly abused when studying life, and this is intended for political purposes and to make claims about the world that are not substantiated by any actual meaning or data. The study of heat systems is useful for its purpose, but does not explain literally everything.

The point I'm making is that knowledge and consciousness are not Turing machines or mere information processing. As information processors, human brains are remarkably bad, but humans do a lot of things like pattern recognition that is inherent to life with central nervous systems and sufficiently large brains. If you knew anything about cognition or computer science you wouldn't say this stupid shit. This is the retard version taught to code monkeys so they can produce low grade programs without really knowing what they are doing.

Since this is the philosophy thread, I figured I would post a preview of what I've written. Not yet ready for general release and will get some final edits, but maybe this would clarify some arguments I've made.

http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/mymethod.html

This is the first part of a series, and fairly lengthy. It should be noted that the purpose of the book is not to reveal the one truth, but to explain roughly how an ontology of reality control works - and so I have no problem with mereological nihilism and many philosophical no-nos.

To make a summary short:

- Our basic expression of reason in language, and all of the ideas we communicate to describe the world, are at first symbolic. The sensory data we translate to a picture or what we see, hear, etc., is a symbolic representation of the world, and could only be that.

- All of this communication can only exist because we hold that meaning is possible through knowledge. Much of the book builds up to the point I have described here first.

- The main purpose of symbolic language and expression is not to simply say "A is A" or "2+2=4" for its own sake, but to refine meanings and understandings for our knowledge and a full picture of the world and ourselves. We communicate these ideas not just to say them or spread them, but because they mean something at a level that is not symbolic. We would have to accept that there is a world where meaning is relevant that is shared between all who are in dialogue, and that however we participate, we are not in disagreement about certain facts.

- Facts are themselves product of symbolic language that are proven by some authority, rather than facts simply being true by assertion. That is, formal logic is always demonstrated in institutions of some sort. We may consider ourselves persons with authority to judge facts, but in society, institutions decide facts, not people. If people individually decide facts, it is because this is institutionally accepted, and even the concept "person" is an institutional rendering of a human being. We of course need to do this - we must agree on facts to hold a dialogue, and so in such discussions, we hold to facts, and among those facts we would hold is that there is a world to describe that is outside of the institution. The main purpose of institutions is not internal, but to relate to things outside of them. This point isn't made in the book, but is something described in the third book where concepts of the state and institutions and education are described.

- Knowledge at root is a process carried out in the world in order to be real. There is no "virtual knowledge" apart from some processing of information and some act that ties to the world we live in. We may through knowledge imagine virtual spaces and create a whole world by thought alone, but we are able to differentiate between the real world and fantasy very easily. Even the craziest of us are beholden to reality, and very often the crazy are more in tune to reality than those in institutional society, but the crazed are locked out of society and thus deprived of relevant knowledge and information that would allow their thought to be admissible in institutional society. This is intentional.

- Information, which is described in greater detail in the second book as the basis for economic thought and decision making and the basis by which we manage all of our decisions in life, is an intermediary process in which data, or the raw substance we are interfacing with, is translated to something for the purposes of knowledge. At first the information is vaguely defined, and we use all of our knowledge and meaning to refine that information to our satisfaction. Symbolic reasoning is one means of refining that data into information. Never is information "fully resolved" as the sole source of information - it is possible to work with information that is vaguely defined, and this is valid for the purposes of knowledge or meaning. But, such vagaries cannot be operated on as if they were logical propositions, and if we introduce those vagaries and insist they are equally valid as our symbolic reason and formal logic, we cheapen the value of the latter and make logical deduction impossible, or must spend far greater effort untangling bullshit to arrive at meanings we wanted. If we are to operate with this vaguer concept of information and meaning as what it is, we can still operate as we need to for the purposes of life, and accept that the symbols we use to express those meanings are less than perfect.

As I write later books, I think largely of institutional knowledge and how it builds its storehouse, how it verifies information and controls it, and how this has overtaken our earlier sense of reality in the present time. In short, all theories of knowledge and meaning are commanded to destroy the intellect of the subordinated, and occult political knowledge so that a group of assholes can terrorize us. That is what eugenics enshrines most of all - the terror.

The relevance to this thread here is that, if we are going to refer to logic, we are concerned with propositions we have a great deal of certainty about. The only way these verbal tricks work is due to forced ignorance, and convincing students to not think of the meanings of any proposition. By control of information and regular beatings, and then reinforcement of this ignorance, reality control is possible. The way we have been made to speak to each other is very artificial and disgusting. Since it has gone on for too long and successfully destroyed the earlier ways in which people could speak to each other, there is no going back to a different time. Never again will that be possible, nor desirable.