Again. You study theology becauase you can’t study philosophy. You study philosophy becuase you can’t study science. You study science because you can’t study evolutionary computation. Climbing that ladder is hard because it requires much more knowledge and rigor at every rung.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 15:08:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622975549776748544
And I’m dealing with the science (operational causality) becuase I have the knowledge to. While you’re dealing with non operational, non-causal, fictions (verbalisms) because that’s the best you can do without such knowledge. You can’t disambiguate without the means to do so.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 15:06:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622975162512732161
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622873193026572290
(The irony of accusing the guy who solves the scientific method, testimony, reciprocity, universal commensurability, the grammars that result, and a dozen other hard problems, of lacking epistemic rigor)
All logic is falsificationary and forever must be.
Justification=nonsense.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 14:54:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622972037974327304
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622911727112454144
So pick one of those claims and try to prosecute it. All I’ve discovered is that you lack knowledge of how even trivial bayesian networks function. The ability to store vast deep subtle associations and associate from them without categorical introspection is unimaginable to you.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 14:49:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622970930900398082
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622911727112454144
So all you appear to be trying to accomplish is doubling down on a verbal and associative frame becaue you have malinvested in it, and haven’t invested in a causal frame that requires greater knowledge. Desperately attempting to preserve your investment just as theologians do.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 14:45:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622969770302898176
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622911727112454144
Non argument. Make one of them and demonstrate you can claim what you do claim. Philosophy (analogy) is what you must resort to when you lack knowledge to speak operationally (causally). The fact is I can explain all mental experience causally, to those with sufficient knowledge.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 14:43:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622969364025839618
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622911727112454144
Accusation without demonstration. You’re using terms that are over your head.
Sense data is trivial because all nerve cells can do is pulse (vibrate). So how is it that we organize vibration into representation? Turns out it’s trivial. What do all NN do? How do they test? Simple.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 14:41:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622968705511735296
Reply addressees: @InternetRadical @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622914935612227585
Nothing we learn from is a failure. And no it sounds just fine.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 14:36:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622967485099315202
Reply addressees: @AMischling
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622945999411978240
I could let you respond a few more times until I’m certain of the error you’re making but I can already deduce the set of errors, and why you’re making them, and they’re great examples of why not to confuse philosphy with science – and why to ignore philosophy as pseudoscience.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 08:34:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622876424305516544
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622873193026572290
In case I need this for subsequent responses https://t.co/mZaaYYAXCd
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-07 08:08:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622869800614608897
Reply addressees: @juicedavisx @TheAutistocrat @InternetRadical @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622864057517879300