Nobody thinks that you can understand what check mate is by simply observing the last move of some game of chess.Yet somehow people think they can understand how reasoning works by simply observing their own thoughts.
>>24267373FUCK YOUR CHESS GAY ASS TIMMY SERVICOR.ALL YOUR FUCKEN GAMES SUCK DICK. THEY ARE FOR SAPPLESS TIMMY MOTHERFUCKEN DISGUSTING WORMS OF THE LOWEST SHIT.MY GAME IS FUCKING WOMAN. ITS CALLED THE FUCKENING OF YOUR CHECKMATE.
Its very easy to tell when a position is checkmate
>>24267373>Nobody thinks that you can understand what check mate is by simply observing the last move of some game of chess.yeah, i do. everybody does
People dont know theyve lost the game until it's already too late for them
>>24267375>>24267376By last move I mean any last move, as in most recent move, not the final move of a completed game, which doesn't necessarily end with checkmate anyway. Even if I meant the final move you're wrong. Get a fucking metaphor, retards.
>>24267378GIRL HAS NEED TO EXPLAIN ITSELF .NO AURA.L.GAY.SERVICOR.SUCKING MASTER'S COCK.L.THE QUEEN AND THE KING I PLUG YOUR ASS WITH.THAT'S GAME.KINGS AND QUEENS DONT EXIST MOTHERFUCKER.
>>24267377
>>24267378But you can still understand what check mate means regardless of the board state. In fact you have to because otherwise you can't evaluate whether you've won or lost.
>>24267381Dumbass, again, I said the most recent move of any random ongoing game, a snapshot in time, not the final move of a completed game. This is a fucking analogy or metaphor for observing your own thoughts in the present moment and claiming to be able to understand how reasoning works from that observation. Can you retards go back to the down syndrome home. They're looking for you.
>>24267373>thats like really deep bro.
>>24267382Correct. To observe requires conscious awareness higher than that being observed. Therefore, observing of the mind is done from the intellect (reasoning dept). Observing the intellect is done from.....This is the answer you are looking for, innt?
>>24267382But no matter how many moves you've made or how many you will make in the future you still have to understand what check mate is.If you didn't then it would be impossible to know if the game has ended or if you need to continue. >Dude, is either of us in check mate?>I dunno dude.>So do we keep playing or what?>It sure was dumb of us to start this game when neither of us knows how to win it.
>>24267373Retarded analogy because you can easily do that on a checkboard. Introspection and reflection and general metacoqnition are completely capable by humans that said you áre correct that because of ego and projection its better to have a sparring partner so you arent blindsided by your own subjective gestalt
>>24267373>Im tarded so is the worldsigned reddit
>>24267382There are people who understand their reasoning. That does not stop people who don't do so. That does not mean that people who can't into reasoning can't give a good reason. Whatever you are onto you are retarded too
>>24267384Except eh we can just create valid and reliable measuring instruments to do so and have like the Welher Adult Intelligence Scale 5
>>24267389Welcher*
>>24267384Bullshit post and a good illustration of why thinking is not something you freestyle.
OP's statement is actually logical and correct. Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" actually goes into this.In short we are certain 1+1=2, we understand it, we know what 1 and + is, we can use examples like 1 apple placed alongside another then counting them, 2 apples. However all of this thoughtslop is grounded in feeling, when we were babies playing with building blocks and learning through repetition the basics of how the material world works. It is in fact how our brain works as confirmed through neuroscience.We are kind of like AI except rooted in millions of years of evolution programming our brains with instincts, then our neo-cortex apparently takes these feelings and this reptile brain framework and develops concepts like 1+1=2. We do not actually understand something inherent about the universe, it is ultimately an approximation, perhaps a very accurate one, but it is all gooey brains and neurons not something inherent. We perceive the universe through our fleshy flawed eyeballs and similarly we understand it through our goopy jelly brains. They are irremovable filters.
>>24267385Fucking retard, it's absolutely futile to try to discuss anything with you troglodytes. Go back to jerking your dick, the only thing you know how to do.
>>24267384>understand how reasoning works by simply observing their own thoughts.Understanding and reasoning are sides of the same die (intellect). The effect, or next tier down the cascade, are the observable thoughts. So yes, you can't understand reasoning by observing thought. Just as you can't observe or understand a thought by the subsequent action alone. Just as you can't convict a driver of vehicular assault just because her car hit another.
>>24267393It's not my fault that your analogy is nonsensical. Come up with a better one and you'll receive less criticism, but don't whine about it.
>>24267393Chill dude, at least an attempt was made in earnest. Your turn to mog us with your explanation.....or you're full of dog shit and I blew out the center of the target.
>>24267373>Nobody thinks that you can understand what check mate is by simply observing the last move of some game of chess.You probably could though, especially simple checkmates like with a pawn and king, or two rooks
>>24267389>Missed the point again awardThe challenge was not measurement but self-observation/understanding. It's the difference between an explanation of pussy and the experience. Surely a man of your education can grasp this from an old gun maker.
>>24267386Learn to write. The metaphor is Wittgenstein's, not mine. No, a person who knows nothing about chess can't know what checkmate is from just seeing a snapshot of a random ongoing chessgame. Psychology is not logic. I didn't say you can't observe your own mind, I clearly said you can. You can't deduce what correct reasoning is from observing your own thoughts. There's a difference. Psychology students don't learn logic. Having a sparring partner is not enough. They brainwash people to think that critical thinking is simply seeing a different opinion.
>>24267387say that to freemasons and orthodox jews
I like boobs
>>24267379MY SALAD DAYS, WHEN I WAS GREEN IN JUDGMENT
>>24267399Logic - left hemisphereAbstract - rightYou missed the shift back and forth and the result was chimpout. Without a fully developed pre-frontal cortex (genetics) one is unable to freely glide between the two."The psychotic drowns in the same waters the mystic swims in delight".I win, I always win!
>>24267392Not what I'm saying. Logic is not innate. People are brainwashed into thinking that it is. And therefore they think, by programmed conditioned response, knee-jerk reaction, that correct reasoning can be understood simply through genetics, by simply observing their own thoughts. This is exactly what they want you to think. They want you to refuse out of pride to learn how to think. It's working just as intended, it's working perfectly.
>>24267403Calling a spade a spade, and telling retards like you to fuck off is not to chimp out. Kys retard. You know jack shit about logic. They brainwash you to think logic is innate, muh brain hemisphere. It's not.
>>24267373>Yet somehow people think they can understand how reasoning works by simply observing their own thoughts.Do they? You are describing meditation. It's somewhat useful. It makes you see the mysterious quality of thoughts. It's usually not possible to know where they come from.
>>24267407>Do they?Yes, most people do.>You are describing meditation.No, meditation doesn't make you able to understand correct reasoning.
>>24267399No shit sherlock because what you experience is inherently subjective and processed by the gestalt through the 5 senses. You cant seriously think this is some deep epiphany i hope lmao this is incredibly basic year one psych 101. Its my fault for thinking you meant something deeper and not just this surfacelevel shit literally an 8 year old learns when ego formation occurs. >>24267403Based Jung quoter
>>24267409>year one psych 101psychology students don't learn logic
>>24267410Female psych students sure I agree, but i was a logical autist long before i went into psychology. And yes while many of my peers are unfortunately 90iq woke woman glorified HR retards. I am simply not that. To answer your question we are taught base existential problem solving and reasoning ability. Im not sure what therapist molested you when you were young or whatever but youre seething way to much. You seem like a smart fella why not become one aswell, be better then all these woke whores who ran my profession into the ground. Or you can mald and seethe while i make money with just my voice and singlehandedly make men believe in themselves and lower the suicide rate. I enjoy what i do despite all the cancer in my profession today, and I will continue to do so and enjoy so. Between you and me I used to be more of a philosopher in my youth, thing is it doesnt pay anything whereas with Psychology i use similar frameworks like existentialism, absurdism, self actualisation/indivuation theory, stoicism, positivism etc. To change humans for the better. You can hate my mission but really im just gonna keep helping white men from killing themselves and woke woman from going full freudian hysteric retard and thats needed now more then ever.
>>24267405Still chimping out; the emotional response is unnecessary, non-existent even, from someone who believes they are right.
>>24267412The emotional respons is literally the opposite of logic and reason lmfao which makes it kind of funny i.m.o
>>24267409Still mistaking the map for the road?The attempt at insults are telling and humorous. Be better!
>>24267412Dumb fuck, I don't believe I'm right. Intellectual discourse is not about being right. I'm trying to have an intellectual discourse in a yahoo chat tier sea of garbage. You're a herd of unruly noisy dirty swine. kys retardhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT4Y9Z3DlfI
>>24267414Im not insulting you though insulting OP
>>24267411>mald and seetheNigga, do you even read your own shit. Absolutely zero self-awareness.
>>24267417Except im not really seething just giving what the energy OP places on oneself, constructive arguments would be better
>>24267413You can be pissed off at absolute troglodytes and tell them to fuck off back to their down syndrome home instead of polluting the space with their presence, has nothing to do with logic or lack thereof, again psych students know jack shit about logic. Also you can't read my mind, you don't know if I'm emotional or not, and it's not the fucking topic. Address ideas or fuck off, this thread isn't about your fucking emotions, woman.
>>24267419Then stop whining bro this thread isnt even political when will you demonstrate logic? When all you demonstrate is an emotional attitude
>>24267419Also you can easily read peoples emotions by their inability to control them, you give clear markers of seethe at multiple occasions
>>24267419
>>24267411You keep on blabbering about logic as something innate, muh IQ, just proving my point that logic is not taught in psychology.
>>24267373Weed had made you retarded
>>24267373somehow the swede pseud thinks he's the smartest one in the room and that its a good thing to constantly post arrogant condescension on this yak butter churning forum
>>24267382Calm down, swissbro, you are the one that made a thread about reasoning using a metaphor (according to you at least) that lacks reason.
>>24267423your idolization of reading old logic textbooks knows no bounds, does it logic pseud. you think its the greatest thing in the world and will bestow upon you incredible super powers.and yet, as always, you seem utterly incapable of taking a look at your self and your consistently nasty character. i've never seen a single post from you that doesn't ooze, brimful, with arrogant superior criticism and disdain. its your character and the behavior stemming from it that are the main things you fill your many many threads with and no matter how many old books you skim, you can't hide what you are and you will forever be a prisoner of your own unexamined self, a self which its painfully obvious that you wish to change.
>>24267382You are the clown that has made a faulty metaphor, people calling you out on it is not their problem but your own.
>>24267428Fuckface, again, I took the metaphor from Wittgenstein. You fucking retards are completely incapable of intellectual discourse.
>>24267429Well retard you misunderstand Wittengstein because he’s clearly saying that it IS possible to understand checkmate by close observation of a chessboardWhich does mean all those fellows who said you have a shit analogy were right. You came to the wrong conclusion.No need to be so hissy. I’ll see you in the next thread
>>24267429>You fucking retards are completely incapable of intellectual discourse.
>>24267404>. Logic is not innate.if by that you mean that we dont come out of the womb thinking logically then sure you might have a point. but clearly the ability to think logically is innate, and the basics are learned through mere interaction with the world around us as time goes by.but of course, nobody is saying that we dont require some teaching to increase our abilities, just like no one is saying that kids dont need to be taught the rules of chess (or learn them through observation of chess games being player).However, since this thread is just you berating everyone for not being as obsessed with old logic texts as you are, and to arrogantly set yourself up as the Logic Professor, which is all you ever seek to do in your endless string of threads, i dont really see the point in arguing about this with you at all.
>>24267429Your reading comprehension is shit bro.In this case, the observer would not hear the word mate until it was said, which would be after a mate occured. Upon watching enough games of chess the observer would be able to figure out what mate is by observation of the board state when it is said. That's the entire point he was making. That we can observe what thinking is by piecing together what we observe.
>>24267429No, your grasp of English is poor and your attempt at paraphrasing the quote has lead you to make an erroneous metaphor, in what is likely your second language.Please try again, Sven.
>>24267430Maybe I did misunderstand what he meant by that, maybe I didn't. Anyway no, it's not clear what he meant by it. You're not an authority. I didn't read the text before and after, I just saw those few lines, and then I used it FOR MY OWN METAPHOR regardless of what he meant in his text. I meant the most recent move, not the final move. I'm free to construct my own metaphors, and I explained what I meant multiple times and you retards still didn't get it.
>>24267435and clearly that is everyone elses fault and could never be your own.being incapable of admitting error is something you really need to work on. its not good for you to be like this.
>>24267433I don't give a fuck what he meant. As I said, I made my own metaphor, I just got the raw materials for it from that paragraph, and I explained trillions of times what MY METAPHOR meant, but you retards still didn't get it. I define my own terms. Retard.
>>24267437>Fuckface, again, I took the metaphor from Wittgenstein.">I don't give a fuck what he meant. As I said, I made my own metaphor"Intellectual discourse," everyone.
>>24267434Retard, none of you know what he means, because the paragraph is out of context when it's on its own, and vague. But go ahead and imagine yourself as understanding what it's about from that image alone. I said, for the 5th fucking time, that I am fucking free to make my own fucking metaphors, I don't give a shit about what he meant in that paragraph. I just saw that paragraph and didn't read the text before and after, and used it as raw materials for MY OWN METAPHOR. I define my terms, and after explaining 10 fucking times that I meant the most recent move, not the final move, you retards still thought I meant the final move. Kys retard.
>>24267438his resort to insults and coarse, emotional, language has always been pretty much instant, which is pretty funny seeing how long he's been berating everyone else for being emotional and incapable of intellectual discourse.imagine being so incredibly arrogant to make picrel and post it. he really does think that by the virtue of reading some old logic texts and listening through some youtube videos, he is that guy.amazing isn't it?
>>24267438I took the raw materials for it from that paragraph. Retard.
>>24267425he's just having an autistic melty
>>24267439>Retard, none of you know what he means, because the paragraph is out of context when it's on its own, and vague. But go ahead and imagine yourself as understanding what it's about from that image alone.i wonder how you came across it in the first place since you already admitted to not having read the context either. did you hear it in some youtube video you were 'studying'?>>24267441>the raw materialslol. lmao even
Just the fact you think you know what the text in that image is saying, without having the context, says everything about you retards. It's totally unclear from the text on its own what the antecedent is for "this concept". Retards who know nothing about grammar, logic and rhetoric. You don't even know what an antecedent is, retards.
>>24267444and yet you stay instead of taking your amazing superiority somewhere else where it would no doubt be more appreciated. Please, you've done all you can for us poor cockroaches, dont feel that you must remain down here in the depths of ignorance, emotionalism and intellectual discourse inability.
>>24267430>>24267433>>24267434conjecturing retards, go back to jerking off
>>24267446now you're having an emotional woman episode. why are you so incapable of intellectual discourse?
>>24267373This is checkmatehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DXyWQL3yWZS/
>>24267448Kys poo
>>24267442many such cases
>>24267435> move. I'm free to construct my own metaphors, and I explained what I meant multiple times and you retards still didn't get itYou are, but clarity is your job as a wannabe logician, and you are failing at your job. It’s not everyone else’s fault that your point is not clear (especially as it’s premised on a shit analogy)
>>24267378>sucks at explaining ximself>i-i-it's a m-m-metaphor REEEElmao
the sad thing about the swedish logic pseud is that, as with every other time it happens, the negative reactions he gets in this thread will not cause him to reflect on himself or the quality of his points.Instead, it will simply be, to him, more evidence of how superior he is to everyone else and how cockroach like they are compared to his greatness, for the blind arrogance and pride of the swedish logic pseud are of truly impressive magnitude.
>AI Overview>This passage is Section 316 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations.In this section, Wittgenstein crituques the idea that the meaning of "thinking" can be discovered through introspection (watching yourself think).He uses the chess analogy to argue that meaning isn't found in a single internal event or "last move," but rather in the rules and context of the language-game as a whole. Just as observing a king being moved doesn't explain "checkmate" if you don't know the rules of chess, observing a mental state doesn't explain the concept of "thinking" if you don't understand how the word is used in communication.Again, I define the terms, because it's my thread, hence my thesis that's the topic.What I'm saying is that people observe their own thoughts and think that they can figure out from that how correct reasoning is done, and how reasoning works. This is akin to someone who has not learned the rules of chess, or not studied chess, just walking past a chess game in the park, taking one look at the board and the pieces and from that alone being able to figure out how the game is played. It's learned helplessness in disguise. Being brainwashed into slavery.
>>24267435It’s clear you misunderstand him. He also says (same book) “whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.”Meaning he brings up thinking because something can be said about it. But we can start over if you’d like to rephrase your question
>>24267451Learn English, Cletus, it's pretty fucking clear what>most recent move, not the final move of a completed game, which doesn't necessarily end with checkmate anywaymeans, I posted that here >>24267378 and in many other posts. I wonder who sucks at English and reading comprehension. And I wonder who doesn't know when they're conjecturing and when they're not. Maybe read some fucking Sherlock Holmes and learn what the word "surmise" means. Uncultured swine.
>>24267455I said I made my own metaphor, fuckface.
>>24267456>I wonder who sucks at English and reading comprehensionim sure you believe its everyone else and not yourself at all.
Think OP is trying to say that there are unconscious processes involved. Dunno if it's that deep and warrants a metaphor though.
>>24267459the subject of his many threads is always and without fail that he is more into logic and therefore superior to you and everyone else. There is a secondary theme along the lines of that we should all be in awe of his wisdom and submit ourselves to be willing students of the Swedish Master Logician.
>>24267429are you one of them browner swedes?
>>24267456Ad hominem is gay and retarded. You are gay and retardedRestate your question in clearer terms, retard. (But you can’t because you’re just engaging in pseudointellectual masturbation)>surmiseJust say “think.” A sign of an intelligent mind is writing clearly and directly.
>>24267462Surmise/conjecture is what you retards do when you think you know what the Wittgenstein paragraph is saying. I already said that. And it's not the same as "think". Also, you don't know what ad hominem is, retard.
>>24267463>you don't know what ad hominem is, retard.neither do you, since you've accused me of it several times in the past when it was nothing of the sort.
>>24267463>not doing the simple task of restating his pathetic, fart sniffing excuse of a thought.I’ll try again. Please?
great deep discussion, high iq people on here
>>24267466you should find a place more suited to your exalted and majestic self
>>24267373>he plays by the rulesngmi
>>24267466Your illiteracy is the reason the discussion sucks
>>24267439So I go back to the original point. That you yourself have made a shitty metaphor, that people have pointed out as flawed. Likely as a result of your poor grasp of the English language and your inability to correctly get your point across.
>>24267469nope, your low iq is
>>24267466anon you're on modern internet, 90% of the people are retarded and 5% are normal, good luck finding the 5% who have really high IQ and is not bullshit meme science or stupid knowledge majority of people won't be able to answer all the questions on pic related
>>24267392>neuroscience>>40214873
>>24267470Nope, you retards didn't even address my metaphor, because due to your extremely low IQ you still didn't get that in my metaphor the word "last" meant "the most recent" rather than "the final" after I explained this 10 times.>flawedWhether you agree with the metaphor or not is what the fucking discussion is supposed to be about, fuckface, but you're incapable of such a discussion. You're a lost cause. Off yourself.
>>24267392Yes, but the results of the system is what matters as well. We evolved intelligence and pattern recognition because it was beneficial for our ancestors, the modern environment has a much lower threshold for survival so we don't need to be as intelligent as our ancestors to survive, hence natural selection is slowly favouring the babies that don't learn the very basics or has more trouble understanding them. There are hardware limits to what software a human being can understand, not every data centre is equal and neither is every brain. If this selective pressure remains this weak and if lower IQ people keep reproducing at higher rates simple reasoning skills may slowly become less prevalent in society. Idiocracy works because the entire society is run by AI, even if the people don't understand how that AI works. The society was undergoing a slow managed decline, it was only when Not Sure (Jack Bauer) started proposing radical changes that the AI's algorithms failed to work because "humans don't behave like that". It is also telling that the AI in Idiocracy itself was stupid despite its scale and complexity because it simply didn't have to deal with complex problems. It's like needing regular puzzles to fight Alzheimer's disease, if the puzzles become simpler you will eventually need less neural power for basic functioning. We will slowly see society become more "animalistic" because we're already animals, and we only pretend that our intelligence is separate from our feelings because our emotions respond to logical stimuli, but as more and more people evolve to reason less and emote more, we will eventually become more like other animals.
>>24267474We addressed how bad it was which made us unable to proceed.You talk to chatgpt too much and are too used to being congratulated for your ineptitude.
>>24267373Glad the mods moved this shit thread>>534239866But to proceed>Nobody thinks that you can understand what check mate is by simply observing the last move of some game of chess.plenty of people think you can understand checkmate simply by observation of the final move of a chess game>Yet somehow people think they can understand how reasoning works by simply observing their own thoughts.Is this supposed to be a counterpoint? That’s the only way we can understand reasoning. We cannot observe anyone else's thoughts and observation is the source of worldly knowledge
>>24267474>my metaphorthat you cant deduce the entire rules of chess from observing a single move? well obviously. That you can't deduce all the rules of logic from considering a single of your thoughts? Does this really need saying?i wonder why you felt the need to say it at all. who was disagreeing with this?did you just say it as a way to yet again berate everyone for not reading as many old logic texts as you claim to have done? were you hoping to start posting all your many links to these old texts as a way to boast about how you are aware of them?i wonder.
>>24267373>reddit spacing
of course that little spaz fucks off the moment his attention seeking thread gets moved.
