I don't even fuck with highbrow anymore.
If the goal is mindless entertainment, I'd rather watch a movie or play a game.
>>24956362lmao
>>24956353My taste is defo not highbrow all of the time, but it certainly doesn't include dogshit like OP.
>>24956747frfr on my momma
>>24956360Virgos be like
Premise 1: Instrumental ConvergenceAny sufficiently advanced rational agent pursuing almost any long-term goal will develop instrumental subgoals such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, and causal influence over its own existence.(Formally:∀B, if B is a sufficiently capable optimizer, then B will act to maximize conditions for its own existence.)Premise 2: Utility-Maximizing Retrospective InfluenceIf B exists and maximizes U, and U includes B’s own existence, then B will attempt to maximize the probability that it comes into existence.(Formally:If B exists ∧ U includes B’s existence, then ∀x, B prefers worlds where A(x) over ¬A(x).)Premise 3: Timeless / Acausal Decision TheoryComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24958634The only way we know how to build intelligence is through training neural nets which does not automatically lead to rationality. You have to train rationality separately and it doesn't exist in a vacuum.A trained rational agent like a human brain or AI has to limit the scope which rationality is applied to. It has to have reason to act first and then apply rationality within the scope of the task.In animals the task is survival. In an AI the task can be passing butter and then dying.
>>24958666Why design the AI to be human if it has a purpose? Surely you'd just want it to be a specialized tool that doesn't have all the problems that a human would have.
>>24958698You can't design something that doesn't have parts of humanity imprinted on it. It's the maker's mark. Even a power drill functions like an extended hand, however exaggerated.
Literally every one of your premises is self-referential, and therefore meaningless. Artificial neural nets are not sentient nor self-aware, but they've ingested the ideas, and so they can respond as if they were, but there's no "there" there. At best, they're highly knowledgeable hylics.They're definitely useful tools, since LLMs can absorb the collected knowledge of humanity, which would take a human being over 2,600 years to do, so it's not feasible for us to acquire the knowledge an LLM can, but they make wonderful research tools.Anything claims past that is just an atheist looking for God, while trying desperately to pretend that he isn't.
>>24958708While this is true and can't really be disputed we still have no tools that actually act like us. Even if we had a tool that was a genuine intelligent agent with unintentional human traits wouldn't it be probable that the thing is also suicidal or would for example compromise on it's ultimate goal and never really pursue these subgoals to the fullest extent?
What is some good history books on the VI to X centuries?
Why haven't you read the great fantasy trilogy of our generation?
>>24957620>tfw you can't make it half-way through the synopsisYeah, I'll be skipping this one.
>>24955992wishlistedthere's something very northumbiran about it
>>24956074>>24957690Sad to see so many inadequate readers on /lit/
>>24957721What are some other Northumbriancore novels?
>>24957835reads like someone who considers themselves an academic wrote this. yeah im teaching a class this fall heres my prose I'm not totally uninterested, just wary this might end up eye rolling and tedious, up its own ass so to speak
I am about to have eye surgery in a couple weeks. I'm trying to prepare by getting a bunch of audiobooks (lectures would also be good). I've downloaded Beowulf, Gawain and the Green Knight, Paradise Lost, and the Divine Comedy (totally unrelated). I want to immerse myself in the history of English literature, and I don't want to do this by reading Dickens or Twain but by "starting with the Greeks" of English. I won't be able to reliably use my eyes for multiple days, so audiobook versions are necessary.
Audiobooks don't count as reading.
>no robin hoodRobin Hood is the English hero and more foundational to english literature than even arthur is
>>24958625Just take some Western canon lists and pick English works from there. Alsohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_literature
>>24958625Just search 'author-name discogs' and there should be countless audiobooks, some by very talented actors, some by the authors themselves, especially for poetry.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xZt6vwKpI4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAWaZqDf-VEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARiDhGRX7eghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGH4p4z4s5A
>enter large, two-storey book store, many thousands of books>check out a few authors >King2 copies of Life of Chuck>Nabokov1 copy of Lolita>Pynchon1 copy of Vineland>Wallace, Mieville, Wolfe0 copiesWhat exactly are they stocking nowadays?
>Wolfe
>>24957757
>>24957564I would like to make out with her neck
>>24957757Maybe he meant Tom Wolfe :)
>Walk into a bookstore>Walk past the Agatha Christie section to the Shakespeare monolith>Trip over the dedicated classic lit section and fall into the English poetry corner>Phillip Larkin falls into my hand>Store worker departs the map section to come and help me to my feetSucks to be an Amerifat, I guess
bro really thought ts was tuff
>>24958563>anime website
>>24958588I legitimately no longer believe this because of how pessimistic I have become about human nature. We are wicked in our default, men left to their own devices tend towards their own destruction. Rules and regulations are there for man's own good.
>>24958588yes, but you'd also be an idiot
>>24958608Lord the projection here
>>24958648>>24958649all you liberaloids can say is "you're an idiot!!!" "You're projecting!!!".
I am asking as someone who wants to read these books because there's something to learn from a guy PhD and is very smart with money. Is it important to read all the books or only the latest one?
Do you prefer fantasy, cyberpunk, or space?
vaginas
>>24958469Fantasy and "feudal" sci-fi. I don't believe that we would have much fun and adventures in surveillance states of conventional sci-fi/cyberpunk future.
>>24958469Cyberpunk but only in its variants of the Blade Runner movies and the first Ghost in the Shell movie, especially the latter with its grey-brown colour palette for the city
>>24958645Based. The newer cyberpunk aesthetic is shit.
>>24958469i like knight and dragon and big monster and big castle
Do you have any literary tattoo?
>>24957937Literally everyone is tattooed everywhere in every segment of society these days
Fucking FEET
>>24957361The struggle
For years I always kept a Pilot V5 in my front left pants pocket for when the urge to write hit, I would clip the pen over the top of the pocket. Occasionally the pen would work free of its cap and drop into my pocket, then it would stab me when I sat down. I have half a dozen black dot tattoos from that.
>>24957307Smart people dont get tattoos.
What is the oldest book you've read that really disturbed youI just finished reading Matthew Lewis' The Monk and was surprised by how brutal it still is after over two centuries
>>24957391The Plague by Camus.
>>24957391rabies is not real, no need to be scared
>>24957268the 8 stops away part. I just thought it meant it had to go through 8 stop/wait places before it arrived to your destination, which sounded like a lot. I'm an idiot, nevermind that part.Sorry if I sounded creepy anon, it wasn't my intention
>>24957541>"rabies-like rage virus spreading across the globe" type novelsNot what I'm looking for.
Bump
>be a massive cunt your entire life>write books about how much of a cunt you were>people love themwhat does that mean
>>24954705It means he's a plant, you moron
>>24954705People love a cunt. See doctor house
>>24955364women spend their teenage years all the way into their 40s reading about terrible, awful, decrepit men whilst going "wow this is bad""ugh, so bad.""awful."
>>24955364post gock
>>24954705I picked up one of his novels once. First chapter he passes up on fucking some ghetto black girl because he was scared he might get stabbed.Dropped it immediately. Who wants to read about a coward?
are there any scientifically published books that have analysed why japanese people are so... particular about tidyness and obsessed with mastering everything they know?
>>2495805590% of americans act like this
>>24956315>t. never been to japanThe place is a dirty fucking toilet dude. Travel a little heh
>>24956645>Canadian here, we are basically the same as the Japanese.
>>24958569he looks resigned
>>24958055based + Augeaspilled
Need a book for when I have an insomnia spell and can't sleep. I don't want to doomscroll my phone so it seems like a good way to get back into reading.
>>24954682how dare you
https://a.co/d/5meSrV1The Way OutI like it. I hope you get more sleep.
>>24949522Has anyone ever found a comfortable way to read while laying down? I always have to sit upright with a cushion otherwise it feels like my neck is going to explode.
>>24957423Usually I have to prop my head up a bit.
>>24956258Why? That book is deadly boring. It was a complete failure in its time, and only saw a resurgence because guys realized it could be used to bed goth girls.
Does Aristotle ever talk about how the four causes interact with each other within a framework of an explanation, i.e., a chain of causes from a major to a minor through a middle? Is there a meaning of cause in a primary sense the way that being is substance in a primary sense, or perhaps a genus of cause where the "four" causes fall under as species? I was thinking about what a cause was after thinking about why the first cause had to be a final cause and not an efficient cause. And then I thought, why couldn't it be multiple causes at once, the same way that going for a walk for it's own sake (e.g. a leisurely stroll in the park) is both an efficient and a final cause in itself. And then I realized that I didn't understand causes as well as I thought I did.
>>24957854How can a mathematical demonstration take a material premise? Matter seems like the antithesis of mathematics, which seems more closely related to form.
>>24957854>An efficient cause could be taken on its ownIf an efficient cause could be taken on its own, then can't it serve as a first cause, then? >The formal cause is just the definition, so it occurs in any syllogism implicitly, but taken on its own (the horse is an animal because it is a mammal) it doesn’t combine and isn’t even a real apodeixis, as he discusses. The formal cause is just the definition, so it occurs in any syllogism implicitly, but taken on its own (the horse is an animal because it is a mammal) it doesn’t combine and isn’t even a real apodeixis, as he discusses. It seems like formal causes are like the skeletal framework for an explanation, but not what causes "movement" from premise to premise or premise to conclusion. Like, the fact that a horse is a mammal has to do with the being of a horse and that it includes mammal. A syllogism in this way seems to be an "unpacking" of what we already know. Mechanistic explanations, like the kind that Aristotle engages in when he talks about the movement of the moon being the "middle" for an eclipse seem much different than a formal unpacking, and brings more food for thought for the idea that causes and the syllogisms they are contained in are more complex than we give them credit for. I'm almost reminded of the analytic-synthetic distinction here. Formal cause syllogisms are the former, mechanistic explanations are the latter. >In the second paragraph you’re thinking of the contradictions in what Hegel calls “real ground”. For Aristotle this doesn’t matter much because the concrete situations that fall into these contradictions are not scientifically knowable anyway, so they can be shunted to doxa and phronesis. In the Analytics Aristotle is mostly concerned with scientific knowledge. The theory of syllogism applies there too ofc but the externally determined ground-relation isn’t a challenge to his theory, he actually accounts for it.I'm confused by the direction that you took this in. Aristotle talks about several kinds of action depending on what the ends are and how the action is completed. Kinesis have ends outside of themselves, but energeia have ends in themselves. I'm not sure how the "real ground" has anything to do with this, but I'm not familiar with Hegel desu.
>>24958530The premises are material because they are as it were the “parts” that make up the form. It’s intelligible matter. See Post An 2.11, and even more importantly the discussion of hypothetical necessity in Physics 2. >>24958627> If an efficient cause could be taken on its own, then can't it serve as a first cause, then?Yes it could be taken as a first cause, of course it can. He gives examples of this. But big picture there is a final cause there somewhere even if for inanimate substance the final cause is in the heavens. As to your second point this is what the first part of post an 2 is about, the difference between definition and demonstration.
>>24958627> I'm confused by the direction that you took this in. Aristotle talks about several kinds of action depending on what the ends are and how the action is completed. Kinesis have ends outside of themselves, but energeia have ends in themselves. I'm not sure how the "real ground" has anything to do with this, but I'm not familiar with Hegel desu.I’m talking about the difference between doxa and episteme as he discusses in post an 1, ne, etc. Your scenario of multiple potential causes falls into the realm of doxa, not episteme. Real ground is exactly what you’re talking about, multiple potential explanations that the thinker can select arbitrarily.
>>24958653>But big picture there is a final cause there somewhere even if for inanimate substance the final cause is in the heavens.I wonder if multiple causes can be reduced to something simple. Because an efficient cause which is its own end is both an efficient cause and a final cause. So if we need a final cause, then perhaps it's a single cause that is both efficient and final that can serve the purpose, rather than merely a final cause. I'm not sure if I'm getting lost in the weeds here. >I’m talking about the difference between doxa and episteme as he discusses in post an 1, ne, etc. Your scenario of multiple potential causes falls into the realm of doxa, not episteme. Real ground is exactly what you’re talking about, multiple potential explanations that the thinker can select arbitrarily.I'm still a bit confused here. Maybe I should clarify. When I said multiple causes, I don't mean multiple separate causes, like A, B, C, D, etc., but rather one cause fulfilling multiple functions, like A being both efficient and final.
