Heh.. mechanistic linear-algebra, to animate

robotic, irrationally-consumptive ~~Citizens~~Consumers, brought to their shopping-cathedrals by mechanistic choice-optimizing über-robots-in-Armanis
(and their spawn: ~6 yos throwing temper tantrums if the Logos on their new pre-pre-school Uniforms, are not sufficiently ... er, uniform?)

Gotta Love..

[. . .]

Rational choice philosophy, to its credit, made clear and distinct claims in philosophyÂs three main areas. Ontologically, its emphasis on individual choice required that reality present a set of discrete alternatives among which one could choose: linear Âcausal chainsÂ which intersected either minimally, trivially, or not at all. Epistemologically, that same emphasis on choice required that at least the early stages of such chains be knowable with something akin to certainty, for if our choice is to be rational we need to know what we are choosing. Knowledge thus became foundationalistic and incremental.

Emphasis {{ugh}} slathered on.. to its CREDIT?!ONE!!!
As-If! our analog Universe were some digital-think 'Product' made to exacting-Homo-Sap design-specs (overseen by cost-accounting-spreadsheet-Drivers) cha cha cha
Let's see the demonology anew:
[© The Murican Shock n'Awe sage of applied-Shrub-WarDecider-ing]

Ya gots yer Unknowns,
yer Known-Unknowns
and yer Unknown-Unknowns
(in that cha cha cha-cubed 'Reality', so conveniently equipped with a TOC) [???]
..a Glossary / and Nomenclature, of course.

AArrrggghhhh..
Words sans referents!
'Ideas' sans REALity-checks!
REALITY-it(self?) redefined to fit a bubble-sort: if'n it ain't in our TOC--and you 'had that thought'?--IT 'ISN'T'
an acceptable 'reality' ay-tall. Got it.

Who needs recursion to flummox the linear 'thinkers' when they divide-by-zero before breakfast?
Does one need many more factoids about 'our roots' to acknowledge intellectual poverty as causal?

Good find. But disgusting :(
Bookmarked though: seems a necessary and sufficient explication of the Pride with which ethics-free bizness droids might explain that this is a boon,
like.. say: pesticide-free fruits and vegetables? And an answer to what a Boolean-managed society would look like. Does look like.

John McCumber is Professor of Germanic Languages at UCLA. He is the author of ÂTime in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy EraÂ (2001) and, two forthcoming books, ÂOn Philosophy: Notes From a CrisisÂ and ÂTime and Philosophy: A History of Continental Thought.Â

Methinks Time in the Ditch should be a decent refresher of actual experience of the loyalty-oath hysteria daze.
McCumber rocks: anyone who despises the concept [certainty] as much as I, and displays the appropriate degree of sardonic denouement as in his last paragraph--just has to be a Good Read. :-)

get an advanced degree in philosophy, like I wanted to.

Actually, several.

One being the elaborate houses of cards built on vertical surfaces. The whole theory here is based on the clearly false premise that people are rational. Or at least that there are enough rational people to matter.

Another is language. Too many words for simple ideas.

The "to it's credit" proviso: the theory recognizes that it only applies if reality includes clear choices. Nice refocusing on a debatable minor premise to avoid the definitively false major premise. Kind of like analyzing unicorn populations in the light of the impact of hybrid vehicles on global warming. But not actually valid - if there were such a thing as rational people, the theory would work if those rational people were under the impression they had clear choices.

And the third, I like to eat.

Post #343,933 by Ashton 6/20/11 4:39:10 AM Reply	Heh.. mechanistic linear-algebra, to animate robotic, irrationally-consumptive ~~Citizens~~Consumers, brought to their shopping-cathedrals by mechanistic choice-optimizing über-robots-in-Armanis (and their spawn: ~6 yos throwing temper tantrums if the Logos on their new pre-pre-school Uniforms, are not sufficiently ... er, uniform?) Gotta Love.. [. . .] Rational choice philosophy, to its credit, made clear and distinct claims in philosophyÂs three main areas. Ontologically, its emphasis on individual choice required that reality present a set of discrete alternatives among which one could choose: linear Âcausal chainsÂ which intersected either minimally, trivially, or not at all. Epistemologically, that same emphasis on choice required that at least the early stages of such chains be knowable with something akin to certainty, for if our choice is to be rational we need to know what we are choosing. Knowledge thus became foundationalistic and incremental. Emphasis {{ugh}} slathered on.. to its CREDIT?!ONE!!! As-If! our analog Universe were some digital-think 'Product' made to exacting-Homo-Sap design-specs (overseen by cost-accounting-spreadsheet-Drivers) cha cha cha Let's see the demonology anew: [© The Murican Shock n'Awe sage of applied-Shrub-WarDecider-ing] Ya gots yer Unknowns, yer Known-Unknowns and yer Unknown-Unknowns (in that cha cha cha-cubed 'Reality', so conveniently equipped with a TOC) [???] ..a Glossary / and Nomenclature, of course. AArrrggghhhh.. Words sans referents! 'Ideas' sans REALity-checks! REALITY-it(self?) redefined to fit a bubble-sort: if'n it ain't in our TOC--and you 'had that thought'?--IT 'ISN'T' an acceptable 'reality' ay-tall. Got it. Who needs recursion to flummox the linear 'thinkers' when they divide-by-zero before breakfast? Does one need many more factoids about 'our roots' to acknowledge intellectual poverty as causal? Good find. But disgusting :( Bookmarked though: seems a necessary and sufficient explication of the Pride with which ethics-free bizness droids might explain that this is a boon, like.. say: pesticide-free fruits and vegetables? And an answer to what a Boolean-managed society would look like. Does look like. John McCumber is Professor of Germanic Languages at UCLA. He is the author of ÂTime in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy EraÂ (2001) and, two forthcoming books, ÂOn Philosophy: Notes From a CrisisÂ and ÂTime and Philosophy: A History of Continental Thought.Â Methinks Time in the Ditch should be a decent refresher of actual experience of the loyalty-oath hysteria daze. McCumber rocks: anyone who despises the concept [certainty] as much as I, and displays the appropriate degree of sardonic denouement as in his last paragraph--just has to be a Good Read. :-)
Post #343,935 by mhuber 6/20/11 10:19:29 AM Reply	There's a reason I didn't... get an advanced degree in philosophy, like I wanted to. Actually, several. One being the elaborate houses of cards built on vertical surfaces. The whole theory here is based on the clearly false premise that people are rational. Or at least that there are enough rational people to matter. Another is language. Too many words for simple ideas. The "to it's credit" proviso: the theory recognizes that it only applies if reality includes clear choices. Nice refocusing on a debatable minor premise to avoid the definitively false major premise. Kind of like analyzing unicorn populations in the light of the impact of hybrid vehicles on global warming. But not actually valid - if there were such a thing as rational people, the theory would work if those rational people were under the impression they had clear choices. And the third, I like to eat. --------------------------------------- I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band. (Tori Amos)
Post #343,941 by Another Scott 6/20/11 12:50:45 PM Reply	:-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!