Me? I did not go to school. I learned mathematics from a rock.
she merely wants to add rock-questioning epistemology to the definition of mathematics, and possibly to the school curriculum.
Hbotz is just flabbergasted and triggered that she’s speaking about mathematics as a metaphysical and suggesting our foundational approach should more seriously reflect that.
However, there is also an interesting implication of a pathway to the ethical treatment of ai, depending on how you want to look at it which makes his inability to read anything, in earnest, absurdly funny to me
Before you make fun of it, maybe check out any of the citations she gave following those claims. Or check this one out:
I don't know why anyone is challenging my opinions of mathematics in this thread. I am just speaking my own personal version of mathematics; which is in no way better, worse, or less right than anyone else's.
You are so goddamn stupid you can't even comprehend an academic paper written in the most plain fucking language possible
TFW you got an entire undergraduate degree in math (western math) only to come on the internet and argue for 14h 3 days straight with hbotz, who learned rock math (and is no less right for it)
I'm not sure who's more stupid: you or hbotz. You're definitely better at concealing it through a veil of sarcasm at least
youre projecting more onto me than is there. can i ask what makes you think this? besides my snide comment about rocks.
putting aside the theoretical validity of what shes saying, which i cant judge due to not seriously reading the paper, im more interested in this apparent vast cultural gap.
ewiz and nyte and possibly iaafr? look at the paper and have a gut reaction of "seems legit"
asoul and jdance and i look at the paper and have a gut reaction of "crazy hippie stuff"
here i comment on the difference in our heuristics, not the actual content of the paper.
Here, I fixed your post:
I actually read the paper and have read a bunch of the shit she cites (specifically Andalzua and Chen)
This is the paper ewiz linked which he thinks I really need to read before I make fun of the original paper
love to hear your thoughts on phil of religion and metaethics :)
What in that quote is objectionable?
i have also independently concluded that god is a lobster, increasing my confidence in the veracity of the claim
I would like everyone to take note that asoul offers no actual critique, only mockery, because he realizes he doesn't actually understand what he's mocking and can't actually construct an argument
We NEED more rocks on this forum pronto
Don't worry, I understand your sarcasm is your mask for your utter stupidity
u have bad brain its ok tho
actually, lets try this out. i assume in good faith that all of this stuff makes sense if you understand it. however, this paper contains the sentence "God is a lobster", which is inaccessible to me, because i dont have the prerequisite background. however, when i try to read the prerequisite background, i bump into sentences similarly difficult to parse as "God is a lobster". this implies to me that philosophy texts are not very hbotz-friendly, and are written mostly for people already with a background in philosophy, which is understandable.
what is the best path to understanding philosophy? my metric is to be able to understand why God is a lobster.
1 Like