a classic thing that happens is someone says "i think the reason is blah" and
then another person says "i think it's something else" and then a third person
says "it's a bit of both" or "it's somewhere in between" or something like
that.
it's such a reliable thing to be able to say and it takes so little effort,
yet you can sound quite wise saying it. oh shit! it's both things?
Keep reading →i realised recently that there are at least two ways in which we ask the
question "is x a y?"
it was when i asked "is Terminator a monster?" which is the sort of question i
like to ask, to get into all the necessary-but-not-sufficients of dumb shit
conceptual analysis.
does a monster need to be biological, or more fundamentally, not
understood? are all monsters morally permissible to kill?
there is a tweet that responded to
Chess Is Not A Game by Deborah P. Vossen
that i can't find. it said something to extent of "What the author fails to
consider is that chess is, in fact, a game." because the other way we ask
these sorts of questions is the Family Feud way. if you surveyed one hundred
people with "Name a monster" - zero of them would say Terminator. they would
say Dracula or Zombie or Frankenstein. and so in that sense, Terminator is not
a monster. it is important to be considerate of your friends and realise this,
when asking these sorts of questions.
Keep reading →What is a crystalisation of the mind?
The gaseous, evanescent process that is thinking, is
entirely internal.
I don't have to worry about the incoherence of my thoughts if I don't have to
communicate them with anyone. But the moment I write, I create the first
molecular bond: a dynamic of relations. Me and you.
Keep reading →