[removed]

Artificial intelligence will be smart enough unionize…

[removed]

Saying that we need closures doesn't remove the fact that we don't actually have them. The baseline of an essentially open-source entirety is important, apart from insisting that it destroy indications.

Who’s that?

Our minds create reality, thats how I look at it. When we have normal working eyes. We see RGB. We create the picture in our minds. We name objects to identify them. We create our own reality.

People who are colorblind have a different kind of reality. Yes objects stay the same but they see less or no color. So they have a slightly different reality.

Blind people can't see, or see very little shades of light. They use their ears and touch more. Their reality is more different.

I see it as the way we are able to observe our environment. The way our brain creates our reality.

We live in an "open" reality. We can devolope technology to expand the reality we can't see before. So reality is still expanding for us.

I think closure theory sounds a little like, stop asking questions, just settle with what we know. It's not that we might never know what reality is that we need to stop asking. As technology advances we can touch the reality that we thought we might never fully grasp. But than we might if we look further. Yes we need to function in this reality, so yes we need some kind of closure on certain aspects of reality. Only I would name it differently. Closure should be 'current understanding'.

Counterpoint, no brain, no reality? Maybe. If no living being can observe does reality exist anyway?

Edit: did not saw the video. Just wanted to see how you think of this opinion.

I vote for P.P. Modern. Just a simplification. An argument could be made for Poopoo Modern, but come on. We're all adults here.

I fully expect I'll recieve downvotes, and I accept them.

Edit: didn't expect upvotes, now my comment about accepting the downvotes feels disingenuous. I do stand by the joke though.

Leaving a religion is traumatic.

/u/lpuckeri, I do think relating the idea of functional closures to JavaScript's implementation (which is the #1 closure application in the world) is brilliant. But mathematically, this idea is quite generic. Really, it's quite reactionary; this article we are writing about. I agree!

I program and i use javascript every day. Javascript is a great way to model real world interactions and i implement business logic with it. I even use it to map the underlying logic of reality onto an underlying visual and dynamic reality users perceive. So glad to see Javascript used to interpret the human experience. Lol

I love how this sub eats this crap up.

Make nonsense sound like a profound deepity and ule get upvotes

Nice video, particularly enjoyed the random dude swimming in the river in the background lol.

He spoke well on the way we psychologically close off, or narrow our worldview, in order to make assessments and decisions. He did not articulate very well what full closedness would be like if it's possible, or what dangers that would pose.

His discussion of politics is also pretty conventional. "Be open to new ideas" is a pretty basic tenet of good faith debate, but individuals are still left to go out into the world and close it off in various ways to determine what's true, what a political response should look like, and what policies to pursue. If you care about consequences, maximal openness is not necessarily superior.

As for how to find that balance between closedness and openness He doesn't tell us much other than finding the balance is important, without any practical way of knowing when you're "open enough".

It's exactly what I'm learning through my CPTSD therapy and ketamine sessions too just worded differently.

Well be needing a different term than "Post-postmodern".

If you are not aware of the problem of induction, or considered the nature of scientific explanation, then that reflects your own "ignorance of science", I'm afraid.

We can observe what is consistently and reproducibly true, but true knowledge of "reality" is an impossibly high standard for any scientific axiom.

I have. Absolutely love his work.

Read Wittgenstein

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding, but this is where I think my biggest problem in life comes from. I cannot put my world in different boxes because idk how to do that while remaining open to the great unknown. If I just accept and submit myself to the openness of reality, I cannot help but only feel depressed and anxious all the time. If I try to refine it more, I know what I’m doing is ignorant, but I also know this is how I get hurt when someone tries to break that shelf or I break it myself. I used to be Mormon and had such a specific understanding of the world. Once that was shattered, I became pretty agnostic and remain lost. Nothing but medication seems to help instead of trying to figure it out myself, and even then I feel like it creates a cloud around my world.

The first part of your sentence is confusing to me - you say “you disagree with unrealism anyway” after saying you agree with the unrealist postmodern. Can you rephrase? Because the rest of your comment is intriguing, just want to make sure I’m following correctly

"there's too much information in the universe for us to comprehend all at once, by many orders of magnitude, so we focus on bits we find to be useful and use those bits to learn new bits."

this doesn't seem like a "theory" at all, just a statement of the painfully obvious.

Why would you disagree? It's not a matter of trying hard enough or being educated enough, what we know and can know of our world is limited by our ability to investigate it.

Imagine you're in a room with various objects, and let's say that you don't have your senses of sight or smell. You'll fumble around the room, eventually stumbling into every object. All you can do to learn more about each object is to feel them, lick them, and hear them by tapping or patting them.

But no matter what, you will never be able to know these objects' color or how they smell. You cannot use the senses available to you to ever determine this information for sure, at best you can make assumptions. You'll never know what colors these objects have, but perhaps in the case of smell you can make an inference based on their taste.

So that's the idea with us trying to understand how the world works. We can only go as far as the tools available to us allow us to.

I think this comes down to semantics. Just because I come along and describe a bottle as a weapon and someone else describes it as an environmental disaster doesn’t mean that bottle is actually separate things.

There is a thing that bottle actually is. Though language may not be able to describe it wholly. And, just because we might come along and find different uses for the bottle or think up different ways to describe it, or maybe we even learn some new thing that is essential to its botttleness, this does not mean the bottle has changed in some fundamental way. The only thing that changes is the way we look at it, and describe it.

[removed]

I thought it was a pretty funny joke till the last line haha

In every single creature we are acutely aware of their limited awareness of reality. We don't assume ants can understand calculus. While we seem to understand more it shouldn't be the assumption that we aren't limited in our perception in the same way ants are. The absolute strangest option is that our perception of reality is anywhere near complete and accurate.

Also quite similar to the Buddhist concept of emptiness.