Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Oberon

Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.06 seconds.

  1. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    A natural number can be represented in any number encoding; for example, in binary, every natural number is some sequence of 0s and 1s. In decimal, it's a sequence of the decimal digits (0, 1, ... 9). Depending on which encoding you pick, if you try to enumerate every element in the sequence (0, 1, 2...), you get a sequence that looks slightly different, and you'll notice the length of some strings changes depending on the number of digits you use. However, it cannot be disputed that the encoding does not have any impact on the number of elements in the sequence.

    You can think of the "rational" numbers as being the natural numbers, but encoded in a number system wherein there are 11 digits: the 10 digits from (0, ... 9) and an 11th digit for representing fractions, '/'. Seeing as we've stated that it does not matter how many digits you use to represent the natural numbers, it is perhaps unsurprising that there are as many rational numbers as natural numbers. You of course have to add the constraint that '/' can never precede a sequence of all 0s, but that's a relatively minor thing. Even without that constraint they're still the same set.
  2. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    Your definitions are awful, inaccurate and unhelpful.

    A natural number to put it simply is a number represented without fraction or complex numbers. The set of all natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4,...) is our definitional basis for the countability of infinite sets.

    Your third line misrepresents the whole argument because the set of rational numbers are countable and are a certain permutation of the natural numbers. You haven't defined what "certain permutation" means and therefore is moot and your definition of irrational number is also completely unhelpful. Permutation implies a certain order and as far as it goes, the decimal construction of irrational numbers have no order to them (and therefore can't be represented as a fraction).

    You can't say it is obvious that there is "more of something". There are no more even numbers than there are natural numbers. There are no more numbers of the Fibonacci sequence than there are natural numbers. Alluded to earlier there is no more fractional numbers than there are natural numbers. Cantor's diagonalization states specifically that such a construction exists where you can generate an entirely new number from an infinite list of numbers that was not previously recorded in an infinite mapping with the natural numbers. This isn't an "inbetween argument" like the way you put it. Infinity does not work the way you describe it like it has a certain scale or something.

    The set
    of rational numbers is a permutation of the naturals. Yes, hence why the set of rationals is countable. But for irrational numbers, it is every irrational number, itself, that is countably infinite.

    Edit: Oh but I wasn't providing a definition though. I was just stating that if you think about it, a natural number is a finite sequence of digits. Not EVERY finite sequence of digits is necessarily a natural number (but can definitely encode any natural number).
  3. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:There is no "greatest" infinity

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    4
    Views
    104

    ►►Re: There is no "greatest" infinity◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    Let's not conflate mathematical definitions with whatever definitions we feel comfortable with, because this is the biggest source of definitional fuckery that goes nowhere. These definitions in math are constructed from the ground up and have no notion of what infinity is. As a result of multiple theorems and proofs, we can show that different kinds of infinities exist, and while some are larger than others, no infinity can be smaller than the set of natural numbers.

    The definition of infinite in math is something that is not finite. It's weird putting it that way but it really is; infinity is defined by the not finite state of something. In real analysis this means that there is no bound to a set. Saying that something "never ends" is reductive because depending on how we construct that "never ending" collection we will arrive that the place where there are infinities of different sizes, and as Cantor's paradox comes from the fact that there is no such thing as a "biggest" set, and if we were to assume such a set exists that has infinite cardinality then it would be the "biggest infinity", holding other infinities inside it. When people say infinity is an idea, it is; depending on how you construct it and use it.

    Normal parlance can suck it because it makes no sense outside of general conversation and metaphors
    I disagree, if it "makes no sense" outside of normal parlance, then it is mathematical definitions that do not make sense. People came up with these definitions according to an intuitive understanding of what infinity is. Math is intended to represent some "real" notion, it's not just made up nonsense.
  4. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:There is no "greatest" infinity

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    4
    Views
    104

    ►►Re: There is no "greatest" infinity◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DJarJar View Post
    hmm did you read the 2nd paragraph of the page you linked?

    the paradox applies specifically to set theory because of the way sets and the like are defined. If you try to declare there is some set that contains all other sets - well that's cool and all but i can just make the power set of that set and bam i have a bigger one. hence there's no way you could ever have a "largest" set.

    this doesn't necessarily apply to other abstract concepts of infinity, although in pretty much any case where your infinity has some arbitrary rules or bounds to it then we could find a way to break those bounds. Meanwhile a "pure infinity" with no limitations would be a pretty useless concept since there'd be no way to interact with it.
    It seems to me the definition of infinity in math is slightly different than in normal parlance. As far as I can tell, something is infinite if it "never ends" if you try to list every single element in that "it". But normally when we talk about infinity we mean some abstract thing that is very large in size and which includes "everything" else.
  5. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:There is no "greatest" infinity

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    4
    Views
    104

    ►►There is no "greatest" infinity◄◄

    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_paradox, there's no such thing as an infinite set that is larger than every other infinite set. I understand the idea behind it, but the notion sounds ridiculous to me. Surely there has to be something that is absolutely and totally infinite?
  6. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato View Post
    i knew you would still be confused about this, oh, how the germans have stumped the french once again

    mathematically, countability is defined of whether you can assign 1, 2, etc. to whatever you want to map to on a one-to-one basis, no element left unjerked. if the list is infinitely long, then, as unintuitive as it sounds, then a countably infinite list is full... matched with infinite elements, on a one-to-one basis.

    Cantor's argument comes with the above presupposition that you can build such a list where you can map every integer (1 -> 0.1232, etc) with a real number once (therefore making it countable). the order of the list doesn't matter. now why wouldn't such a list already have the whatever number produced by diagonalization? no, i can, through diagonalization, come up with a new number that won't have an sole integer assigned to. i know it sounds unintuitive, but i will make bold the affirmative. the case is: i have produced a new number of which there is not an assignment of an integer, therefore proving my idea that such a list is countable wrong. guess its not countable. this idea also implies the varying sizes to infinity, as we can't match one-to-one every element from one set of numbers to another without leaving something behind...

    the thing with math is that you have to explicitly define, prove and state everything in a sheer logical manner. the definition of "countable" is mentioned earlier, and if i, for some reason, can't make that one-to-one complete map from the integers to whatever, the definition is now uncountable by contradiction. intuition doesn't matter. somethings in math are just unintuitively the case. yes, every number that would exist exists between 0 and 1... can you "count" them all, given the definition of "countable"? if you're still thinking that you could always generate a new integer for a new real number produced, well that would just break the definition of "countable" that we have, which is a pretty good one, based off of mathematical reasoning. if we hold the definition of "countable" to be the case, well, you can't have your intuition go your way.

    please understand you escargot
    I have a much simpler explanation.
    What is a natural number? It's a finite sequence of digits. What is the totality of natural numbers? An infinite sequence of digits, ordered in a certain way.
    What is a irrational number? An infinite sequence of digits. Every irrational number corresponds to a certain permutation of the set of natural numbers. If you take all these permutations together, it is obvious there are more irrationals than naturals. You effectively run into an infinity of infinities
  7. Forum:Serious Discussion, Debate & Politics

    Thread:Top 10 thinkers

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    17
    Views
    841

    ►►Re: Top 10 thinkers◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost View Post
    Easiest way to tell everyone you have no credibility.

    Jordan Peterson is a tough academic who crushes their debate opposition that young, disenfranchised males look up to because they have no control in their lives. The world needs less of him and more better thinkers who have time to fix bigger challenges than bullying trans people because of their inherent biological gender.
    Jordan Peterson says stuff that is deeper than it looks. It's not all political
    And it's not all for helping young men
  8. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    Fun fact: you can extend this indefinitely. There are also "numbers" that have an uncountably infinite number of digits after the decimal point, in which case this set of numbers has a cardinality that is equal to (N!)!, aka equal to the cardinality of the set of all the subsets of irrational numbers.
  9. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    @Marshmallow Marshall are you still confused about this, Frenchman? I can offer a more intuitive explanation:

    The set of integers are numbers with a distance equal to 1 between them. If you draw a tick at every single natural number along a line, you will see a distance of 1 between each. However, this cannot be done with irrational numbers because every irrational number consists of a countable infinity of digits after the decimal point. This means that in order to reach the immediate neighbour of a given irrational number, you have to add or subtract an amount of the form 0.00000.....01 = 1 / infinity = 0 from each. You cannot do this.

    Basically the irrational numbers are an infinity of infinities. In fact, if you were to say that the rational/integral numbers have a cardinality of, say, N, then the irrational numbers have a cardinality that is "conceptually" equal to 2 ^ N: if you were to take the set of all possible subsets (including the whole set) of integral numbers, this set of sets would have the same cardinality as the set of irrationals: basically, there are as many subsets of the integral numbers as there are rational numbers.

    This number is bewilderingly large because this infinity is the BINARY POWER ​of another infinity.
  10. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96300305008490
    Here's an article on the topic if you're curious
  11. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    "Understanding" is a word that is hard to define. I'll put it this way: when you feel like you've finally understood something, you possess understanding (some of the time, at least). This is not the same as merely knowing that something. It is not merely a feeling, but the feeling is there when you have understanding.

    It follows from this "definition" that computers/algorithms/whatever do not possess understanding. They do not understand things like we do; they merely use grammatical rules and a set of axioms to derive new propositions from a set of initial statements.

    If you want to test this assumption yourself, picture yourself being given a list of instructions to follow. Now picture that these instructions, if performed, do something, but you cannot understand what it is that they're doing. You most clearly do not possess any understanding in this scenario. This is exactly how computers work
  12. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I've seen reference to the notions of "intelligence", "self-awareness" and "understanding" like they have concrete definitions. Is there a well defined definition I am ignorant of?

    To clarify about the distinction between "computable" and deterministic - there are classes of problems such that there is no algorithm that can solve every problem in the class, but each problem in the class has a yes or no answer. The most famous example of this is probably the halting problem. It asks if there is an algorithm which, when given an arbitrary computer program, will figure out whether the program terminates or runs indefinitely.

    Now, apparently, there are classes of problems in Quantum Mechanics which are undecidable. I do not know much Quantum Mechanics, but I at least know what "decidability" means. That's saying there are classes of problems in Quantum Mechanics for which there is literally no algorithm which can solve them. In fact, there will always be specific instances of the problem which resist a solution, regardless of your particular axiomatization of mathematics (all sensible modern mathematics is always done by making logical deductions from a consistent set of axioms. That's how we can come to absolute conclusions about truth and falsehood).

    This is very different from simply saying "there are systems / models we use in Quantum Mechanics which involve probability and randomness". This is actually a far more damning issue than having a system that involves randomness. If an omnipotent being throws a "perfect die" which is "truly random", we cannot know for sure what number will come up. But I can perfectly model and understand its mathematical structure. It simply has a 1 in 6 probability of showing any particular side. For our purposes, this may be "random", but it is at least "decidable".

    Undecidability would be more like if the mathematics involved in modelling what side comes up were so fucked up that I literally couldn't even calculate the probability. And the mathematics is so fucked up I can give a separate mathematical proof demonstrating that I literally cannot mathematically compute it.

    p;edit this blog post gives an example of a class of problems in QM which are apparently undecidable. I can't vouch for its authenticity but.. erm... they seem like they know what they're talking about https://www.i-programmer.info/news/1...decidable.html
    Just to add to your point, it appears the n-body problem may be Turing complete. One could use the n-body problem to make arbitrary computations
  13. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Both the examples you've listed are approximations of physical processes and thus aren't really related to the topic at hand.

    The question you're posing doesn't relate to the brain, it relates to all of physics. Namely you're trying to ask if it's possible that every physical process can be completely and accurately described by math.
    But it does. I just gave you an example of a physical process that may not be computable, one that does not have a soul. It seems to me a soul should be something apart from physics; like the place in which a soul could exist would have its own laws.
  14. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    So you think there are physical laws which apply to the brain which cannot be described mathematically? That sounds like a soul with more steps to me. There is no shame in believing in a soul, most of the world does so.

    Unless your point is that computers aren't yet powerful enough to simulate the brain, which is an even less interesting point.
    Lets say hypothetically that the solution to the 3-body problem is such a function, i.e. a function that cannot be described mathematically. Would you say the 3-body problem has a soul?

    I'm speaking out of my ass on this next one because I don't really know, but you could also add the Navier-Stokes equations to this list because AFAIK they also cannot be solved analytically
  15. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    It is not a bad breakdown of our conversation and is very concise. Oberon seems to have argued a difference between determinism in thought with some connection to computational thought that I don't understand but outside of that its a good summary imo.
    Its little to do with determinism. It's about whether or not human minds have capabilities that computers do not possess. To put it plainly, given an infinite amount of time, I believe there are answers that people would be able to reach that computers would not.

    Are there still answers that neither can reach? I believe the answer is yes but I am not certain.
  16. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    This has nothing to do with belief in a soul. If there are physical laws that are deterministic, but which cannot be computed by a given Turing machine (or an algorithm, since they are equivalent), and these laws can be harnessed to perform computations, then it must follow that it is physically possible for computers more computationally capable than the ones we have now to exist.

    It certainly seems to me that the mind is such a computer; I do not see where the idealism/dualism comes into play. Certainly one solution to the problem of a mind that is a hyper-Turing machine involves a mind that is not reducible to the brain, but it isn't necessary.
  17. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable.

    The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches

    1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot.

    If yes, then:

    2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine".
    3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul.

    This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation.
    3) Does not follow.

    Assuming the mind can be reduced to the brain, a physical mind that can "compute" non-Turing computable "functions" has to be based on physical laws that are not computable. I do not see where the belief in a soul comes into play
  18. Replies
    7
    Views
    751

    ►►Re: S-FM 342: Cross-Community Game At MafiaCafe!◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    @Auwt Arise from your slumber, O ye mighty, and come get role madness'd
    Behold, a French summoning
  19. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    And yes I agree that thinking is deterministic. I am aware there is little hard evidence out there but I am pretty convinced of this as, the more intelligent people are, you'd expect them to be more random, which is a bit strange. I mean how could something that gets more random be better? Shouldn't it get... worse, approaching a 50/50 split?
    Just wanted to add that randomness does not require a 50/50 split. True randomness can come from any distribution - including none - and it is impossible to predict in advance what the sequence will look like.

    In fact, a distribution implies some kind of determinism.
  20. Forum:Serious Discussion, Debate & Politics

    Thread:Top 10 thinkers

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    17
    Views
    841

    ►►Re: Top 10 thinkers◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by WrathCyber View Post
    You named a lot of nobel laureates there.
    not on purpose if that's what you're wondering lol
  21. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Literally this lol. And to add something because now I feel cheap: scumchats that aren't 24/7 absolutely can contribute to setups that are "asking questions" such as the ones Lag linked; setups centered around communication and nuances in communication are a perfect example of this.

    And I'm totally not repeating what everyone said already but balance is a means to attain fun, not the end goal, no matter how important the means can be.


    Yes, we know Lag is cool

    That doesn't mean discussions about setups aren't fun, interesting, or productive, though! I really like what I've seen in this thread. Part of the fun in playing Mafia is being a game theory nerd, after all, just like how playing with new people is part of it!
    game theory is cringe
  22. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    On the most basic level playing games is about having fun. Its usually more fun for a wolf team to have 24/7 on multiple levels but balance is also a big requirement.

    If the goal is to bring people here I think a separate conversation should be held about what people consider fun and what this sites 'brand' of fun is.
    I like complexity on the mechanical side that enables and drives conversation while allowing for lies, gambits, deception, and analysis.
    I dislike functions that remove analysis, games that do not have enough action to maintain interest/conversation or mechanics that can not be countered by play.

    At its core I believe the main thing that makes games fun is people being able to influence how they do. At some point I made a bunch of ramblings on some core concepts for setup designing I might try to dig up but thats a bit of it off the top of my head. Also why someday I would like to make something that quantifys a sort of point value for individual measurement removing the social loafing issue that drags some games down.
    I agree with your point. It seems to me that we should also ask ourselves whether we find night chats more fun than 24/7; we don't have to change ourselves, and neither do they, necessarily, unless we really want more people to come here.

    Do we want more people coming here? Perhaps, perhaps not. More is not necessarily better if it makes games less fun, but it is also true I hardly see having only 24/7 chats from now on as being detrimental in and of itself.

    I personally dislike complexity on the mechanical side as I feel it tends to detract from the game (but then again I'm a person who gets obsessed with all the mechanical possibilities, and not everyone is like me).
  23. Forum:Approved Forum Mafia Setups

    Thread:S-FM High Noon (18P)

    Thread Author:Guillo

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    26
    Views
    714

    ►►Re: S-FM High Noon◄◄

    13v4 doesn't seem that scumsided to me
    Having a large scum team is bad, not good
  24. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    I'm now utterly confused about what you guys want. I can't tell if you want to change this to improve balance or if you want people used to 24/7 to stay
  25. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    I think that a better idea, since such a default cannot exist (unless you enforce it as a general site rule, and only allow night chats as an exception), is to ask people to start making setups that include 24/7 chats in case new people show up who might hate night chats. I think the latter is perfectly reasonable and hence I believe that the discussion can stop here, unless you're talking about restricting ladder games to solely 24/7 chats.
  26. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I don't really understand the point of having a 'default.'

    The aspects of 24/7 I do not believe were pointed out is how it allows for stronger puppet shows/coaching upping the overall wolf IQ for the new players. I really like this because wolfing with good wolves really improves newer wolves ability and helps spread strategy.

    It also helps prevent the frustration that is inherent to wolfing. When you have a team mate overly bussing, supporting you, or even just making a play you see as bad its not fun. Being able to talk to them about it removes a lot of that frustration.

    I think consideration should also be given to the abnormal level of complexity this site hosts. Other sites have grown to accept complicated setups but SC2 still is pretty out there and has some unique day game mechanics that matter when considering 24/7 vs day/night.

    As I said in the beginning, I don't see a reason to declare a default at all and it makes more sense to leave it as a balance function. For a parallel it would be like declaring a default night cycle and requiring reasoning to do anything else. I just do not see what that accomplishes.
    I THINK the idea is that it would attract more people from other sites, since apparently on these 'other sites' 24/7 chats are the norm.
  27. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    who knows
    popular guess is that night only chat is a miserable experience for mafia by comparison
    Miserable seems too strong a word tbh. I'd play either
  28. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    If you really wanna see if more people are gonna join on-site games if 24/7 mafia chats become the norm, try running a few games like those on-site and see if people stay. Or conduct a survey and just ask a lot of people if they'd consider signing for a game on a different site with night-only chats.

    PERSONALLY, I would join a game with 24/7 chats as readily as any other game so I kinda doubt people care that much
  29. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    With “only night chat”, the strongest scum teams I was in just made up cues to secretly communicate during the day anyway.

    Like “I will @ everyone but the third person I @ is who I saw my target visit”

    At that point you might as well just give us a 24/7 scum chat.

    Also it’s way more new player friendly to have 24/7 scum chat. I feel like playing your first game ever and roleing scum with no ability to get advice is a fast ticket to somebody never signing again


    Also I feel like you presented the change the wrong way cuz it’s not like hosts are being forced to use it, it’s just changing the default setting
    What is the "default setting" tho
  30. Replies
    52
    Views
    1,794

    ►►Re: 24/7 Wolf Chat vs Night-Only Wolf Chat◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    This should be the only criteria for all I care. And it's not even a subjective statement because mafiascum have made the research and concluded that statistically there's far fewer replacements in 24/7
    mafia chat games.
    Though weren't Mafiascum games like a week per game day or something? That's different if so..
    Why would this be the case
  31. Forum:Setup Workshop

    Thread:S-FM Texorami

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    51
    Views
    1,552

    [WIP] ►►Re: S-FM Texorami◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Alright, so what is the conclusion of all of this estimated value discussion? That everything is fine, right? lol

    Apart from this, please specify the usual stuff under Mechanics: phase lenght, lynch mechanics, etc.
    Would like to host this in the near future
  32. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    I would 100% do this again. The only thing I would really change about my play is read more properly when people are as aggressive DoctorZeus was.
  33. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    I think everyone mistook my posts as a defense of ceko, which they were not lol. It was an attack on the idea of policy lynching people.

    It's basically just setting a barrier past which you do not feel bad if you are wrong. At the end of the day, the fact is, if you lynch town, you're still wrong.
  34. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    There was no MVP this game, but I would nominate myself if I could
  35. Forum:Serious Discussion, Debate & Politics

    Thread:Top 10 thinkers

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    17
    Views
    841

    ►►Re: Top 10 thinkers◄◄

    I think the stuff Peterson says is deeper than it looks. Like at first I thought he was just spewing nonsense and branding it off as profound philosophy, but a lot of the ideas he espouses, I've reached myself on my own. He just builds a lot of allegory and uses a somewhat mystical language to explain it
  36. Forum:Serious Discussion, Debate & Politics

    Thread:Top 10 thinkers

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    17
    Views
    841

    ►►Top 10 thinkers◄◄

    Ozy asked me to post this so here it goes.

    I don't think I can come up with 10 but here goes, in no particular order:

    Searle
    Gödel
    Lovelace
    Penrose
    Schrödinger
    Da Vinci
    Jordan Peterson
    Democritus
    some guy in the 18th century who asked what would happen if someone duplicated his brain years after his death

    post your own list
  37. Forum:Setup Workshop

    Thread:S-FM Texorami

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    51
    Views
    1,552

    [WIP] ►►Re: S-FM Texorami◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Alright, so what is the conclusion of all of this estimated value discussion? That everything is fine, right? lol

    Apart from this, please specify the usual stuff under Mechanics: phase lenght, lynch mechanics, etc.
    Done
  38. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757
  39. Replies
    79
    Views
    3,757

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    No arguments exist in favour of the brain being computational in nature, other than that it may be. Whenever I tried to envision an algorithm according to which the brain could function, I could never come up with one but told myself there had to be one.

    This is all well and good, however when looking at the arguments against, plenty come to mind. Therefore the mind must be non-computational. This seems to be a nearly certain fact.

    I challenge someone to come up with argument as to why the brain has to be algorithmic
  40. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorZeus View Post
    Well fuck you then

    -daykill @Oberon

    @Stealthbomber16
    You're a fucking moron lol I wasn't even scum reading you
  41. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    DoctorZeus + MM = scumteam
    Get zeus
  42. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorZeus View Post
    How did you do this
    You're the next one to die. You will die by my fucking hand
  43. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Either that or you're straight up scum or fucking dumb
  44. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DoctorZeus View Post
    Followed by this:
    You need to up your reading comprehension because right now it's on the level of a monkey
  45. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Next one to daykill gets killed by me
  46. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    That's all for now, I'll read the game tomorrow morning when I'm less tired.
    Don't hammer or you're fucking dead.
  47. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    ALSO we should seriously consider punishing Martin by day killing him today
  48. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD please do not lynch/daykill anyone for 48 hours. I'm planning on reading this entire game in my spyglass mode to detect bullshit
    if anyone hammers or day kills before then, I will fucking kill you
  49. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by theoneceko View Post
    is this a serious post?
    No lol
  50. Replies
    713
    Views
    17,367

    ►►Re: S-FM 341: American Flag Nightless◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    You may refer to him by the pronoun "asshole"
    No u
Results 1 to 50 of 2000
Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4