Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Oberon

Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.07 seconds.

  1. Replies
    7
    Views
    276

    [Misc. Suggestion] ►►Re: Mafia 2.0 Feedback list, and suggestions (Part 1?)◄◄

    Remove Town Support as a category. It just makes role counting easier
    that's one extra suggestion

    As an aside, I've always wanted to play as a Neutral Evil Jailor.
  2. ►►The Chinese Room Argument, explained briefly◄◄

    You are locked in a room full of boxes containing chinese symbols, and rule book in English for manipulating the symbols. You get as input from the outside some Chinese symbols; you look up in the rule book what you're supposed to do with those symbols, and give back some symbols in Chinese.

    Unbeknownst to you, the symbols you get are questions, and the symbols you give back are correct answers, in Chinese, to the questions, such that they are indistinguishable from those a Chinese speaker would give.

    Assuming you don't understand a word of Chinese, you still pass the Turing test for understanding Chinese; you fool the other person outside into thinking they really are speaking with someone who speaks Chinese. All the same, you don't understand a single word of Chinese.

    If you cannot get from the syntax of the computer program to the semantics of understanding Chinese, then neither can any other digital computer, because no computer has something that you don't have.

    TL;DR:

    Syntax is not semantics. Computer programs are defined entirely syntactically; operations over syntactical elements.
    Human intelligence requires more than just a syntax; it requires a semantics.
    Therefore, programs which are syntactical, do not have intelligence.
  3. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I like how staff makes decisions based on macro observations rather than one guy's personal experience
    Staff could also try and talk to Exeter and see why he left... and then use their brains & knowledge of people to see if it's applicable to many people. But even so, 1 player when there's probably 100 people who play mafia, at most, is A LOT.
  4. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Unknown1234 View Post
    Given that he told his teammate that he was going to do something, but not specifically what he was going to do, I think this can be safely ruled out as a possibility.
    If you're convinced you've discovered some big-brain play you may feel so excited you will literally forget about everything else. For example, Fermat's last theorem took 378 years to prove, and Fermat stated he had discovered a proof of it (but the particular page (he was writing on the margins of a book) he was using wasn't wide enough for him write the proof down on it), but since his proof was never discovered people now assume he deluded himself into thinking he had discovered a proof whereas he hadn't. This is a relevant example because pretty much the same thing could've happened to this guy
  5. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DJarJar View Post
    the guy tried to make the justification "Why did I do that? I thought that indicting 6 as rb immune would be harmless and would even give a boost to triad. Considering that I rbed 12, I expected him to claim escort and claim that he rbed 12 "

    First of all, that plan is just stupid. it will be obvious at least one of you is lying 1 day later when you only roleblock 1 person and not 2.

    That being said, that might fly if he said anything like that to his teammate during n1 (reminder spy can't read night chat anymore).

    Instead he just said he was going to do something dumb and be ready for it. There is a reason for that that anybody reading can acknowledge is true - he knew if he actually explained his plan, his teammate would not be on board. This is why he just said he's going to do something dumb instead of explaining the plan. I'm not really sure how that's defensible but sure, w/e, staff giving a warning watchlist (AND NOT A BANLIST) is the bad thing here, not a guy who has been warned repeatedly about excessive hostility and toxicness once again finding a way to shit on others and act like it's morally okay (yes that's you renegade).
    "Anybody reading can acknowledge is true"
    No, you can acknowledge it's true. I cannot. Perhaps the guy was thinking so intensely that he literally forgot to talk to the guy about his strategy. Maybe he was super excited about what he was going to do...
  6. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Unknown1234 View Post
    But- you did react.

    Not in the way I was expected to, I think. I think I was expected to freak out so I could get banned again.
  7. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I like how staff makes decisions based on macro observations rather than one guy's personal experience
    If this is an attempt to get me to react it's a very weak one.
  8. Replies
    4
    Views
    314

    [Other Change] ►►Re: [META] Stop giving new players complex roles◄◄

    I don't like this suggestion. It affects rolecounting because if someone is a new player you will 100% know they cannot be a "complex" role.
  9. Replies
    41
    Views
    1,039

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    When I was young I heard pitbulls get put down at a certain age because they become too violent. That being said I don't think any of the arguments in this thread point to them being unintelligent. Ted Bundy had an IQ of 130 and was very violent. Aggression has nothing to do with intelligence
  10. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    The question staff should be asking themself is whether it's worth it to start punishing people more now, seeing as SC2 is dying. Some of these punishments I am pretty sure I have never heard of before and I've been here a long time.

    Exeter got infracted for leaving multiple lobbies because he didn't like the save. He specifically said in discord he might stop playing now. So that's one more player that's not coming back, in an already dying game. That's not to mention the myriad players who got banned for pedophiliac and racist names (lol). Maybe I'm just a retard, but I'm there to play the game; I don't give a rat's ass about some guy with Tourette's spamming dumb shit in the game. I play Mafia to win
  11. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Renegade is absolutely correct though. That guy was not throwing or griefing. Further, I don't think people should be punished for this kind of this thing. Its a legitimate strategy to bus your scummates, consent notwithstanding. If someone bussed I would mind it, but at the end of the day their goal was to win, same as mine. There is nothing reportable there lol

    Also, the real issue here, since the guy wasn't bussing his teammates, is that now potentially you can get infracted for pulling off a big brain move that fails for 'griefing' (lol)
  12. Replies
    7
    Views
    276

    [Misc. Suggestion] ►►Re: Mafia 2.0 Feedback list, and suggestions (Part 1?)◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by CaNNoN View Post
    I think some of the suggestions you've made are excellent, including Poisoner being non-killing, electro being less accessible, lover being NI, cult being restricted, coroner being support, and escort becoming town power (thus making it more likely).. I disagree with some, which I've elaborated below.

    1. Party host could be made more useful. It exists basically to be an intermediately-confirmed person until gov reveals. They die early and often, and are easy to counterclaim. It could be made stronger by giving it a vest option, OR, by making it more confirm-able (special chat during parties, for example). It is most certainly not a town power role in its current state.

    2. Escort is almost 100% always thought of as liaison/consort, and there's no way around it. There either needs to be a differentiator, or the role needs to be adjusted. It also needs a confirmation message. It's one of the few without. That said, making it town power may result in people believing it more, as it will be more frequent.

    3. Coroner is IMHO the strongest town invest role, but IT. NEEDS. EXTRA. NOTEPAD. SPACE. I agree it's more of a support role (invest/det/sheriff being invest, the coroner is always their supporting function). However, that will make it less common in games, as town support is looked down upon in saves.

    4. HB/Swinger are kind of boring roles. It could be made more interesting by allowing them to select another lover on a alter night (which does out them, but late-game, it could be an edge for evils)

    5. Lover being NI is a FANTASTIC addition. However, I feel like Lover (and another role I am going to suggest) deserve a new category: Neutral Chaotic (win with anyone). They're not REALLY benign, they're not REALLY evil, they exist to cause Chaos. Auditor would also fall into this category.

    6. So Poisoner is like a neutral 49er, but they don't make someone lose their powers? Interesting. Should it have a toggle option to disable abilities permanently, a la 49er?

    7. While we're at it, Spy either should be removed, or allowed to see night chat again. At least have it as a toggle option. In its current form, it basically exists as an easy role for triad to claim.

    8. Oracle literally exists to die and only to die. Perhaps one option that help confirm its existence would be a message to the person they visit "The diviners look down upon you this night" or something. It would both A) Confirm it, and B) also give mafia an edge, knowing whether they should target/lynch them.

    I don't agree on 2). The game as is fine as it is with Escort/Consort being mistaken for one another (which was the intent).
    3) Couldn't agree more
    1) Party Host should be collapsed into Crier, and Crier should not have the ability to speak during the day; Judge should always be able to talk at night
  13. Replies
    7
    Views
    276

    [Misc. Suggestion] ►►Re: Mafia 2.0 Feedback list, and suggestions (Part 1?)◄◄

    I've played a few Mafia 2.0 games, and I can safely say the following:


    -Oracle looks like a nice role but I've not had to play against it yet
    -Poisoner is nice because it fucks with the bodyguard on mayor/marshall meta
    -RNG sucks. EB/Creepy doll have no reason to exist. This is a game based on skill. Don't add RNG to it please
  14. Replies
    41
    Views
    1,039

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.
    I think oops is just trolling
  15. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    The argument here isn't even valid, because it's based on the faulty assumption that the guy wanted to bus his Dragon Head. Here he explains his intent:

    "thought that indicting 6 as rb immune would be harmless and would even give a boost to triad. Considering that I rbed 12, I expected him to claim escort and claim that he rbed 12 or town roleblock immune. And as such, increasing trust in case of one of us dies. I never expected 6 to be lynched d2."

    So it isn't even about bussing. He was trying to improve triad position by calling basically both him and the dragon head escorts. There is no bussing here lol
  16. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumi View Post
    I'm Lumi and I support this message.

    Also, mandatory disclaimer because of my red name: this is NOT just my point of view, it is prompted by MM, it doesn't represent staff's views as a whole, but it does represent both the word of God and the will of Santa Claus.



    What is allowed and works in arcade, isn't necessarily allowed in FM and vice versa. They're two different environments with two different sets of rules. There are parallels between them leading to many similar rules, but any argument based on "it's allowed in X, therefore it should be allowed in Y" is not logically sound.

    As MM pointed out the core concept in question here is whether or not punishment should be based solely on intent.


    I also reviewed the case and believe the correct decision was made, and would be more than willing to discuss it with anyone who wishes, just message me on Discord.
    Making this thread about "should punishments be solely based on intent, or should other factors be considered as well?" would also be neat.

    I think the case for punishing on intent AND other factors is a pretty easy conclusion to reach.
    Why would you punish for anything other than intent? Intent is all that counts. If the guy didn't mean to bus and was just executing a strategy, I actually see nothing wrong with what he did. Its not like he's gonna throw every game away or something
  17. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Why is it not allowed to bus people?? Also, from the sounds of it, it doesn't even sound like bussing was the intent. It also doesn't sound like a strategy someone would disagree with: "claim escort and that you Rb'd whoever I actually Rb'd". Why is this such an extreme play? Its actually valid.
  18. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMostache View Post
    If you consider bussing your teammate without consent to be a legitimate strategy, then you should accept the fact that reactionary gamethrowing in this case should not be punished either.

    You now have situations where a mafia is selling out their teammate, and then they react with" "yea.. my teammate is throwing the game, 2 7 10 are mafia. I'm joining next lobby".
    This is a stupid point. Anything could lead to reactionary gamethrowing because people are different and complicated. You don't punish Godfathers who fuck up even though it could result in throwing by salty mafia players.
  19. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    (I don't really care cuz I barely play mafia much anymore but yeah)
  20. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,328

    ►►Re: Extreme Policing by Staff of Legitimate Play◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    It's not fun to be lynched by your scummate who didn't tell you that it was going to happen ahead of time. I hope you play because you have fun.
    This is a weak argument. Why don't we start punishing people who make really bad jokes in the game? Aka half the population
  21. Replies
    17
    Views
    509

    ►►Re: Uvalde and American Gun Control◄◄

    What if we banned people instead of guns
  22. Replies
    1
    Views
    96

    ►►Politics and Dividing People into Groups◄◄

    Politics is almost invariably stupid bullshit we could do without. I've come to the conclusion that most groups people talk about in politics (such as nations, social classes, etc) do not actually exist. How can people be grouped on the basis of accidentally speaking the same language?? In the course of my life, I've met people from all corners of the globe and honestly, I can safely say I had more in common with some of them than with some other people from my own country.

    I actually think these groupings distracts people from seeing reality as it is. And, the worst part is, I do not think it is in the least the result of "careful oppression" (lol). People just get attracted to these insane ideas for whatever reason. You can see an example of this when the whole media started discrediting Russia's attack on Ukraine by saying Ukraine and Russia have always been separate, etc... Like that fucking matters! In my view, they could all speak RUSSIAN with perfect Russian accents and it wouldn't matter one bit. But, yeah, where I was going with this is, I believe people actually believe in these groupings because it's erm... nice? I lack a proper explanation for it, but they believe in it because it makes them all warm and fuzzy inside.

    And of course, as we've seen in this and the previous century, you can divide people into groups on any basis. Race, gender, ... the possibilities are totally limitless. If one could come up with an example of this that didn't involve a grouping we're already familiar with, it would be extremely apparent how stupid it is to come up with any group in general.
  23. Replies
    17
    Views
    509

    ►►Re: Uvalde and American Gun Control◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I don't think the number of guns is an issue. Switzerland also has shittons of guns and you don't see these kind of weird attacks there lol
    America is just... a very violent place, it seems. Why? That could be anybody's guess. It's not like there's more psychopaths in America, right?
    Yeah, pretty much if you think about it, you could gimme a gun and I wouldn't start shooting up people. So the only conclusion is that something is wrong with Americans, not the guns.
  24. Replies
    17
    Views
    509

    ►►Re: Uvalde and American Gun Control◄◄

    At the very least, I really do not see why there would be more psychopaths there. Maybe they're just more visible or something
  25. Replies
    17
    Views
    509

    ►►Re: Uvalde and American Gun Control◄◄

    I don't think the number of guns is an issue. Switzerland also has shittons of guns and you don't see these kind of weird attacks there lol
    America is just... a very violent place, it seems. Why? That could be anybody's guess. It's not like there's more psychopaths in America, right?
  26. Forum:Circlejerk

    Thread:I love the Moore Penrose inverse

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    1
    Views
    306

    ►►I love the Moore Penrose inverse◄◄

    I love the Moore penrose inverse
  27. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Discuss

    Thread Author:Lumi

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    19
    Views
    827

    ►►Re: Discuss◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    How does someone else being your mother make someone else your son? Be honest... have you played CK2 recently?
    We're all descended from Adam and Eve and thus we're all cousins
  28. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Discuss

    Thread Author:Lumi

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    19
    Views
    827

    ►►Re: Discuss◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DJarJar View Post
    does that make you my son?
    Yes
  29. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Discuss

    Thread Author:Lumi

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    19
    Views
    827

    ►►Re: Discuss◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DJarJar View Post
    who is lag?
    Your mother
  30. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Discuss

    Thread Author:Lumi

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    19
    Views
    827

    ►►Re: Discuss◄◄

    Marshmallow Marshall is a furry and I will have at him.
    RAWR
  31. ►►Re: Infinities being bigger than others, "countable" and "non countable" infinities◄◄

    I actually have no idea how you could misunderstand my point so hard lmao, unless you just didn't read or something
  32. ►►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.

    This is not the case for the irrational numbers, because every irrational number is a countably infinite sequence of digits.
  33. ►►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.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato
    Your third line misrepresents the whole argument because the set of rational numbers are countable and are a certain permutation of the natural numbers.
    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 a permutation of the entire set of natural numbers and is, hence, countably infinite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato
    You haven't defined what "certain permutation" means and therefore is moot and your definition of irrational number is also completely unhelpful.
    A permutation is a certain way of ordering some set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato
    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).
    Yes, indeed. However, I'm talking about the permutations of the set of natural numbers, not reals. Whether or not the real numbers have a well-ordering is not relevant to my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Plotato
    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.
    It's not an in-between argument. You misunderstood my point about the "infinity of infinities"; I'm not talking about all the segments of [0, 1) that you can copy paste onto each other over and over, but I'm talking about the numbers themselves being infinite; their representation is infinite. If their representation is infinite, you clearly need a "higher" ordinal to index into the list of infinite things: a number that can index into an infinite list of finite things has less information than it, because... you can change a finite number number of digits in a finite number, and get a fully unique, distinct number. For infinite numbers, if you change only a finite number of the first few digits you've written, there are still many numbers you could be referring to.

    So perhaps it is unsurprising that if you have an infinite list A of infinite things, that you have more information in A than in the infinite list B of finite things.
  34. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:There is no "greatest" infinity

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    4
    Views
    256

    ►►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.
  35. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:There is no "greatest" infinity

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    4
    Views
    256

    ►►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.
  36. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:There is no "greatest" infinity

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    4
    Views
    256

    ►►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?
  37. ►►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
  38. Forum:Serious Discussion, Debate & Politics

    Thread:Top 10 thinkers

    Thread Author:Oberon

    Post Author:Oberon

    Replies
    17
    Views
    1,019

    ►►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
  39. ►►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.
  40. ►►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.
  41. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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
  42. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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
  43. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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
  44. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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.
  45. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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
  46. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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.
  47. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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.
  48. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,461

    ►►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
  49. Replies
    7
    Views
    881

    ►►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
Results 1 to 50 of 2000
Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4