Our concepts/images/ideas have features/details that we have inherited/learned through a continuous lineage that reaches back into the unknown dark (experiences/events in the past that are gone; there was no documentary crew there to record it). All we have is this idea.

This is similar to our relation to the evolved structure of our brains.

So…what do we know?

p.s. Wait, not just “sense impressions”, but also: emotions, memories, imagination, visions, etc.

There is an essential similarity between addiction (esp. quitting) and sorites paradoxes: What difference does one more cigarette/margarita/pebble/hair/etc. make?

First of all: sorites paradoxes (or ‘the paradox of the heap’). 1,000 pebbles together certainly constitutes a heap. 3 pebbles certainly doesn’t. What about 999 pebbles? Yes. 998? Yes. The question is: Where is the line? Is there a line where the collection of pebbles is no longer a heap? It seems not.

The same pattern is found in the reasoning of the addict who wants to quit: I’ll buy one more pack…What difference will one more day of smoking make? (I’ll quit tomorrow.)

The pattern should be clear, but what does it say? I’m not sure yet, but it says a lot.

The answer is to come.

If anything is a priori, then mathematics is. In a consistent mathematics, all well-formed formulas (and more?) are true statements (in that system at least). And if we have decided that nature is describable by math, then it would seem like ultimately all truths about nature are knowable a priori. That follows right?

I just wanted the entire world to know that.

“Using Twitter for literate communication is about as likely as firing up a CB radio and hearing some guy recite the Iliad”, said tech writer Bruce Sterling.

How likely are you to stumble on “literate communication” unless you work in academia? Did you really fire up twitter for the first time expecting “literate communication”? How likely is it that the next person you walk past is doing really interesting things in their life? It is unlikely to find “literate communication” (whatever that means) on twitter, it is unlikely to hear The Iliad on CB radio, and it is unlikely that the life of the next stranger you meet will inspire you at all. Big fucking deal! You are describing the social sphere in general you douchebag!

“For many people, the idea of describing your blow-by-blow activities in such detail is absurd,” hypothesized writer Clive Thompson.

OK, so fucking what? The idea of wearing jeans that hang below your knees is absurd to me. I can’t imagine myself wearing jeans like that, but SO FUCKING WHAT? Is that interesting to you? Maybe I should write a op-ed column about how I myself think those low-ass jeans look really impractical and silly? NO, YOU DON’T DO THAT. When you have thoughts like these, Clive Thompson, here is what you do instead of broadcasting them to the world: The best thing to do would be to understand that they are not interesting and the implications are actually false. The second best thing would be to just not communicate those ideas to other people. Less collateral damage that way.

Listen, Clive Thompson, I don’t doubt that many people think twitter is silly. Is that interesting? I think some things are silly too!!!!! WHO FUCKING CARES! The real problem is assholes like Clive Thompson. Holy fuck. Clive Thompson, do you ACTUALLY think that everyone should think like you? Clive Thompson, please try to imagine this world, the one where everyone thinks exactly like you. Does that sound like a better world even to you Clive Thompson? Who the fuck are you? You obviously are a significant enough figure to be quoted in the Twitter wikipedia page, and have your own page. Do you realize that by saying things like that that you are likely spreading your sentiments? You must think that you are the arbiter of morality.

I definitely think people should spread their sentiments, if they are not fucking stupid. The only way to avoid saying fucking stupid things is by censoring yourself. I VERY OFTEN have fucking stupid ideas/thoughts/reactions. Over the years to developed the skill of editing the things that I share with people. It works wonders. You can actually tell people how to think about you, what you associate you with, etc. So, I edit the thoughts that I communicate in order to create a particular desired impression in other people. If you do this, then you must want to create the impression that you are an asshole douchebag tool or something, and I don’t understand why anyone would want to do that, so I am confused by your statements. It just doesn’t make sense why anyone would say something like that (other than to be an asshole).

Does this statement sound controversial: not all of the ideas/thoughts/feelings that you have are true, not all of them are appropriate, not all of them are constructive.

I realize that I am doing the same thing that Clive Thompson is doing, I’m ranting, but the difference is that mine is constructive and not false like Clive Thompson. My reasons are thought out and and make sense at the very least. The world would be well-served if people like Clive Thompson would just keep their mouths closed.

I had a brilliant idea the other day. For some reason I was talking about libertarians the other day (I say “for some reason” because I almost never talk about politics, and I don’t talk about politics because I don’t care about politics. if we all just ignored the libertarians, the country would be so much better. I don’t really even give a shit how much it costs, I wish they would all just shut the fuck up. Not just libertarians either, most political parties, and most people in general should all shut the fuck up, or say something interesting, and give me a compelling reason to agree with you.

Here is another thing that people don’t seem to realize: there are two sense of “political” that I think are easily, if not subconsciously conflated. One is the philosopher’s definition You could say that ‘politics’, at the broadest, deals with systems of order in a society of people. The other sense of “political” is more synonymous with being factious. this first sense is the more interesting one. By “system”, I don’t think we even have to mean an established body of governors. The system can be constituted by the polis. I’m not saying it should be, and I’m saying it shouldn’t be constituted by the people at this point. But I am including form of anarchism as an example of ‘politics’ as well.

“Why would you subject your friends to your daily minutiae? And conversely, how much of their trivia can you absorb? The growth of ambient intimacy can seem like modern narcissism taken to a new, supermetabolic extreme—the ultimate expression of a generation of celebrity-addled youths who believe their every utterance is fascinating and ought to be shared with the world.”

Who we are dealing with here is a person who cannot conceive of twitter having any use/place/importance/positive effect/etc. Maybe people who can’t understand things should stop acting like they know something about things. Just a thought.

Here’s another thing Clive Thompson, whoever you are, do you never in face-to-face conversations tell other people what you’ve been doing in the shortest amount of time possible? I bet you even report minutiae sometimes. I would certainly consider these thoughts that you expressed as minutiae. Like I said, “big deal, somebody doesn’t like twitter, big fucking deal”.

What the fuck even is this “modern narcissism” that you are throwing around as if it were a fact like the fact that Barry Bonds used steroids. We talk about how vain our modern society is, but is surely a ridiculous generalization, practically baseless. You’ve met a lot of people who you think are narcissistic? You look at people sending tweets and immediately think that they are being narcissistic? You act as if every tweet that anyone makes is about how they got their hair cut or something. What the fuck is wrong with liking your hair to look good. Clive Thompson, do you never make apparel choices because you like the way it looks? Then what the fuck are you talking about?

Another thing, when you say something, don’t you like it to be heard by someone? Does that make you narcissistic? What you are ACTUALLY saying is that you don’t like what the people are saying. It has very little to do with the medium. You just ASSUME that twitter technology is causing this. But I think you will notice that I don’t think human nature has changed as a result of twitter. This is the kind of bullshit that can pass for copy in the media, especially if you are the media.

And look fuckface, can you not conceive that not every tweet was written for you? maybe it was interesting to someone else? maybe the person is a fasion designer who is experimenting with hairstyle, or ANYBODY experimenting with hairstyle. Is there something wrong with being concerned about your appearance? WTF!

During a February 2009 discussion on National Public Radio’s Weekend Edition, Daniel Schorr noted that Twitter accounts of events lacked rigorous fact-checking and other editorial improvements. In response, Andy Carvin gave Schorr two examples of breaking news stories that played out on Twitter and said users wanted first-hand accounts and sometimes debunked stories.[81]

“Lacked rigorous fact-checking”? You shouldn’t be comparing twitter to the news media. Certainly twitter has an effect on the news media, but it isn’t a news media application/device. How often does anyone in face-to-face communication have “rigorous fact-checking”? A whole hell of a lot less than they do when they are on the Internet.

In an episode of The Daily Show on February 26, 2009, guest Brian Williams derided tweets as only referring to the condition of the author in any given instant. Williams implied that he would never use Twitter because nothing he did was interesting enough to publish in Twitter format.

Fine, and what is wrong with reporting the current condition of an individual?

In March 2009, the comic strip Doonesbury began to satirize Twitter. Many characters highlighted the triviality of tweets although one defended the need to keep up with the constant-update trend.[84] SuperNews! similarly satirized Twitter as an addiction to “constant self-affirmation” and said tweets were nothing more than “shouts into the darkness hoping someone is listening”.[85]

All of these points have been addressed above.

This is what you are saying: people shouldn’t use twitter unless they have something interesting to say. I am saying the exact same thing to you. What you are saying is not interesting. Is what you are saying more true because you have a wikipedia page, and you have been quoted? Fuck no.