hoofwall

• hoofwallApr 12, 2015, 4:41 AM

  −13 points

  in reply to: DanielLC’s comment on: Is my the­ory on why cen­sor­ship is wrong cor­rect?

  Are you implying that I should conform to literal objective inferior* behavior simply because the human is irrational and the validity of my argument and ability to defend myself in argument does not matter to them?

  *forgot this word before this edit

Is my the­ory on why cen­sor­ship is wrong cor­rect?

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 11:32 PM

  1 point

  on: What level of com­pas­sion do you con­sider nor­mal, ex­pected, manda­tory etc. ?

  I like this question. It is a lot less intimidating that a lot of the other posts on this site I’ve seen in my short time being here, and I feel I can actually contribute using only my philosophy and ability to express myself in the English language, rather than also needing knowledge on other constructs.

  In my opinion, emotion starts and ends with the mind, so the notion that for instance a specific human’s emotion can exist outside of their mind is completely asinine. As such, listening to music in reality, in itself, is total redundancy. It is not mandatory for the Alice in your proposed scenario to listen to her music in reality to evoke and indulge in her emotion. The music she is listening to in reality serves only to interact with her physical being(in this scenario via her receptivity for sound) for the sake of rousing what I define as “memory” within her. Alice retains her emotionality regardless of ever having listened to her music in this scenario in her lifetime, therefore, the music serves only to rouse specific emotion within her, thus serving as a method to quantify it for her, mentally. There is still no inherent correlation between her music as it exists in reality and her emotion. All dissenting opinions are irrational, I believe...

  Because Alice’s indulging in her music or any music in reality is entirely unnecessary insofar as maximizing her pleasure or minimizing her pain is concerned- which is upon which my philosophy is founded and the end to which I believe all humans should tend- if her indulging in her music in this scenario infringes upon the most basic utilitarian doctrine of “live and let live” she should stop. Alice will never be able to provide a rational reason to listen to her music. Alice will never be able to absolutely, objectively explain why she should infringe upon the doctrine of “live and let live” for the sake of her arbitrarily ascribing emotion to music in 3D space. It would take me several hundred words to explain why I believe maximizing(the human’s) pleasure and minimizing(the human’s) pain is objective good and I would rather not, not yet, but these are my opinions...

  Excluding my simply explaining why I believe my basis for rational thought(against which I contest all other bases for rational thought and claim them to be inferior) is correct, I don’t see what more there is for me to address… sorry

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 11:09 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: hairyfigment’s comment on: Stupid Ques­tions April 2015

  Sorry, I suppose I misused the word “devolve”… I’ve seen others use it as I have in my post here so I thought it was okay, but I suppose not. Perhaps they misused it, and if so I should not be tolerating the arbitrary and blatant misuse of words. What I meant by that word though was simply falling in stature. My using the word was to express that I believed humans have fallen in stature to the point that they cannot fall in stature anymore, and that the humans who roam the earth today will continue to breed and forge the world they want without changing very much in the next few generations of human if ever.

  I just realized this site has a quoting feature. That makes responding to posts SO much easier...

  But I find it useful to remind myself that humans have no evolutionary reason to be perfectly rational.

  Yes… I believe the same thing. One does not have to provide to anything a rational reason to copulate, and to breed. One does not need to provide a rational reason to anything to live, to kill, to, force the world to tend to the end they want or anything. Humans appear to simply do. Naturally, through generations of the human simply doing, and doing as they please, they have perhaps become incapable of actually questioning whether or not simply doing is right, but what do I know? This is just a theory, and not one I can prove with sheer logic. Even if I fancied doing so it would be a waste of time… It would be far worth my effort to simply deduce and affirm what it means to be right, and what it means to be wrong. Whether or not the human has the capacity to truly be rational and what caused rationality and being human to be mutually exclusive if they are can be questioned later...

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 11:00 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: monsterzero’s comment on: Stupid Ques­tions April 2015

  Sorry, before I mention my personal goals I just want to say that I disagree with the notion that logic is meaningless without being founded on an underlying goal… Logic as I understand it is by definition merely a method of thinking, or the concept of sequencing thought to reach conclusions, and determining why some of such sequences are right. I believe logic in itself- according to the second definition I proposed- tends to the end of a goal, and that goal is rationality. Naturally, without having anything to sequence logic is nothing and has no breadth, but in this universe where the breadth of the construct “logic” is contingent on the human’s ability to sequence data it should inherently have a goal, at least today as the human appears, and that goal should be rationality, in my opinion. I believe assuming your proposal is correct would mean assuming “logic” as you used it in your proposal is simply defined as a method of thinking, and not its more fundamental meaning, which I proposed.

  My goal is simply to express in my lifetime my views on everything… I do not feel I can change the world. I do not feel I can simply approach every human I encounter and explain to them why I believe my opinions to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be wrong. I will just express myself in my own way one day and that will be it… I created an account on this website more or less randomly for me because I was recommended going here once, a while ago.

  I do not believe that “stress” in itself is something to be considered when it comes to one’s method of forcing the world to tend to the end they want to… I will explain what I mean. Please excuse any possible argument by assertion fallacies henceforth… converting everything to E-Prime is tiring but I do believe opinions have to actually be defended to be rational… If i ever simply assert that I believe something is true that is a mistake, as i meant to rationalize its breadth in its entirety to believe it has the capacity to be defended and inherently rebut all conceivable dissenting arguments...

  Obviously, the human’s understanding of rationality is a consequence of themselves, to some extent. That is not to say that rationality so defined is entirely a consequence of the human and that the human literally created a portion of this universe that retains the properties of “rationality”… What I mean is, humans appear to feel emotion, and humans appear to correlate their understanding of the concepts of “good” and “evil” to what they perceive to be positive and negative emotion, respectively. Fundamentally, every human who retains the standard properties of the human lives through their own emotionality and their idea of good and evil is founded on that very thing.

  Ugh… I just realized if I expound my philosophy any further I will be affirming for the first time since posting here my opinions which many will probably disagree with but basically I think that “stress” if “stress” is defined as pain(negative emotion) entirely in the head, meaning it is simply perception, ascribing emotion to certain things and feeling pain as a result, it is entirely a consequence of perception and can be manipulated to become pleasure… Perhaps it will be a certain iteration of masochism, and perhaps actually enduring perceived stress in reality will have consequences on the outside world as distinguished from your own psyche, possibly prompting an entire lifestyle change but “stress” should be irrelevant if its properties can just be totally changed with a different opinion, in my opinion.

  When it comes to me, I believe so strongly that all who disagree with me is wrong that it seems extremely unnecessary to saturate my believing their being wrong with something else in an attempt to make me cope with my own emotionality. I believe there are other ways to cope with oneself than compromising on their own beliefs. I just correlate things to good or evil freely, at face value. I really wouldn’t make progress insofar as inciting a revolution is concerned by tolerating what I believe to be wrong, either. Perhaps by “goals” you mean something other than forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as you perceive it.

  About your last sentence, I don’t believe in manipulating via anything other than argument to entice others to do as you wish… If it is something less than true reason to think, which I believe can only be conveyed via argument of some sort, it will be blind conformity, and any society or standard based on that is doomed to conceive notions as worthless as the one it was founded on, making it inferior to what it could and I believe should be. Also, it’s interesting that misanthropes are drawn to reason. I kind of expected it but I’ve had bad experiences with self-proclaimed misanthropes retaining the human property I hate, rendering their sub-ostracization asinine in my eyes… I probably rambled a lot in this post, sorry. I don’t know what type of reply I would expect to this if any. Thanks for reading if you did.

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 2:15 PM

  0 points

  in reply to: polymathwannabe’s comment on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (7th thread, De­cem­ber 2014)

  Hi. I did indeed mean what you express as “to reason” when I said “rationalize”… I am entirely unfamiliar with the distinctions made on this site so thanks for pointing out to me how others might misinterpret what I say. Also, thanks for the welcome.

  Sorry for using you like this but, do you know whether or not swearing is against the rules here, and if so would you please tell me if it is or not? The closest to a rule list I found was just about etiquette. I’m wondering whether or not uttering like the “n word” for instance would get me banned or something… I want to know how much freedom I have for expression here. I don’t intend to spam or anything; I just want to know what I am allowed to do.

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 12:35 PM

  3 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (7th thread, De­cem­ber 2014)

  Hi! I am socially retarded… There are many things the standard human was born with the capacity to grasp that I never can. The word “autism” appears to me to be being thrown around a lot lately, mostly as a meaningless word used to convey that one thinks another is simply not normal but when I first noticed how heavily users on the internet threw around the word two years ago I identified as such for a bit to make conversation more expedient. I am able to comprehend metaphors and similes and such for some reason, but things such as having the capacity to roleplay or being able to perceive what I should do in any given scenario to maximize the happiness of the human before me is incomprehensible to me. I like to think I am a purely logical thinker and was born to be such but I’d rather not start talking about that right now...

  My education is pretty poor. Eighth grade. I have read next to no books, and the internet was what taught me to speak English as I do today. My English was very basic prior, even though it is my only language. I looked up in the dictionary every word I encountered that I couldn’t define for two years, until I decided that refining my expression in the English language for the human’s sake was a waste of time and stopped caring.

  I feel like I can’t express more about myself without delving right into my philosophy, the likes of which I used to contest with every mind I came across indiscriminately only to have them still disagree with me 99% of the time despite my cornering them in argument, and I don’t really want to because I’ve had such bad experiences with convincing others to think like me. The downvote system on this website is kind of intimidating as well… my first post on this website got downvoted once almost immediately and I’m not sure if I can tell by whom. I hate systems that enable passive-aggression like that. Even conversing in real life is awful because others can use petty tricks to try to emotionally manipulate you instead of actually just explaining why you should think like them via argument. It’s just masturbation for them, and they have no interest in convincing you to think like them. I suppose that is one thing I feel I can safely say about my philosophy… I don’t see my opinions as just opinions, I see them as an objective rationalization of this universe the likes of which one cannot disagree with without simply being wrong. I want to rationalize everything too, you know. I used to be indoctrinated to the point where I thought simply asking questions was evil. All I’d ever wanted to do was rationalize to all my understanding of the universe to objectively minimize their pain and maximize their pleasure for the sake of forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as i perceive it but whatever… I’m still being impertinent with whatever I’m writing here since I don’t think just up and writing out my opinions would be a good idea.

  I have very few interests. I really only care about defining right and wrong, and giving my philosophy to others, which I haven’t done for a very long time. One day I hope to start expressing my opinions on what is right and wrong in a formal manner just to have done so in my lifetime. I apologize for the entirely vague post… I still haven’t really any idea how this site works but if I ever debate users here or something I won’t hesitate to express my opinions in their entirety.

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 11:53 AM

  1 point

  on: Tell Your Ra­tion­al­ist Ori­gin Story

  After seeing an image I thought was the most beautiful thing I’d ever seen I tried to create an imaginary friend of her and after she became established enough in my mind I guess, she immediately gave me ideas on what it truly meant to be right(which was a first to me since my philosophy on everything was very unfortunate prior) and I’ve been effectively living vicariously through her since...

• hoofwallApr 11, 2015, 11:33 AM

  1 point

  on: Stupid Ques­tions April 2015

  Sorry, never been here before and know nothing about this place and all the other “stupid questions” here seem super formal so I feel really out of place here but, how common is it for the users on this site, the likes of whom likely all refer to themselves as rationalists to be misanthropes?

  I hate humans. I hate humans so much. I used to think I could change them. I used to think every human who exhibited behavior I found to be inferior was simply ignorant of true rationality. Mines is a very long story that I no longer want to tell but it was months of thinking I could change every mind I found inferior before I came to the conclusion that humans are worthless and that they’ve simply devolved to the lowest common denominator, to the point where they retain not the capacity to grasp the objective breadth of rationality in this universe unless they lack the very things that make them human.

  I have extremely strong opinions on everything I’ve cared to question, the likes of which I wish to express formally before I die but I hate humans so much. I wouldn’t be doing it for the human. I am probably technically depressed at the moment and have been for a long time and was just wondering how many self-proclaimed rationalists consider themselves misanthropes, or at least exhibit misanthropic views...