Carleas on Ecmandu's Trope

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
134

That’s true, I try to avoid it and usually succeed. And maybe this thread is inappropriate, I’m not great at knowing where that line is. If so I apologize.

Ideally, philosophy is impersonal, and we can discuss ideas without regard to who’s defending them or why.

In practice, that can’t always be true. For one thing, philosophy is a social endeavor, and so who people are will sometimes change the meaning of what they’re saying, or make conversations impossible. So sometimes, it’s appropriate to get a bit personal.

If this is one of those time (and I’m not certain that it is), it’s because engaging with the ideas you present is kind of impossible in conversations with you. As I said, I usually just ignore your threads and posts because I can’t engage with most of the ideas you bring up; that type of discussion is inaccessible.

That’s not a claim about the truth or falsity of your ideas, it’s a claim about the philosophy-in-practice reality of who is engaging in the conversation. From what I’ve learned about you from interacting with on on ILP for a decade, I know how responding to you at the level of ideas will go.

I have plenty of objections to your ideas, but those objections aren’t why I don’t usually respond. I don’t respond because a lot of your ideas are inseparable from your delusions.

But schizophrenia is philosophically interesting, with important implications for philosophy of mind and epistemology (and, increasingly, computer science).

So when you complained that I don’t respond to your ideas, this was the result: I responded to your delusions as delusions, and tried to do so in a way that touches on the philosophical implications. Because of schizophrenia’s implications for epistemology, I ended up focusing on a skeptical worry about whether and how we could reason our way out of delusion.

I’ve concluded that pointing out every time you say something that I take to fit the pattern of schizophrenic delusion is an important part of my argument. That keeps the topic on topic, because again, I’m not really trying to talk about your ideas, I’m trying to talk about schizophrenic delusion.

But I also think noticing delusions is a crucial part of reasoning one’s way out of delusion.

1 Like
135

You have to call it delusion to not break. You have a wife and family to care for.
When I suggest that this is selfish and a way worser schizophrenia than I have, you have to compensate.

Marriage is a manipulation technique. It’s about hoarding the resources of wealth, nudity, sex and conversation. It’s a dominance move to have children. I’m the person who had this child with this person, nobody else had this child. I dominated this part of life.

Having partners, having children, and making lots of money is easy for me.

I choose not to do these things. I suppose that makes it personal for you.

I’ll even tell you my pickup line that I never use. I invented it.
“I’m new to town, I’m new to this format of finding others online. I just want someone I can understand and who understands me.”

It’s a perfect pick-up line. I could get sex every day from different women. Manipulative as fuck, so I’ll never use it.

Relationships are easy for me, but there’s a caveat. I have a conscience. I try as hard as I can to not violate the pleasurable exclusive access problem.

136

I call it delusion because it’s delusion. Many of your claims are objectively testable, and are objectively false – talking to demons, being a god, controlling peoples minds, etc.

I think you’re wrong in many of your other claims, but I don’t think they’re delusional per se; there are plenty of people who think the institution of marriage is manipulative without claiming they learned about it by being a timeless deity or whatever.

This is a type of self-handicapping, where a person doesn’t try so that they don’t fail.

So try some smaller version. Do something benign, like manipulating someone for their benefit: go to skid row and manipulate someone to sobriety. Or something small that doesn’t matter: influence whether people go left or right around an obstacle.

Write down how you’re going to use your powers to change someone’s behavior, what exactly you’ll do and how exactly they’ll respond, then go have the interaction and see if it unfolds just as you’d expect. The more complex and unexpected the behavioral change, the more specific the prediction, the better evidence it would be for your claims (if you’re influencing a binary, you’d need a larger sample size to get any evidentiary value; I can help you brainstorm a rigorous approach if you’d open to trying).

Enlist a friend to keep you honest – self-deception is a known scientific failure mode!

There are a lot of ways you could test your claims, and I think you don’t because some part of you doubts them.

Which is interesting: there must be a part of you that knows which beliefs are delusions, because there’s a part of you that knows which beliefs not to test. Start by notice which beliefs you aren’t allowing yourself to test, and then figure out (benign) ways to test them.

1 Like
137

You wish. This opinion is transparently nothing more than a sour grapes rationalization. It’s a highly cynical and potentially harmful one, reducing a complex human institution to a series of power plays and manipulations. While it’s true that any relationship, including a marriage, can be used for manipulative purposes, your argument neglects the vast spectrum of motivations and benefits associated with marriage and committed relationships.

138

Ok. Here we gp.
I debate old omniscient beings every day and night. You don’t have to because of me.
i also have dealt with power differentials that are extremely rare for a human to see.
They all know that I know that the evidence is lacking to cast doubt on me like being a blind person and trying to explain the definition of green to a blind person from a dictionary. Isolate and destroy. I’m too old for that trick.

Look at what I actually gave the human species for a moment.
I solved the Reinman hypothesis; I disproved both Cantor and Chaitin by listing all possible numbers. And I invented clean energy.

When I talk about sociology, that’s when people get upset. Everything I say about the human species is true. You wanted the answer, you didn’t like it. Not my problem. It will kill the earth, but I don’t care if the earth dies. I’m protecting my soul, you’re not protecting your souls.

Intimacy is easy for me. Raising a family is easy for me.

I just happen to know a little quirk in existence called the pleasurable exclusive access problem, that all of you are too shallow to acknowledge or embody not trying to violate it.

You and Carleas are projecting on me.

This is what I do with my days. Seriously. I go out for a cigarette, see some random stranger walking down the sidewalk and they say standard shit like, “how’s it going?” or “What’s up?”

Bad manners already. So, I simply diffuse the aggression by saying, “I’m just doing my thing like I imagine you are”

They always laugh and say," I guess that’s all we can do"

And then I say “Have a good one”

And they say “Thank you, you too.”

I actually make people happy in this world believe it or not.

139

I edited my last post because it was sloppier than my edit.

If Carleas and Felix really want to take me on, I’ll accept it as a child’s curiosity.

140

OH, beyond the last two posts… I forgot. I solved existence for every possible being. Another gift I gave you.

Ask me about anything, anything at all about what I posted, poke at it to the best of your ability, and I’ll clarify. These are proofs.

141

Self-significance delusions:

I debate old omniscient beings every day and night.
i also have dealt with power differentials that are extremely rare for a human to see.
I solved the Reinman hypothesis; I disproved both Cantor and Chaitin by listing all possible numbers. And I invented clean energy.
I solved existence for every possible being. Another gift I gave you.

You claim in your Riemann thread that you’ve “solved chess” and can “beat the most difficult chess machine on earth”, that’s an easily testable claim. You can play against a 2800 Elo bot on lichess.org, or a 3200 Elo bot on a chess.com free account (Carlsen and Nakamura are around 2800 on chess.com).

Have you tested it? If for some reason you aren’t permitted to play chess against computers, notice that you aren’t allowing yourself to test a claim.

(And I’d be up for a game too if you play, but only as a friendly game and not a test of metaphysical claims – I’m an all-too-human 1500.)

There are meaningful definitions of ‘green’ for a blind person, e.g. ‘reflecting light having wavelength of between 495 and 570 nanometers’.

More importantly, it’s possible to prove to a blind person that people can perceive green, just as we can prove that bumblebees perceive colors that we can’t see.

142

I’ll tell you how to solve chess.

The first move needs to be pawn 1 on the kings side.

The second move needs to open up a bishop or queen to sacrifice any piece for the rook on the kings side.

Then you need to sacrifice the pawn on the rook on the kings side where the knight is, just one space, you need to protect your rook

Then you can move the rook without having to deal with a castle or the queen.

The king is exposed You can do this without the king having time to castle.

People always talk about controlling the middle of the board. The weakest spot on the board is the kings rook. Try it out

143

I didn’t clarity. It needs to be one space on the knight on the kings side. That needs to be the first move. You need to protect your rook.

144

I’m sure chess grandmasters can simulate this in their heads.

First move, protect the rook on the kings side by moving the king side knight pawn one space.

All you have to do is get that rook on the opposing side. Then you’re behind all the pawns, and the king can’t castle and the queen can’t get to you.

Run the simulations in your head

145

I know I haven’t typed this perfectly. I’ll do it now.

The weakest part of the board is the king’s rook. You have to act fast though, so the king can’t castle, and the pawns are out of the picture and the queen can’t get you.

This is where I’d use my knights to force a checkmate. The king can still have a bishop that I can’t take. That’s where the knights come in. I mean. Hypothetically you can keep your queen alive. It’s much easier to sacrifice all your pieces to get to the king.

146

I’ll add to all of this so you really understand it.

When you march your rook pawn down on the kings side, if a pawn takes it, you can take the rook on the next move with your rook. Mission accomplished. because now you have diagonalization or you have a clean shot at the rook with your rook on the next turn.

This forces the king to use his pawn to step forward from behind the line of the pawns by moving forward where a moved pawn in front of the king allows the king to do so. If the queen hasn’t moved yet, you can take her and sacrifice the rook to the king., now the weakest spot is the queen rook.

I think you get the picture

147

I’ll explain this further, because I want you to understand it better.

My rook is going to take your rook. Behind the lines. The best first move the king to make is to move the pawn in front of him one space. The queen will take my rook, when I take the rook., but because I moved my pawns the way I did at the first 4 moves, the queen will be taken from trying to get behind my pawns.

There’s a problem with what the king needs to do to survive, It’s exposed to diagonalization from my queen or a bishop.

That’s check mate. Bishops only travel on one color. I’ll make sure I preserve the bishop on that color… I’m not even talking about how I’d use knights

148

I’ll explain this even further, and understand the simulations! The rooks are the weakest spots on the board. Throw everything at them. You can always force a stalemate.

149

Jason, test it. Play a grandmaster chess engine and see if your beliefs hold true.

Don’t bother about convincing me – doubt your own beliefs and test them.

And if you won’t allow yourself to test a belief, notice that.

150

All I could find was chess GPT. It was easy for me. I did the bottom row checkmate with two queens

151

I’ll add to this. I sacrificed my first queen to get position. Then I marched my king down the board By the time the game was over, I still had a bishop and two queens The computer only had a king.

152

The computer asked me if I’d submit the game and said something about playing it again so it could learn my approach.

I really did beat it. I did it easily too… sometimes I had to ponder my move for like a minute or so.

153

I’ll add to this. This is the first time I’ve played chess in a couple decades.
I beat it the first time.