this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
107 points (99.1% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15914 readers
12 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thousands of years ago
"Everything is fire."
A few thousand years ago
"Everything is wheels."
Centuries ago
"Everything is clockwork."
Now
"Everything is like a computer program."
Saying "in fairness" doesn't make your take more factual or undisputed. Like "honestly" and especially "let's be honest here" it's a Redditism that coercively expects agreement from other people.
Geez, you're coming at me pretty hard here on the basis of fucking little.
"in fairness" is not a Redditism, it existed long before Reddit. It's a figure of speech that intends to convey that I respect the overall sentiment, but that I believe there is a counterpoint that still deserves recognition.
I doubt anybody ever claimed brains are fire or wheels or clockwork. I'd argue the general definition of an algorithm is "bunch of steps that will go from A to B", and yes, the brain does indeed do that because reality does that. I'm not arguing it's like a computer program, or like AI, or whatever.
Don't start with "in fairness" and then make an extraordinary claim that effectively dismisses thousands of years of other academic fields just because, to you, the human brain seems like an algorithm. Reductionism makes a lot of comparisons possible; the brain is like a sponge. The brain is like a lump of fat. The brain is like a series of vacuum tubes.
Something can be a thing even if it existed before the label. Being pedantic about what I said and trying to split hairs on it reinforces the Redditness I was talking about.
No, each and every one of those things were previously assigned not only the essence of human thought, but in many cases the whole of the universe and all of its functions in previous eras.
Again, that's you in your comfortable field making presumptions that dismiss other fields that you're not trained or educated in. It's a habit that a lot of academics can make (if you are one) but at the higher end, most PhD programs train at least some admittance that one's knowledge is specialized and limited, not the whole of everything.
Then again, there are exceptions.
Okay, this is not a fun tone of discussion for me, I'm oot.
disengage
"The economy is like a steam engine" neoclasical economics.
"The economy is in trouble, we need more human sacrifices."
Late stage capitalism.
Blood for the line god!