Notices by Alister Braunkers 🇩🇴🇺🇸🇯🇵 (mrjunge@niu.moe), page 2

@Paradox
I agree with the idea of rooting them in the body. But just saying, "the body (brain) produces these things" is not doing the actual work, because it doesn't even try to seek structures analogous or adjecent to those that seem at first unique to subjectivity.

@Paradox
I am talking about the subjective experience of decision-making which is involved in agency. Desire exists, and yes the brain had to do with it, but that is irrelevant--again, it is needed for someone to *know* their desires in the process of decision-making in order to make their decision, and yet it seems that what one desired is retroactively established after a decision has already been made. So on the one hand, there is a brute fact as you assert: it is true or false at any moment that one desires this or that. On the other hand, there is no brute fact--the truth of whether something was desired or not rests precisely on what *will* be done. How do we ground *these* kinds of structures naturally without their being at the very least an explanatory role for the ends in nature as well? Would we not otherwise end up saying that desires, goals, values, etc., are merely illusions or self-delusions?

@Paradox
It would be compatible with a structural rather than causal determinism mayhaps. I assume you mean the latter stronger version. The former is perfectly compatible.

@pry
I do it on my desktop computer because I'm willing to put up with escaping the space in terminal, but in any other situation I would avoid it.

@pry
I would never clean these out.

Smother it all over you, too. 😌

Reminder that Marie Kondo's advise also applies to the impact of your Follows on your experience of your tl.

Same people who complain about being harassed under the guise of politics are capable of harassing someone over even pettier shit. Hilarious. This is why I have more respect for the former. At least they know how to make an exercise of power seem as if noble as opposed to transparently pathetic.

@zeat @wizard
Federated booty

@pry
Cliques are two errors away from a personality cult so be glad I guess.

>me blocking someone and then me talking to that person anyway

Huh. I guess I should've just muted them. 🤔

@pry @smotheredbyblankets
Sounds good. The one I'm working on is pretty big though (to me) so idk if I'll get to it or not. I'm also thinking of making a Pixelfed Android client down the line.

@smotheredbyblankets @pry
Yeah. I've always had this. It is a difficult habit to break! 😅 And maybe I should make another programming or web project like that. lol

@wowaname @kaikatsu @xj9 @nik

Yeah. I'm not into the witch hunt thing.

@Paradox
Sounds like you skew towards the "local hidden variables" hypothesis a bit, at least implicitly.

@Paradox
This is why those mathematical relations can never tell you the initial state. You need the facf of initial state as well as the equation to make predictions.

@Paradox
See, but I don't think it is accurate to say these mathematical relations are laws of nature, which are not only rules but explanatory universal rules of efficient causation. When the maths break down (like at the singularity of a black hole), different maths are required. Mathematics are universal in that an equation is universally true, and not in that they universally apply in describing (in this case physical) states of affairs. The other problem with that is that they actually don't tell us anything about the interactive behavior objects have, technically. This is something we extrapolate They just tell us that under a set of cases, there will be these structural simolarities. So it doesn't tell us why x lead to y. It tells us that both x and y are of a certain relationship, and why this relationship also apploes for each of their elements.

@Paradox
Efficient causation is not about efficiency; it is sometimes also called the agential cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

@Paradox
Any framework that does not use ends or outcomes as a form of retrospective explanation, or any framework in which the future does not itself have causal efficacy over the present and past.

@Paradox
Think about Kuhn's characterization of scientific models not even having to be consistent with each other to be equally true, as long as they retain their specific context (the objects of description). And models are where we build up our laws. Of course some will say that there is a TOE, because nonetheless there *are* laws of nature independ of our models that can be discovered. But this does not have anything to do with what our scientific results say so far.