karlpoppa: cognition, trust, peering

karlpoppa  18:13:55
well there's nothing that says you need to be.
innit  18:14:18
karlpoppa: Do you agree we must be intolerant of some things?
karlpoppa  18:14:26
uh oh.
yes.
Intolerance.
;)
innit  18:14:50
You wish to be intolerant of intolerance?
karlpoppa  18:14:55
yes.
there must be strict reasons to support intolerance.
this smells like a troll session.
innit  18:15:26
Why?
I was engaging you on one of Popper's central ideas.
Your name is karlpoppa.
karlpoppa  18:15:57
oh, that's interesting.  I don't know who Popper is.
I'm karl poppa.
please go on.
innit  18:17:22
I cannot at this time.
karlpoppa  18:17:48
why not?
innit  18:18:00
You didn't answer my question as to why you did a thing.
Joel  18:18:17
because laniakea is too intellectually superior for everyone other than himself on the entire network
innit  18:18:42
Your comment of "this smells like a troll session" is trust-reducing.
It's important to value-signal that you recognize that and perhaps said it because of past hurts received from internal culture.
innit  18:20:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx7mIu2qspw
pela  18:20:37
-[YouTube]- [( Paul Oakenfold - Southern Sun (Tiesto Remix) HD [HD] )] [Views:1.027.566] [Likes: 7.636] [Dislikes: 328]  [Duration: 9m 46s]
innit  18:21:09
The optimal orientation to behave towards unknown people is with trust, given there's a moderate reputation system present.
Deviations from that policy must be justified, given a corrupt system.
innit  18:22:45
Joel, what is the quality of your last post?
karlpoppa  18:22:58
situation appropriate response.
this is IRC.
The setting dictates appropriate response.  I am well within the normal stranger response.
innit  18:23:40
karlpoppa: My policy subsumes what you just said.
karlpoppa  18:24:01
I'm not sure what that means but please don't talk to me anymore.
innit  18:24:05
I have explicit allowances for deviation from assumed trust, but those should be justified, recursively.
karlpoppa  18:24:24
Please return to darkness.
innit  18:24:31
To subsume is to envelop or contain.
→ euphony2 has joined
 ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to euphony2
innit  18:24:43
If you have a policy and it's a case of another policy, it is subsumed by the policy.
It means it contains no new information, even if exceptionally complex.
→ sexburrr has joined
 ⓘ Raven`X gives voice to sexburrr
ⓘ ChanServ gives ops to sexburrr
ⓘ sexburrr is now known as sexb
innit  18:26:21
The recursive in this context, for this desiring to become smarter, means an clever agent can know the above and use this signaling of a complex, ethics-driven policy for handling trust as a vector for trust violation.
So the policy recursively applies to itself.
Humans generally cannot handle cognitive structures with more than three nested layers, so you need not worry about the termination of this calculation.
Further, it probably converges relatively quickly with depth.
← Daviddenboer_ has left (Ping timeout)
innit  18:27:50
Also, there may be a non-recursive form that is computational identical, but I don't know how to articulate that.
karlpoppa  18:28:20
Do you understand how subsuming is offensive?
innit  18:28:31
It depends on the receiver.
But, yes, it is offensive to a lot of people.
karlpoppa  18:28:37
especially in a conversation with peers?
well congratulations.
innit  18:28:48
Depends on the cognitive ability of those people.
karlpoppa  18:28:50
You have trolled.
innit  18:29:05
Is trolling determine by the agent's intentionality, or communal description?
karlpoppa  18:29:15
I can't engage further.
innit  18:29:22
For me, it's the former, and so you cannot assert another has trolled.
If you attach self-worth to your ideas, and your ideas are weaker than another, then, yes, you will get offended when they speak truth.
If you disassociate self-worth from ideas, and your ideas are weaker than another's, then, no you will not get offended when they speak truth.
This response can be used as a filter for probing cognitive orientations of people.
karlpoppa  18:30:42
Your pedantics aren't engaging ideas, you're just rude.
← Tranced has left (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
innit  18:31:20
Establishing a peer relationship if you have disassociated self-worth from your ideas.
karlpoppa: Then you're probably not a philosopher.
karlpoppa  18:31:39
not a complete sentence.
innit  18:31:45
Philosopher's rarely get this offended, even given substantial context.
You are correct.
That sentence was not complete.
karlpoppa  18:32:11
no one is offended, just turned off from further correspondence.
innit  18:32:13
I was continuing my previous thought, but it's a dependent clause.
karlpoppa  18:32:19
You're not delivering any fresh conversation.
innit  18:32:33
"Do you understand how subsuming is offensive?"
"no one is offended, just turned off from further correspondence."
karlpoppa  18:32:46
You're a broken staircase of perilous boredom.
*  18:33:10
Ignoring karlpoppa
innit  18:33:21
karlpoppa: I will not talk to you anymore.