tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Who Were the Sea Peoples?gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger26602125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-39099292545799588972023-01-21T16:56:57.231-05:002023-01-21T16:56:57.231-05:00Of course our knowledge of faces is not a “configu...Of course our knowledge of faces is not a “configuration of neurons”! Are you trying to trick me or something?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-49135509912194636352023-01-21T16:22:54.059-05:002023-01-21T16:22:54.059-05:00Yes, but isn't our knowledge of faces or all o...Yes, but isn't our knowledge of faces or all other objects also just a certain preconfigurations of neurons inside of our brains? If you accept that as true, then isn't the artist in my example also just modifying their neural wiring based on the visual patterns the artists eyes feed the artist when they're learning to draw faces? Of course, you could argue that humans have an instinctive ability to regonize human faces so my face example doesn't work but what about hunters trying to learn how find hidden raccoon dogs or an inquistive person attempting to learn something more abstract like calculus? After all, when they first begin the learning these things, they might only know that the phrases calculus and raccoon dog exist but don't know what they mean/are or why they're important. I don't see how this is different from an AI not "knowing" what a face is and slowing being able to regonize what's a face and what's not a face based on the data that its fed. If an AI is able to regonize what is and isn't a face, then how is that different from a human also being able to identify what a face is and thus knowing what a face is. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-28657906624187149452023-01-21T09:44:17.510-05:002023-01-21T09:44:17.510-05:00Well, for instance, the art student actually knows...Well, for instance, the art student actually knows that she is drawing faces.<br />A machine “learning” program that recognizes faces is only modifying some wiring according to bit patterns it is fed. It doesn’t know anything about faces at all.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-50480840972252277532023-01-20T01:56:34.259-05:002023-01-20T01:56:34.259-05:00Correct me if I've misinterpreted your post bu...Correct me if I've misinterpreted your post but your core arguement is that "machine learning" isn't real learning because what machine learning AI's really do is generate programs that attempt to solve a problem whose results are then compiled against data to see how successful they are at their jobs. The program who does the task the best is then selected. Because all the AI does is write the programs whose results are judged, it technically learns nothing. <br /><br />While I agree that AI that do this aren't really learning, most AI are indeed scored based on the performance of their program and baisically keep on rewriting and editing their programs until they are able to reach a satisfactory level. I don't see how this is different from an art student trying to teach themselves how to draw human faces via trial/error and comparing their results to photographs of real faces. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-16487480622143104542022-08-30T00:14:28.923-04:002022-08-30T00:14:28.923-04:00Nah, I didn't figure out anything! It just wor...Nah, I didn't figure out anything! It just worked!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-56504199900441874312022-08-29T22:32:47.292-04:002022-08-29T22:32:47.292-04:00So you finally figured out the comment problem on ...So you finally figured out the comment problem on your blog. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-7561322116919992832022-08-29T19:27:05.992-04:002022-08-29T19:27:05.992-04:00No. I meant what I said. I could have said 212, bu...No. I meant what I said. I could have said 212, but it would make zero difference to the example.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-90708357912538616592022-08-29T16:02:21.557-04:002022-08-29T16:02:21.557-04:00Also, the search function on your blog is now brok...Also, the search function on your blog is now broken. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-29184678253674954502022-08-29T16:01:21.786-04:002022-08-29T16:01:21.786-04:00Don't you mean between 212 °F and 32.5 °F?Don't you mean between 212 °F and 32.5 °F?BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-73478174503559715062022-06-23T14:48:11.358-04:002022-06-23T14:48:11.358-04:00Who knows what sawdust tastes like these days? Unl...Who knows what sawdust tastes like these days? Unless I am somehow mistaken and most people today are lumberjacks, I don't think anyone has tasted sawdust.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-54905213202108811972022-06-23T14:42:09.409-04:002022-06-23T14:42:09.409-04:00I looked into the hoppe quote and he seems to tota...I looked into the hoppe quote and he seems to totally contradict himself. After claiming that all people should be able to use existing roads for free and retain their right of way. However, he says this immediatly afterward: <br /><br />"Positively, in order to objectify—and validate—his claim that the formerly common street is now a private one and that he (and no one else) is its owner, the appropriator (whoever it may be) must perform some visible maintenance and repair work on and along the street. Then, as its owner, he—and no one else—can further develop and improve the streets as he sees fit. He sets the rules and regulations concerning the use of his street so as to avoid all street conflicts. He can build a hot dog or a bratwurst stand on his road, for instance, and exclude others from doing the same; or he can prohibit loitering on his street and collect a fee for the removal of garbage. Vis-à-vis foreigners or strangers, the street owner can determine the rules of entry regarding uninvited strangers. Last but not least, as its private owner he can sell the street to someone else (with all previously established rights-of-way remaining intact)." <br /><br />How can the road owners determine the rules of entry regarding uninvited strangers if all private property owners get to use the streets for "free" and still retain their right of way to use them? Under our current system, all public roads are public right of ways so everyone in the country has the right to use them, hence their status as public right of ways. If roads were privatized according to Hoppe's way, then all people would be able to use all the existing former public roads for free. Road owners would in fact not be able to exclude strangers from using their property so they would not be able to "determine the rules of entry regarding uninvited strangers". 2nd of all, how would one determine if a person was a "stranger" and could thus be denied access to my road? I literally know nothing about who lives in the house 2 houses down from me. Could I and the person 4 houses down from me blockade the property owner if we both homesteaded our portion of the street and we both didn't know the owner of the house 5 houses down the street from me and were effectively strangers with him? <br /><br /> As for Walter Block, he argues that that city streets should be given to the ownership of a joint stock company comprised of the property owners adjoining the streets. In cities, the company should own the whole neighborhood of streets while in rural areas, the company should just own a single linear road. Personally, I really don't see how Block's solution overcomes the possibility of a private road company blockading people. Ownership of a portion of a company doesn't mean I own the property of the company. To make matters worse, Block argues that ownership of the joint stock company should be based on the property values of the properties adjoining the streets. This means that it's entirely possible for a wealthy minority of property owners to effectively control a city street/ neighborhood and dictate how it gets used. So going back to the example of Jeb and his wealthy neighbors, his wealthy neighbors could effectively decide to ban Jeb from using the road as they would have majority ownership of the street through their joint stock company.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-35506469527946898582022-05-17T00:59:35.734-04:002022-05-17T00:59:35.734-04:00What utter sophistry. First of all, even if you as...What utter sophistry. First of all, even if you assume natural law to exist (which itself is contentious) and that the only true and morally right form of law is libertarian natural law, no society, statist or anarchic, is ever going to ever properly deduce libertarian “natural law” with 100% efficacy. Just as we currently haven’t and will likely never discover all of the laws that govern our universe, no Ancap society will ever deduce all of “natural law”. However, human societies can function while violating natural law( as evidenced by todays statist societies) but can’t function at all if there are literally 0 laws and regulations. Thus, any Ancap society that wants to function must create a “system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.” or in other words, legislate. No society, ancap or statist, can just sit around forever and wait for “objective morality” or libertarian “natural law” to be complety discovered. Such libertarian rules created may follow large parts of natural law but because no society can ever truly discover all of natural law, some of the rules will inevitably contradict or conflict with natural law. If all of natural law was discovered, then there wouldn’t be any moral disagreements between Ancaps on issues such as IP, abortion, FRB, etc. When such contradictions or violations are discovered, new rules must be created that are more congruent with “natural law'' or in other words, legislation must occur. If these new rules are later discovered to also be in conflict with “natural law”, then additional legislation must occur. So no, legislation will still have to occur in Ancapistan. It may occur less in Ancapistan or create better results but it still must occur <br /><br /> 2ndly, you are confusing natural laws with legal laws which are not the same thing. Legal laws can often be in congruency with natural law but the fact that they are often at odds at each other and only congruent with each other at best shows that they aren’t the same thing. Natural laws are just values and standards that tell you what things ought to be permissible, what things ought to be not permissible, and what punishments ought to be inflicted for committing things that ought to be imperissible in a society. What they cannot tell you is what things are permissible, what things are not permissible, and what punishments are to be inflicted for committing things that are imperissible in a society. Only legal laws can tell you that. If there are no legal laws, then as Gene said, you are left with a bunch of toothless suggestions that only tell people what they should or shouldn’t do, not what they can or can’t do. <br />BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24489709682726103142022-05-15T22:45:53.441-04:002022-05-15T22:45:53.441-04:00"So, you're OK with just *suggesting* tha..."So, you're OK with just *suggesting* that a rapist leave your daughter alone, rather than having any actual law against rape?" <br /><br />No, you are completly misunderstanding how laws would work in a free society. The only legitmate law in a free society is natural law. Natural law is derived from human nature so natural law like evolution or gravatation, can only be discovered, not created. There can thus be no legislation in a truly free society as legistlation is the creation of law, not its discovery. So regarding the rapist example, yes, you would have the right to stop the rapist as natural law gives you the objective right to stop him and not the machinations of powerful politicians in D.C. HWYThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939790336008747837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-63846833711282613272022-05-12T14:03:29.352-04:002022-05-12T14:03:29.352-04:00Another Rothbardian mother caught in Minnesota. (h...Another Rothbardian mother caught in Minnesota. (https://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-woman-accused-abandoning-newborns-charged-murder/story?id=84618765) BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52069910123512268492022-05-11T03:23:33.517-04:002022-05-11T03:23:33.517-04:00Do you have evidence of Block saying this?Do you have evidence of Block saying this?BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-33156517275948031122022-05-10T23:51:33.504-04:002022-05-10T23:51:33.504-04:00What's your next blog post going to be about?What's your next blog post going to be about?BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24099537384250234782022-05-10T21:59:27.447-04:002022-05-10T21:59:27.447-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-76996150558931816902022-05-09T02:04:10.490-04:002022-05-09T02:04:10.490-04:00Just a quick question, why does Rothbard and likel...Just a quick question, why does Rothbard and likely Block by extension think that it's permissible to torture a suspect when they also believe that the police do not have the power to even subpoena a suspect? <br /><br />"Jones is invited to defend himself against the charges, although there can be no subpoena power, since any sort of force used against a man not yet convicted of a crime is itself an invasive and criminal act that could not be consonant with the free society we have been postulating. " (https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/06/rothbard-on-private-protection-agencies.html#comment-form) <br /><br />Rothbard even claims that it is a criminal act to use any sort of force "against a man not yet convicted of a crime" so defense agencies wouldn't even be able to subpoena a suspect and in theory, even aprehend them if they constituted a flight risk. This seems like a giant glaring contradiction that you should've brought up in your paper. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-3126242645467710622022-05-08T18:47:09.020-04:002022-05-08T18:47:09.020-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-18386292409093300092022-05-08T14:36:38.660-04:002022-05-08T14:36:38.660-04:00Sorry if this comment isn't directly related t...Sorry if this comment isn't directly related to this post but your post about the middle ages being the closest real world example of Ancapism had new comments disabled so I couldn't post anything new. Instead, I'm posting my comment here. <br /><br />Your post about fuedalism being the closest example of real world Ancapism, while technically correct, was just laden with far too much statist bias for me to ignore. <br /><br />"So, let's try that again!"<br /><br />The main point of your argument was that because of how bad the middle ages were relative to modern societies, they are a good representation of how bad any form of modern polycentric law would end up as. However, this is just plainly false. Just like the statists who write anarchism off because of how Somalia was like during the 90’s and 2000’s, you are making a nirvana fallacy. While I don’t deny that the middle ages were not a pleasant period to live through, you can’t just assume they were automatically bad because you implicitly compare the middle ages to modern day states. This comparison is an example of the Nirvana fallacy in action because the people living through middle ages could not suddenly decide to start living in a modern state because the ideas and political circumstances that allowed the creation of said states didn’t even exist yet. By that logic, you might as well claim that our modern western societies are terrible places to live in because relative to whatever superior systems of governance that our descendants come up with in the future, our societies would come up too short. So while you are correct that the middle ages were worse off in absolute terms, to claim that they were worse off relative to modern state societies is an irrelevant comparison because medieval societies couldn’t have decided to start living in said modern societies even if they wanted to. HWYThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939790336008747837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30818207367256680442022-05-08T01:44:32.525-04:002022-05-08T01:44:32.525-04:00"I contend that it is unjust for law enforcem..."I contend that it is unjust for law enforcement officials to torture suspects, even when it is absolutely clear to those officials that the suspects are guilty. Every human being is worthy of respect for their human person, and no one, whatever they have done, is ever justly tortured. The fact that allowing such torture produces bad results is not the reason that torture is unjust; it is evidence that it is unjust."<br /><br />What a boat load of nonsense. If you want to see why, ask yourself the following question: Why is it okay for the prosecution to rely on witness testimony if the prosecution has the ability to coerce or bribe the witness(s) into giving false information during their testimony. The answer is simple, any competent prosecutor needs to rely on more than just potentially baseless acusations to build their case against a suspect and would need to bring in additional evidence such as circumstantial evidence just to build a preponderance of evidence at the very least. If they failed to do so, the defense could easily shred their case by just casting doubt on the reliability of the witness testimony(ies) or bringing up counter evidence like an alibi. <br /><br />If you bring the same logic/reasoning to torture, then it's clear that no prosecution could just convict innocent people just by citing "evidence" collected during a torture session. The defense could easily cast doubt on the "evidence" and have the prosecutions entire case thrown out by demanding the prosecution follow up on the "evidence" (ex: demanding the prosecution dig up the body of the murder victim or find the murder weapon based on the information they tortured out of the suspect). Thus, no prosecutors would be willing to torture a suspect unless they were absolutly sure that the suspect was guilty since they would have to prove the valiidity of the information they got out of the suspects or risk suffering punishments.<br /><br />P.S-1: If you try to debunk my case by citing some kind of historical evidence, let point out in 99.99% of those cases, the suspects had no real ability to challange the prosecution. For example, the prisoners at Guantamono Bay had could not trust or depend on their lawyers because the DOD frequently used guards pretending as their lawyers to extract information from the prisoners during interrogations. <br /><br />P.S.-2: If you try to counterargue that the prosecution could just torture or use the threat of it to pressure the defendant into accepting a plea bargin, let me point out that both Rothbard and Block by extension agree that any coerced confessions would be invalid so the prosecution can't just torture innocent suspects into admitting their guilt. Even if they the prosecution successfully did so, the defendants could just appeal their case to a higher Ancap court which would throw out the prosecutions case if they discovered that suspect had indeed been coerced into signing a confession or accepting a plea bargain. HWYThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939790336008747837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-44154767518888380462022-05-05T01:59:59.292-04:002022-05-05T01:59:59.292-04:00Probably explains why he has the insane beliefs th...Probably explains why he has the insane beliefs that he does and why his book covers are so tone deaf/narcissistic. After all, if America as a nation goes down the gutter due to his beliefs being imposed upon Americans, then so what? It's society was "dreary, insipid, ugly, boring, wrong, and wicked" so it got what it deserved. Calling American society "dreary, insipid, ugly, boring, wrong, and wicked" is like calling a jumbo jet slow because it can't fly at mach 100. I agree it's not perfect and it could use lots of work but to ignore the relative difference between it and other societies is just plane ignorance. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-53536326900878016852022-05-03T00:35:31.088-04:002022-05-03T00:35:31.088-04:00Thanks for your review. One major issue with Capla...Thanks for your review. One major issue with Caplan's book that you picked up on is that he fails to prove that people are behaving dogmatically and aren't just ignorant of the arguements against their positions. The evidence he uses only shows that there is a difference between the opinions of economists and the opinion of the general public, not that the general public is more dogmatic. He doesn't provide any studies or any other proof shows that when random members of the general public are presented with overwhelming proof and reasoning against their beliefs, they still choose to cling onto their old beliefs like a flat earther refusing to believe the earth is round no matter how much contrarian evidence is put in front of them. An even bigger problem for Caplan is that his theory still fails to solve the paradox of voting. If people are smart enough to relize that there votes don't statistically matter and they won't suffer any consequences if they choose to indulge in socially injurious beliefs, then why would they bother voting in the first place and not just free ride off of others voting for the candatates/policies they prefer? However, people clearly vote in large numbers in the real world and candates do win. Caplan's never solves this paradox in his book but he does attempt to patch it up in a later debate with Jeffrey Friedman by claiming that voting is a form of consumption the same way fans cheer at their favorite teams despite their individual cheering having a negligible effect on the performance of their team. The act itself is pleasurable so voters/cheerers can't just freeride off others and must commit the act themselves to feel the pleasure. However, as a person who has cheered at countless sports events, Caplan's explanation comes up too short. When I cheer for a team, I don't feel good just because I cheered at my favorite team. No, I feel good because I felt like my cheering contributed to a potential boost of my favorite teams performance, even if statistically speaking, my cheering affected the performance of my team by a negligible amount. Similiary, every person I talked to who gave up voting did so not because they no longer felt like voting was pleasurable but because they genuinly thought that their votes didn't matter. Not in the sense that their votes were statistically unlikely to affect the outcome of an election but that any politician they voted for would fail to deliver on their promises or were completely dishonest. Even if Caplan's thesis were true, it doesn't follow that the best solution would be disinfranchise the populus and abolish the state to instate Anarcho Capitalism or that a good half measure would be to give epistocrats like economists enourmous political power to override the populus whenever they saw fit. All of those have their own issues that could still make constitutional democracy a better option even if Caplan was correct.BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-49780672216570339512022-04-29T12:48:01.430-04:002022-04-29T12:48:01.430-04:00Agreed. Ancaps seem to believe that if people lite...Agreed. Ancaps seem to believe that if people literally demand anything, the market will be able to supply it. Terrified that the extremely wealthy will just hire armies of mercenaries to take over Ancapistan? No worries because the good old honest defense agencies will see the demand for protection and supply protection to drive off the evil warlords. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-80262500176246777542022-04-26T19:11:45.796-04:002022-04-26T19:11:45.796-04:00Yep, reading the sophistry that occured during thi...Yep, reading the sophistry that occured during this exchange has certainly caused me to lose a ton of brain cells. Enforcing something means compelling or forcing others into complying with or obeying something, usually a rule or obligation . If I forcibly stop a thief from stealing my car, I am indeed enforcing my property rights as I am compelling forcing the thief into respecting my property rights. Even if you use Frank's more limited definition of enforce (compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation)), his definition still fails as property rights and all rights for that matter are still just "legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory" (wikipedia). Since rights are just rules about what is to be owed to or allowed to happen, property rights can still be enforced according to Frank's more limited definition. BZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02639095987526290064noreply@blogger.com