It is a question, not a theme
bassos
If magick is a method;
how does it work ?
Being complety convinced that what you do is what is happening; works.
Preparing a specific date to construct a specific talisman; works.
Initiating a mental space where minds can meet; works.
Astrology; works.
(study it to experience it working)
Extending life; might work.
(poor possibilities of repeatability)
So, the point;
The questionmark is the mode of operation.
But even though strict doubt would claim that claiming that something works
is premature;
If it works, use it.
Your job is to find the question.
Tom
>
> If magick is a method;
> how does it work ?
Magick is not a method. Magick is the production of strange and
admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
they were produced. The methods by which these effects are produced
are not in themselves magick because, once those methods are
understood by the observers, they no longer appear miraculous.
If you think you're doing something magical, it's because you don't
know what you're doing.
Now, the study of magick (as differentiated from the performance of
magick) can and should be methodical.
> Astrology; works.
> (study it to experience it working)
Study and practice are not the same thing.
If the practice of astrology seems magical to you, it's because you
don't know what you're doing.
If by the statement "astrology works" you mean that you think it
predicts events reliably, then you aren't studying it very
methodically. If you mean that astrology "works" in the same way that
the face of Jesus seems to appear on a tortilla or something, then you
are studying it methodically.
bassos
> From: "Tom" <dant...@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.magick
> Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>
>
> On Nov 26, 10:05 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> If magick is a method;
>> how does it work ?
>
> Magick is not a method.
Aim of religion, method of science.
It is also a method.
We can discuss the aim of religion aswell, if you like.
> Magick is the production of strange and
> admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
> they were produced.
That is one definition.
> The methods by which these effects are produced
> are not in themselves magick because, once those methods are
> understood by the observers, they no longer appear miraculous.
Ah.
But therein lies the issue.
If the methods are not magick, the end result is not either.
Or is every intentional act a magical one ?
> If you think you're doing something magical, it's because you don't
> know what you're doing.
That is why i appreciate the definition from the goetia, but do not use it
as a working one.
It just does not describe what the process is like.
There is always with every act some part we do not know.
> Now, the study of magick (as differentiated from the performance of
> magick) can and should be methodical.
Not just methodical.
Method interchanged with flights of fancy, with assumption of certain roles,
with etc etc etc.
>> Astrology; works.
>> (study it to experience it working)
>
> Study and practice are not the same thing.
So ?
I claim that to study astrology, a refined appreciation for differing forms
of expression is experienced.
> If the practice of astrology seems magical to you, it's because you
> don't know what you're doing.
I can not predict how my studies change me.
Nor how those changes ripple out to my surroundings.
Seems unknowable enough to be magical according to your definition.
> If by the statement "astrology works" you mean that you think it
> predicts events reliably, then you aren't studying it very
> methodically.
Who talks about prediction, phooey.
Astrology describes a moment.
In all it's infinite riches.
Astrology also notes patterns and cycles.
If you think that refuting the predictive value of astrology is in any way
relevant to it working, YOU are not studying it at all.
Alrah
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
> > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:05 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> If magick is a method;
> >> how does it work ?
>
> > Magick is not a method.
>
> Aim of religion, method of science.
> It is also a method.
> We can discuss the aim of religion aswell, if you like.
>
> > Magick is the production of strange and
> > admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
> > they were produced.
>
> That is one definition.
Well - there is one uncontroversial fact about Magick... it's
British! ;P
Tom
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
> > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:05 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> If magick is a method;
> >> how does it work ?
>
> > Magick is not a method.
>
> Aim of religion, method of science.
> It is also a method.
> We can discuss the aim of religion aswell, if you like.
That was the motto of a publication dedicated to the study of magick.
As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical. There is
no set method for the practice of magick. Anything seems to "work",
so long as you have a very loose idea about what "work" means.
> > Magick is the production of strange and
> > admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
> > they were produced.
>
> That is one definition.
Every other one fails sooner or later.
> > The methods by which these effects are produced
> > are not in themselves magick because, once those methods are
> > understood by the observers, they no longer appear miraculous.
>
> Ah.
> But therein lies the issue.
> If the methods are not magick, the end result is not either.
That's correct. Results are simply what happens subsequently to
whatever you did.
> Or is every intentional act a magical one ?
So says the very same guy who said "Aim of religion, method of
science".
> > If you think you're doing something magical, it's because you don't
> > know what you're doing.
>
> That is why i appreciate the definition from the goetia, but do not use it
> as a working one.
> It just does not describe what the process is like.
A definition of some word is not a full description of what processes
it uses. For instance, one need not describe every chemical process
ever used in order to define the term "chemistry". You do not know
what processes are used in physics just because you know what the term
"physics" means.
> > Now, the study of magick (as differentiated from the performance of
> > magick) can and should be methodical.
>
> Not just methodical.
You can proceed non-methodically if you choose, but then you'd be a
dabbler and a poseur.
> >> Astrology; works.
> >> (study it to experience it working)
>
> > Study and practice are not the same thing.
>
> So ?
So studying it is not the same as "experiencing it working". I
shouldn't have to lead you around by the nose to make this sort of
obvious connection.
bassos
> From: "Tom" <dant...@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.magick
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 6:23 PM
> Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>
>
> On Nov 27, 7:34 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
>> > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:57 PM
>> > Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>>
>> > On Nov 26, 10:05 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >> If magick is a method;
>> >> how does it work ?
>>
>> > Magick is not a method.
>>
>> Aim of religion, method of science.
>> It is also a method.
>> We can discuss the aim of religion aswell, if you like.
>
> That was the motto of a publication dedicated to the study of magick.
So you do not wish to discuss the aim of religion ?
> As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
That is where you are incorrect.
Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
> There is no set method for the practice of magick. Anything seems to
> "work",
> so long as you have a very loose idea about what "work" means.
Work : Effect change.
(also known as karma, meaning action, or movement)
>> > Magick is the production of strange and
>> > admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
>> > they were produced.
>>
>> That is one definition.
>
> Every other one fails sooner or later.
Magick : action.
Tell me how it fails.
(universality of the premise does not invalidate it)
>> > The methods by which these effects are produced
>> > are not in themselves magick because, once those methods are
>> > understood by the observers, they no longer appear miraculous.
>>
>> Ah.
>> But therein lies the issue.
>> If the methods are not magick, the end result is not either.
>
> That's correct. Results are simply what happens subsequently to
> whatever you did.
What if it does not matter what act is done ?
Every movement induces change the effects of which create the miracle of the
one thing.
(lalalalala)
>> Or is every intentional act a magical one ?
>
> So says the very same guy who said "Aim of religion, method of
> science".
It seems conceited to claim said words as my own.
Still, what do i care about claims;
So wrote bassos, the enlightened one.
>> > If you think you're doing something magical, it's because you don't
>> > know what you're doing.
>>
>> That is why i appreciate the definition from the goetia, but do not use
>> it
>> as a working one.
>> It just does not describe what the process is like.
>
> A definition of some word is not a full description of what processes
> it uses.
So why do you use one ?
> For instance, one need not describe every chemical process
> ever used in order to define the term "chemistry".
It sure helps in understanding chemistry.
> You do not know what processes are used in physics just because you know
> what the term
> "physics" means.
Indeed.
Google knows everything.
There are no more secrets.
Wanna start a pool about how long it will take before some AI takes over ?
>> > Now, the study of magick (as differentiated from the performance of
>> > magick) can and should be methodical.
>>
>> Not just methodical.
>
> You can proceed non-methodically if you choose, but then you'd be a
> dabbler and a poseur.
Au contraire, mon fr�re, without changing modes the looming visage of
stagnation obstructs progress.
>> >> Astrology; works.
>> >> (study it to experience it working)
>>
>> > Study and practice are not the same thing.
>>
>> So ?
>
> So studying it is not the same as "experiencing it working". I
> shouldn't have to lead you around by the nose to make this sort of
> obvious connection.
You snipped the relevant part.
I accept your apology.
Tehiru
> Magick is not a method. Â Magick is the production of strange and
> admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
> they were produced. Â The methods by which these effects are produced
> are not in themselves magick because, once those methods are
> understood by the observers, they no longer appear miraculous.
That is one definition, but an external one. Most magick is internal,
involving deliberate self-evolution and those effects are not obvious
in most respects. Some "strange and admirable effects" are
consequences of internal changes, the siddhis being the classic
example.
Tehiru
> Well - there is one uncontroversial fact about Magick... it's
> British! Â ;P
So are bangers.
Alrah
And bubble and squeek. :-)
Tom
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 6:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>
> > On Nov 27, 7:34 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
> >> > Newsgroups: alt.magick
> >> > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 7:57 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: It is a question, not a theme
>
> >> > On Nov 26, 10:05 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> >> If magick is a method;
> >> >> how does it work ?
>
> >> > Magick is not a method.
>
> >> Aim of religion, method of science.
> >> It is also a method.
> >> We can discuss the aim of religion aswell, if you like.
>
> > That was the motto of a publication dedicated to the study of magick.
>
> So you do not wish to discuss the aim of religion ?
Or the price of tea in China? Or who's going to win the Superbowl?
Or any other tangental thought that happens to pop into your head at
any given moment?
> > As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
>
> That is where you are incorrect.
> Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. A methodical study will
indeed result in a minimum. A minimum of bullshit.
> > There is no set method for the practice of magick. Â Anything seems to
> > "work",
> > so long as you have a very loose idea about what "work" means.
>
> Work : Effect change.
> (also known as karma, meaning action, or movement)
Like I said, if your idea of "work" is very loose.
> >> That is one definition.
>
> > Every other one fails sooner or later.
>
> Magick : action.
>
> Tell me how it fails.
> (universality of the premise does not invalidate it)
Not all action. Unintentional action is not magical.
If you define all action as magical, you define everything as magical
and therefore it's useless.
> >> But therein lies the issue.
> >> If the methods are not magick, the end result is not either.
>
> > That's correct. Â Results are simply what happens subsequently to
> > whatever you did.
>
> What if it does not matter what act is done ?
Then the result doesn't matter either.
> >> That is why i appreciate the definition from the goetia, but do not use
> >> it
> >> as a working one.
> >> It just does not describe what the process is like.
>
> > A definition of some word is not a full description of what processes
> > it uses.
>
> So why do you use one ?
"Hammers don't turn screws."
"Then why use a hammer?"
"To drive nails."
Tom
> On Nov 26, 10:57Â am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Magick is not a method. Â Magick is the production of strange and
> > admirable effects that look miraculous to those who don't know how
> > they were produced. Â The methods by which these effects are produced
> > are not in themselves magick because, once those methods are
> > understood by the observers, they no longer appear miraculous.
>
> That is one definition, but an external one. Most magick is internal,
> involving deliberate self-evolution and those effects are not obvious
> in most respects.
Most isn't all, so your definition is overly restrictive by your own
admission. Changes in consciousness are included in mine.
> Some "strange and admirable effects" are
> consequences of internal changes, the siddhis being the classic
> example.
Which is why my definition includes yours but doesn't exclude all the
other kinds of magick that yours does exclude.
Alrah
> On Nov 27, 10:15Â am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > >> That is one definition.
>
> > > Every other one fails sooner or later.
>
> > Magick : action.
>
> > Tell me how it fails.
> > (universality of the premise does not invalidate it)
>
> Not all action. Â Unintentional action is not magical.
> If you define all action as magical, you define everything as magical
> and therefore it's useless.
What is unintention magick Tom?
Tom
There is no "unintention magick". There is magick without lust of
result, but that's quite a different matter.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Alrah wrote:
> On 27 Nov, 22:39, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 27, 10:15ÔøΩam, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>That is one definition.
>>>>
>>>>Every other one fails sooner or later.
>>>
>>>Magick : action.
>>
>>>Tell me how it fails.
>>>(universality of the premise does not invalidate it)
>>
>>Not all action. ÔøΩUnintentional action is not magical.
>>If you define all action as magical, you define everything as magical
>>and therefore it's useless.
>
>
> What is unintention magick Tom?
Crowley wrote 'every intentional act is a magical act' bit IMO every act
is a magical act.
Crowley, in his definitions and theorems
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/defs.htm writes:
1) Every intentional act is a Magickal act.
(Illustration: See "Definition" above.)
By "intentional" I mean "willed". But even unintentional acts so seeming
are not truly so. Thus, breathing is an act of the Will to Live.
Incarnation is thought to be a willed or intentional act by some. As
can be the ceasing of incarnation, by an act of will.
But there it is speculated that some addictive quality comes into play
and we are as addicted to incarnating in some futile search for
'fulfillment' as we may be to any particular object or action in life.
And as such any habit or addiction be it drugs, sex, money, power or
even "Love" or what ever else one is addicted to in a futile search for
fulfillment of, is a symptom of a greater addiction to "Life" &
incarnating as self aware matter.
Theoretically this all presupposes some sort of innate perfection to
some indivisible, unitary aspect of that which incarnates, the
hypothetical immortal soul or spirit.
That spirit, knowing itself immortal and invulnerable, chooses to suffer
material existence knowing it will change only by the acquisition of its
memories of the experience.
It is speculated that in our preterhuman intelligence we can choose to
suffer that which to our ordinary human intelligence would never be
chosen, and that willingly, as an experience, perhaps only as an
experience but also, perhaps, to be learned from. Perhaps to learn to
cease incarnating.
One could go so far as to argue that the Vedic idea of the conscious
choice to develop and use "Magick" as possible but detrimental to
spiritual evolution is predicated on the first false step of choosing to
incarnate as a human being that can make the choice to try to develop so
called "Magick" powers.
I prefer to look at Magick as a metaphor and think that my most recent,
successful spells resulted in an abundance of some jolly good booze and
chocolate.
Anybody got a spell for Turkey Mole?
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Miguel Alberto
you to the timeline where the belief is reality.
When more than 50% of the brain is awakened, every thought will
manifest as reality. It isn't sudden, for example, at about 40% of the
brain awakened, everything said will manifest as reality; speech, but
not thought.
"If you have the faith of a mustard seed and say to this mountain
move it shall be moved"- Jesus Christ. You go to the timeline where the
mountain is elsewhere.
Real Yoga awakens the brain. That is, when part of the muscarinic
nervous system is physically stimulated, like vagal stimulation of the
parasympathetic nervous system, this stimulation spreads to the brain to
override the inhibitory neurons and thereby awaken the brain.
The vagus nerve was called the "Golden Bough". In the "Aenied" it
is written, "You cannot enter the Underworld without the Golden Bough"-
Virgil
Tom
wrote:
>
> Crowley wrote 'every intentional act is a magical act' bit IMO every act
> is a magical act.
Why?
Tom
> Â Â Â When more than 50% of the brain believes something, it will take
> you to the timeline where the belief is reality.
The part of the brain that believes things is far less than 50%.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tom
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 6:19Â pm, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <jpsti...@isp.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Crowley wrote 'every intentional act is a magical act' bit IMO every act
> >>is a magical act.
>
> > Why?
>
> Opere citato?
Are you guessing?
bassos
> From: "Tom" dant...@comcast.net
>
> On Nov 27, 10:15 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>>
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>>
>>
>> >> >> If magick is a method;
>> >> >> how does it work ?
>>
>> >> > Magick is not a method.
>>
>> >> Aim of religion, method of science.
>> >> It is also a method.
>> >> We can discuss the aim of religion aswell, if you like.
>>
>> > That was the motto of a publication dedicated to the study of magick.
>>
>> So you do not wish to discuss the aim of religion ?
>
> Or the price of tea in China? Or who's going to win the Superbowl?
> Or any other tangental thought that happens to pop into your head at
> any given moment?
We where discussing magick.
Tangeants are yours.
>> > As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
>>
>> That is where you are incorrect.
>> Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
>
> Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
> you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. A methodical study will
> indeed result in a minimum. A minimum of bullshit.
No.
It is about heuristics in neural nets.
If you apply a strict method, the chances for reaching a local minimum
instead of a global one is increased.
The method needs to change frequently.
(in specifically magick, change modes alot)
Your hang up about strict methods seems to be that it is more convincing to
other people.
You can let go of that.
It is more akin to a sculpture.
Once the work is done people can form their own opinions about it.
Convincing someone might well fall in the category of 'black magick'.
(ofcourse this particular sculpture is an ever ongoing work in progress, so
it changes, that is still ok for impressions)
>> > There is no set method for the practice of magick. Anything seems to
>> > "work",
>> > so long as you have a very loose idea about what "work" means.
>>
>> Work : Effect change.
>> (also known as karma, meaning action, or movement)
>
> Like I said, if your idea of "work" is very loose.
More like very precise.
Every act creates change.
The possible scale to measure stuff on is the manner in which it was
effective.
Ceteris Paribus is an impossibility.
>> >> That is one definition.
>>
>> > Every other one fails sooner or later.
>>
>> Magick : action.
>>
>> Tell me how it fails.
>> (universality of the premise does not invalidate it)
>
> Not all action.
Yes, all acts.
> Unintentional action is not magical.
Yes it is.
> If you define all action as magical, you define everything as magical
So do you.
> and therefore it's useless.
Nonsense.
A sense of wonder with every act is marvelous.
Your definition relies upon an observer that may or may not find what you do
magical.
But looking somewhat more closely at that;
In every act there is a mysterious part, so you in fact agree that every act
is a magical act.
Tehiru
> > Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
> > you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. Â A methodical study will
> > indeed result in a minimum. Â A minimum of bullshit.
>
> No.
> It is about heuristics in neural nets.
> If you apply a strict method, the chances for reaching a local minimum
> instead of a global one is increased.
> The method needs to change frequently.
> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>
I think what Bassos is attempting to express is that he feels that a
methodical approach is not preferred? And that changing approaches
frequently is optimal?
I'll bite. I don't have any problem with exploring and adopting new
paradigms as necessary, but you still need to be methodical? Go ahead
and move into Santeria if you want, but you are still going to want to
conduct experiements, take notes and so forth of your experiences.
Or have I completely misinterpreted you?
Absorbed
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom" dant...@comcast.net
>>
>> On Nov 27, 10:15 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>>> > As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
>>>
>>> That is where you are incorrect.
>>> Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
>>
>> Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
>> you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. A methodical study will
>> indeed result in a minimum. A minimum of bullshit.
>
> No.
> It is about heuristics in neural nets.
> If you apply a strict method, the chances for reaching a local minimum
> instead of a global one is increased.
Firstly, if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning, it's
not going to find any minima at all since it's not learning with any
direction. When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and
should be methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a
local minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you shouldn't
search for any minima at all. This in itself should reveal to you just
how confused you are.
Secondly, if you're studying magick methodically, that doesn't mean that
you will definitely get stuck believing a load of bullshit. If anything,
a methodical approach helps prevent that from happening. Without a
methodical approach, what you learn and your beliefs concerning the
subject will not be determined by what is true, but by other factors:
"that the same cause which make him a Churchman in London, would have
made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Pekin".
By studying a subject methodically you can reduce the influence of
chance and circumstance, so that as time passes what you believe is more
and more influenced by what is true. In fact, you could say that a good
methodical study of a subject will step-by-step reveal bullshit and
illusions, and inevitably converge with the truth, although it may take
years to get there.
> The method needs to change frequently.
> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study of
magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect. Now you say the
method should change frequently. If you're using any sort of method,
even if that method changes, your study is still methodical. In fact,
presuming you're not a complete retard, that you say it "*needs* to
change" suggests there is a method to the way your method changes,
making your approach of studying magick, by definition, methodical.
To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob" is
the appropriate word.
The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's a
good method for discovering the truth of a matter. However, I would say
that it is a method that you should pay very close attention to, since
its effectiveness largely determines the reliability of your beliefs.
By keeping your beliefs tentative and continuing to challenge your own
beliefs concerning a subject -- two things you fail to do, incidentally
-- you will avoid permanently falling for a load of bullshit. These two
things can be part of a methodical study of magick.
Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is needed
in my explanation.
bassos
"Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hf1g01$52h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> bassos wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom" dant...@comcast.net
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 10:15 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>>>> > As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
>>>>
>>>> That is where you are incorrect.
>>>> Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
>>>
>>> Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
>>> you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. A methodical study will
>>> indeed result in a minimum. A minimum of bullshit.
>>
>> No.
>> It is about heuristics in neural nets.
>> If you apply a strict method, the chances for reaching a local minimum
>> instead of a global one is increased.
>
> Firstly, if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning, it's not
> going to find any minima at all since it's not learning with any
> direction.
It uses heuristics.....
Doh.
And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and should be
> methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a local
> minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you shouldn't search
> for any minima at all.
Nope.
At least that is not what i claimed above.
In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may actually
be decreased.
To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
> This in itself should reveal to you just how confused you are.
Heh.
So now i am 10=1 ?
> Secondly, if you're studying magick methodically, that doesn't mean that
> you will definitely get stuck believing a load of bullshit. If anything, a
> methodical approach helps prevent that from happening. Without a
> methodical approach, what you learn and your beliefs concerning the
> subject will not be determined by what is true, but by other factors:
> "that the same cause which make him a Churchman in London, would have made
> him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Pekin".
Yeah, that is why fundamentalist are so enlightened.
Or how those noobs from magical orders are 'totally' beyond all that.
> By studying a subject methodically you can reduce the influence of chance
> and circumstance, so that as time passes what you believe is more and more
> influenced by what is true. In fact, you could say that a good methodical
> study of a subject will step-by-step reveal bullshit and illusions, and
> inevitably converge with the truth, although it may take years to get
> there.
Well, that indeed is one of the problems of modern science.
The adagium that a theory that opposes current thinking, but is true
undergoes some stages.
ridicule, denial, death of the old guard, accepted as self-evidently true.
Repeat the same act long enough and the brain will accomodate you by
specializing.
That is somewhat akin to blinders.
So my suggestion is to make wide spirals.
Eclectically read loads of viewpoints.
Do experiment, and indeed, actually repeat them.
Then do something else.
In those big rounds, you build upon a much larger foundation.
It is still limited, but well, so it goes.
If you climb to the top in one side, all other sides will be interpretated
from there.
If you diversify, progress will seem more slowly, but also more surely.
The goal, after all, is to be an expert in everything;
Shoot beyond the crown!
>> The method needs to change frequently.
>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>
> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study of
> magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
It is about the should be.
> Now you say the method should change frequently. If you're using any sort
> of method, even if that method changes, your study is still methodical.
Well, from some pov yes.
Every act is in some way methodical, thereby destroying the entire
conversation.
Thanks dude.
(note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just that)
> In fact, presuming you're not a complete retard, that you say it "*needs*
> to change" suggests there is a method to the way your method changes,
> making your approach of studying magick, by definition, methodical.
Sometimes circumstances decide what you do.
In some way that is methodical.
Letting it up to fleeting thoughts about what to choose to do, also
methodical.
Just acting, and only in hindsight looking at what you did, also method.
Every act is a methodical act.
It is about adherence to strict methodology.
> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob" is the
> appropriate word.
Oh how you shower me with praise.
Thanks.
> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's a good
> method for discovering the truth of a matter.
There can not be a single good method.
Reality is in motion you see.
> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very close
> attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the reliability
> of your beliefs.
Beliefs ?
Let's call them assumptions.
> By keeping your assumptions tentative and continuing to challenge your own
> assumptions concerning a subject
Then you are indeed not following a strict method.
> -- two things you fail to do, incidentally --
Two things inherent in my claim that change is immanent.
> you will avoid permanently falling for a load of bullshit. These two
> things can be part of a methodical study of magick.
Well, falling for a load of bullshit is also a method.
> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is needed in
> my explanation.
It was perhaps short.
Not clumsy.
Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research into it.
Absorbed
> "Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hf1g01$52h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> bassos wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom" dant...@comcast.net
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 10:15 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>>>>> > As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is where you are incorrect.
>>>>> Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
>>>>
>>>> Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
>>>> you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. A methodical study will
>>>> indeed result in a minimum. A minimum of bullshit.
>>>
>>> No.
>>> It is about heuristics in neural nets.
>>> If you apply a strict method, the chances for reaching a local
>>> minimum instead of a global one is increased.
>>
>> Firstly, if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning, it's
>> not going to find any minima at all since it's not learning with any
>> direction.
>
> It uses heuristics.....
>
> Doh.
Heuristics are methods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
"Heuristics as a noun is another name for heuristic methods."
Oops... But then, I'm sure you'll tell me that heuristics aren't
methods, and being that your word is sacrosanct, that'll make it true.
> And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
Then you're changing your position.
>> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and should be
>> methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a local
>> minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you shouldn't
>> search for any minima at all.
>
> Nope.
> At least that is not what i claimed above.
Except for the fact that that is exactly what your claimed above.
Weaseling noted.
> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
> actually be decreased.
This is a poorly written sentence. Do you mean that the likelihood of
finding the global minimum is decreased because you're searching for it?
> To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
I'm also unsure as to what you're getting at here. Surely, if you want
to study a subject, you want to know the truth of the matter, not any
old answer.
>>> The method needs to change frequently.
>>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>>
>> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study of
>> magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
>
> It is about the should be.
More weaseling noted.
>> Now you say the method should change frequently. If you're using any
>> sort of method, even if that method changes, your study is still
>> methodical.
>
> Well, from some pov yes.
> Every act is in some way methodical, thereby destroying the entire
> conversation.
> Thanks dude.
No problem.
> (note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just that)
There are degrees of methodicalness. I wouldn't call your approach to
studying magick particularly methodical, given that it unexpectedly
"changes" all the time. That might explains, ironically, why you've been
posting the *same* old bullshit on alt.magick for years. Here's a tip:
you cannot stop your internal monologue by starting a new internal
monologue.
If you wanted to learn calculus, there are good and bad methods for
doing so, but a method isn't necessarily bad because it's methodical. If
anything, I would say that the more methodical you are, the more likely
you are to have a good method.
> It is about adherence to strict methodology.
If you're going to design a method to do something, then you're probably
better off strictly adhering to it to give it a chance, rather than
constantly changing it. You could constantly change your method of
studying magick and not get anywhere, since they don't have opportunity
to produce results. In my experience of studying subjects, I've had more
results when sticking to a deeply-considered, well-thought-out method.
Checking a good university's website will provide you with many examples
of ways to study a subject, many of which follow a strict methodology.
That said, if you keep performing the same action, you should expect the
same result. Being methodical is different to stubbornly sticking to an
ineffectual method.
>> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob" is
>> the appropriate word.
>
> Oh how you shower me with praise.
>
> Thanks.
You're a fool as well... oh, that's another compliment, isn't it?
>> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's a
>> good method for discovering the truth of a matter.
>
> There can not be a single good method.
I know one good method for multiplying any two integers by hand. I don't
need another.
> Reality is in motion you see.
Some things change, others don't. The rules of mathematics don't change,
and my method of multiplying by hand is good for life.
If you're finding that your method of learning magick isn't doing what
you want, then you may consider changing it. If it is, then you don't
need to change it. The subject itself doesn't change; reality is what it is.
>> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very
>> close attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the
>> reliability of your beliefs.
>
> Beliefs ?
>
> Let's call them assumptions.
Why? You're just slightly changing the meaning of what I've written. I
would say that an assumption is something that you take for granted. I
think a belief is something that you're confident is true.
>> By keeping your assumptions tentative and continuing to challenge your
>> own assumptions concerning a subject
>
> Then you are indeed not following a strict method.
And yet my approach to learning magick has been quite methodical.
>> -- two things you fail to do, incidentally --
>
> Two things inherent in my claim that change is immanent.
It seems that you're not aware of the assumptions that you take for
granted. How you react to this belief that "change is immanent" appears
to be considerably hindering your ability to learn about anything, since
it appears to make you avoid planning. I suspect that you're reactive,
not proactive -- the opposite of you'd expect from someone who considers
themselves a magician.
>> you will avoid permanently falling for a load of bullshit. These two
>> things can be part of a methodical study of magick.
>
> Well, falling for a load of bullshit is also a method.
The act of falling for bullshit isn't a method. A bad method may have
led you to fall for bullshit.
>> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is
>> needed in my explanation.
>
> It was perhaps short.
> Not clumsy.
> Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research into it.
That you consider it perfectly understandable, despite it actually being
an exceedingly clumsy analogy, suggests that you're lost in your own head.
bassos
> bassos wrote:
>> "Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hf1g01$52h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> bassos wrote:
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom" dant...@comcast.net
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 27, 10:15 am, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> > From: "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net>
>>>>>> > As I said, the study of magick can and should be methodical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is where you are incorrect.
>>>>>> Using strict methodology will lead you to a local minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I say, you can do it unmethodically if you prefer, but then
>>>>> you're going to be a dabbler and a poseur. A methodical study will
>>>>> indeed result in a minimum. A minimum of bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> It is about heuristics in neural nets.
>>>> If you apply a strict method, the chances for reaching a local minimum
>>>> instead of a global one is increased.
>>>
>>> Firstly, if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning, it's
>>> not going to find any minima at all since it's not learning with any
>>> direction.
>>
>> It uses heuristics.....
>>
>> Doh.
>
> Heuristics are methods:
Doh.
Are you really this stupid ?
>> And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
>
> Then you're changing your position.
No.
You are slowly catching up.
>>> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and should be
>>> methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a local
>>> minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you shouldn't search
>>> for any minima at all.
>>
>> Nope.
>> At least that is not what i claimed above.
>
> Except for the fact that that is exactly what your claimed above.
Where do i claim you should not look for any minima at all ?
Be specific.
> Weaseling noted.
We'll see.
>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>> actually be decreased.
>
> This is a poorly written sentence.
Ignorance noted.
> Do you mean that the likelihood of finding the global minimum is decreased
> because you're searching for it?
No.
It is not you searching.
It is searching itself.
>> To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
>
> I'm also unsure as to what you're getting at here.
There are a great many of local minima.
So they are found easily.
Duh.
>>>> The method needs to change frequently.
>>>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>>>
>>> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study of
>>> magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
>>
>> It is about the should be.
>
> More weaseling noted.
More ignorance noted.
If any method should be used, it implicates it as the only method that can
be used.
>>> Now you say the method should change frequently. If you're using any
>>> sort of method, even if that method changes, your study is still
>>> methodical.
>>
>> Well, from some pov yes.
>> Every act is in some way methodical, thereby destroying the entire
>> conversation.
>> Thanks dude.
>
> No problem.
Now adapt.
>> (note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just that)
>
> There are degrees of methodicalness.
No.
Everything follows some method.
> I wouldn't call your approach to studying magick particularly methodical
Heh.
What is my approach to studying magick ?
> given that it unexpectedly "changes" all the time.
Why would that be a given ?
> That might explains, ironically, why you've been posting the *same* old
> bullshit on alt.magick for years.
Heh.
Such easy poisoning.
You can do better.
> Here's a tip: you cannot stop your internal monologue by starting a new
> internal monologue.
So why do you continue with the same one ?
> I would say that the more methodical you are, the more likely you are to
> have a good method.
Borg drone, the search for perfection is flawed.
Failure is required.
>> It is about adherence to strict methodology.
>
> If you're going to design a method to do something, then you're probably
> better off strictly adhering to it to give it a chance, rather than
> constantly changing it.
Why would that be better ?
> You could constantly change your method of studying magick and not get
> anywhere, since they don't have opportunity to produce results.
Why would adhering to the same flawed methods be superior to constantly
changing methods to adhere to improved data ?
> In my experience of studying subjects, I've had more results when sticking
> to a deeply-considered, well-thought-out method.
Did it adhere more to your preconceptions ?
> Checking a good university's website will provide you with many examples
> of ways to study a subject, many of which follow a strict methodology.
Well, princeton has a great website.
Much better than the one from harvard.
Does that matter ?
> That said, if you keep performing the same action, you should expect the
> same result. Being methodical is different to stubbornly sticking to an
> ineffectual method.
No, it ultimately is exactly the same thing.
Stagnation.
>>> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob" is
>>> the appropriate word.
>>
>> Oh how you shower me with praise.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> You're a fool as well... oh, that's another compliment, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
Perhaps you are starting to pay attention.
>>> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's a
>>> good method for discovering the truth of a matter.
>>
>> There can not be a single good method.
>
> I know one good method for multiplying any two integers by hand. I don't
> need another.
Closed mind noted.
>> Reality is in motion you see.
>
> Some things change, others don't.
Everything changes.
Holding on to particulars holds you back to them.
You and they have already changed.
> The rules of mathematics don't change,
Yes they do.
> and my method of multiplying by hand is good for life.
Solo-orgasmic ?
>>> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very close
>>> attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the reliability
>>> of your beliefs.
>>
>> Beliefs ?
>>
>> Let's call them assumptions.
>
> Why?
More accurate.
(and assumptions are not taken for granted, they are premisses for certain
viewpoints)
>>> By keeping your assumptions tentative and continuing to challenge your
>>> own assumptions concerning a subject
>>
>> Then you are indeed not following a strict method.
>
> And yet my approach to learning magick has been quite methodical.
Belief nothing.
Everything is true.
Every man and woman is a star
Be like children and enter the kingdom of heaven.
>>> -- two things you fail to do, incidentally --
>>
>> Two things inherent in my claim that change is immanent.
>
> It seems that you're not aware of the assumptions that you take for
> granted.
Heh, perceptions.
> How you react to this belief that "change is immanent" appears to be
> considerably hindering your ability to learn about anything, since it
> appears to make you avoid planning. I suspect that you're reactive, not
> proactive -- the opposite of you'd expect from someone who considers
> themselves a magician.
I am Bassos.
Do you consider yourself to be a magician ?
>>> you will avoid permanently falling for a load of bullshit. These two
>>> things can be part of a methodical study of magick.
>>
>> Well, falling for a load of bullshit is also a method.
>
> The act of falling for bullshit isn't a method. A bad method may have led
> you to fall for bullshit.
So many possibilities.
It may have, it may have not, or it may have and was needed, or it may have
not and was needed aswell.
So when did you embrace bullshit ?
>>> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is needed
>>> in my explanation.
>>
>> It was perhaps short.
>> Not clumsy.
>> Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research into it.
>
> That you consider it perfectly understandable, despite it actually being
> an exceedingly clumsy analogy, suggests that you're lost in your own head.
So you did not research it, did you ?
You thinking to be able to make a definate classification of something i
wrote.
Delusional much ?
Absorbed
I think I see your misunderstanding. When I said "if a neural network
doesn't have a method for learning", your reply was meant to be
something to the effect of "but neural networks do use a method for
learning".
When I said "if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning", I
was putting forward a hypothetical situation. When you said that "the
study of magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect, inside your
crappy analogy, that would mean not using any method for learning for a
neural network.
>>> And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
>>
>> Then you're changing your position.
>
> No.
>
> You are slowly catching up.
On the contrary, you stated a claim that you didn't intend to make. That
you're now stating a different position doesn't stop your originally
stated position from being what it was. It's not my lack of
understanding, but your inability to form your meaning in words.
>
>>>> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and should
>>>> be methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a
>>>> local minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you
>>>> shouldn't search for any minima at all.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>> At least that is not what i claimed above.
>>
>> Except for the fact that that is exactly what your claimed above.
>
> Where do i claim you should not look for any minima at all ?
>
> Be specific.
When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical" is
incorrect. If the study shouldn't be methodical, then you shouldn't use
a method to find minima.
>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>>> actually be decreased.
>>
>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>
> Ignorance noted.
Inability to communicate in English noted.
Incidentally, it's not only me that struggles to understand your
ramblings; pretty much everyone I've ever seen have an exchange with you
here has struggled to understand your intended meaning.
>> Do you mean that the likelihood of finding the global minimum is
>> decreased because you're searching for it?
>
> No.
> It is not you searching.
> It is searching itself.
So you meant that the likelihood of find the global minimum is decreased
by searching? Need of English lessons noted.
>>> To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
>>
>> I'm also unsure as to what you're getting at here.
>
> There are a great many of local minima.
> So they are found easily.
>
> Duh.
So "To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy",
translated from Bassosese, was supposed to mean "It is easy to get stuck
in a local minimum because there are many of them"?
>>>>> The method needs to change frequently.
>>>>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>>>>
>>>> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study
>>>> of magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
>>>
>>> It is about the should be.
>>
>> More weaseling noted.
>
> More ignorance noted.
>
> If any method should be used, it implicates it as the only method that
> can be used.
This also makes no sense. It's like you're trying to say that since the
study should be methodical, or done by using methods, that implies that
only method is to use methods?
>>> (note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just that)
>>
>> There are degrees of methodicalness.
>
> No.
> Everything follows some method.
I would say there are degrees of methodicalness. Reading a book from
start to finish, a chapter at a time, is more methodical than reading
random segments.
>> I wouldn't call your approach to studying magick particularly methodical
>
> Heh.
> What is my approach to studying magick ?
I don't know. I do know that you said it frequently changes, which is
enough information for me to make the above judgment.
>> given that it unexpectedly "changes" all the time.
>
> Why would that be a given ?
That's what you said: "The method needs to change frequently. (in
specifically magick, change modes alot)".
>> Here's a tip: you cannot stop your internal monologue by starting a
>> new internal monologue.
>
> So why do you continue with the same one ?
Whether it's a new internal monologue or an existing one, they're both
still internal monologues; it makes no difference.
>> I would say that the more methodical you are, the more likely you are
>> to have a good method.
>
> Borg drone, the search for perfection is flawed.
It isn't about achieving perfection, but striving for it. By being
methodical you're stacking the odds in your favour, making it more
likely that you'll avoid bullshit.
> Failure is required.
Determining what constitutes a failure is a problem in itself, hence the
need for a trustworthy method. A rotten method will appear to succeed
while it fails miserably.
Sometimes studying a subject with an sort-of-reliable method is worse
than doing no studying at all.
>>> It is about adherence to strict methodology.
>>
>> If you're going to design a method to do something, then you're
>> probably better off strictly adhering to it to give it a chance,
>> rather than constantly changing it.
>
> Why would that be better ?
If you decided to try only one 45-minute session of meditation, you
would probably dismiss it afterwards due to a lack of results.
>> You could constantly change your method of studying magick and not get
>> anywhere, since they don't have opportunity to produce results.
>
> Why would adhering to the same flawed methods be superior to constantly
> changing methods to adhere to improved data ?
Because you may be dismissing methods as flawed even though they would
have been effective if you had of stuck with them. See my above
meditation example.
>> In my experience of studying subjects, I've had more results when
>> sticking to a deeply-considered, well-thought-out method.
>
> Did it adhere more to your preconceptions ?
Did what adhere more to my preconceptions?
A well-thought-out method of study infers conclusions from evidence,
while attempting to minimising the influence of things like
preconceptions, chance, and circumstance. Distinguishing between
evidence and your interpretation of the evidence can be incredibly
tricky and laden with traps; it is easy to consider your interpretation
of evidence as the evidence itself.
>> Checking a good university's website will provide you with many
>> examples of ways to study a subject, many of which follow a strict
>> methodology.
>
> Well, princeton has a great website.
> Much better than the one from harvard.
>
> Does that matter ?
If you're continuing to maintain that following a strict methodology is
a problem, then it matters to your position, I'd say.
>> That said, if you keep performing the same action, you should expect
>> the same result. Being methodical is different to stubbornly sticking
>> to an ineffectual method.
>
> No, it ultimately is exactly the same thing.
>
> Stagnation.
If a method is doing what you wish it to do, then it doesn't matter if
it "stagnates". My multiplication-by-hand method doesn't need to change.
>>>> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob"
>>>> is the appropriate word.
>>>
>>> Oh how you shower me with praise.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> You're a fool as well... oh, that's another compliment, isn't it?
>
> Indeed it is.
Hilarious idiocy noted.
> Perhaps you are starting to pay attention.
You're not -- I'll tell you that for free.
>>>> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's
>>>> a good method for discovering the truth of a matter.
>>>
>>> There can not be a single good method.
>>
>> I know one good method for multiplying any two integers by hand. I
>> don't need another.
>
> Closed mind noted.
What precisely am I closed minded to in this example?
>>> Reality is in motion you see.
>>
>> Some things change, others don't.
>
> Everything changes.
> Holding on to particulars holds you back to them.
2 + 2 = 4. The Earth will orbit the Sun for the rest of my life. These
things I can say with certainty. They don't change.
> You and they have already changed.
>
>> The rules of mathematics don't change,
>
> Yes they do.
Perhaps tomorrow it'll be 2 + 2 = 5, eh? You better try it on your
calculator tomorrow just to make sure.
>> and my method of multiplying by hand is good for life.
>
> Solo-orgasmic ?
Thinking about masturbation while reading my posts noted.
>>>> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very
>>>> close attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the
>>>> reliability of your beliefs.
>>>
>>> Beliefs ?
>>>
>>> Let's call them assumptions.
>>
>> Why?
>
> More accurate.
It just changes the meaning of what I said. Whether it's more accurate
or not depends upon the meaning I intended to convey, not on facts as
you're implying here.
> (and assumptions are not taken for granted, they are premisses for
> certain viewpoints)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption
as.sump.tion
noun
1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
>
>>>> By keeping your assumptions tentative and continuing to challenge
>>>> your own assumptions concerning a subject
>>>
>>> Then you are indeed not following a strict method.
>>
>> And yet my approach to learning magick has been quite methodical.
>
> Belief nothing.
> Everything is true.
> Every man and woman is a star
> Be like children and enter the kingdom of heaven.
Waffle noted.
>>>> -- two things you fail to do, incidentally --
>>>
>>> Two things inherent in my claim that change is immanent.
>>
>> It seems that you're not aware of the assumptions that you take for
>> granted.
>
> Heh, perceptions.
As I said, it seems that you're not aware of the assumptions that you
take for granted.
>> How you react to this belief that "change is immanent" appears to be
>> considerably hindering your ability to learn about anything, since it
>> appears to make you avoid planning. I suspect that you're reactive,
>> not proactive -- the opposite of you'd expect from someone who
>> considers themselves a magician.
>
> I am Bassos.
> Do you consider yourself to be a magician ?
Not really, no.
>>>> you will avoid permanently falling for a load of bullshit. These two
>>>> things can be part of a methodical study of magick.
>>>
>>> Well, falling for a load of bullshit is also a method.
>>
>> The act of falling for bullshit isn't a method. A bad method may have
>> led you to fall for bullshit.
>
> So many possibilities.
> It may have, it may have not, or it may have and was needed, or it may
> have not and was needed aswell.
>
> So when did you embrace bullshit ?
I don't. I dispel it.
>>>> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is
>>>> needed in my explanation.
>>>
>>> It was perhaps short.
>>> Not clumsy.
>>> Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research into
>>> it.
>>
>> That you consider it perfectly understandable, despite it actually
>> being an exceedingly clumsy analogy, suggests that you're lost in your
>> own head.
>
> So you did not research it, did you ?
I studied artificial neural networks at university. While I'm a little
rusty on the subject, I still suspect I understand the subject far
better than you do.
> You thinking to be able to make a definate classification of something i
> wrote.
Forming definite classifications isn't difficult. I can classify all
your posts as bullshit, and that is that. Easy.
bassos
Must be me who misunderstands, eh ?
(even though you claim that you have dificulties understanding anything i
wrote, going so far as to claim everyone has said difficulties)
> When I said "if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning", your
> reply was meant to be something to the effect of "but neural networks do
> use a method for learning".
I claimed the use of heuristics before you incorrectly restated my position.
> When I said "if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning", I
> was putting forward a hypothetical situation.
It is just not a hypothetical situation related to what you replied to.
So it has no bearing on the discussion.
> When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical" is
> incorrect, inside your crappy analogy, that would mean not using any
> method for learning for a neural network.
"Should be" apparantly still evades your understanding.
It is a statement from authority where no such authority exists.
Your incorrect conclusion that it would mean not using any method is a straw
man.
>>>> And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
>>>
>>> Then you're changing your position.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You are slowly catching up.
>
> On the contrary, you stated a claim that you didn't intend to make.
Nonsense.
You are simply misrepresenting it.
> That you're now stating a different position doesn't stop your originally
> stated position from being what it was.
My initial position was and still is :
Adherence to strict methods is more likely to lead to a local minimum than
frequent changes.
(the frequency may be discussable, the need for adaptation is not)
> It's not my lack of understanding, but your inability to form your meaning
> in words.
Heh.
>>>>> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and should be
>>>>> methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a local
>>>>> minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you shouldn't
>>>>> search for any minima at all.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>> At least that is not what i claimed above.
>>>
>>> Except for the fact that that is exactly what your claimed above.
>>
>> Where do i claim you should not look for any minima at all ?
>>
>> Be specific.
>
> When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical" is
> incorrect.
That is not a claim you should not look for any minima.
It is a claim you will definately find some local one by using strict
methods.
It really is not that difficult.
> If the study shouldn't be methodical, then you shouldn't use a method to
> find minima.
I already showed you how every act is a methodical act.
STRICT methods is what is being discussed.
Not just any old methods.
Besides, claiming that :"you should be methodical" is wrong is not the same
claim as :"you should not use methods".
Can't you see that ?
>>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>>>> actually be decreased.
>>>
>>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>>
>> Ignorance noted.
>
> Inability to communicate in English noted.
Heh, yeah, when talking to a mouse, it is your fault the mouse does not
understand.
Ofcourse.
(wanna bet you wil take that metaphor and abuse it ?)
> Incidentally, it's not only me that struggles to understand your
> ramblings; pretty much everyone I've ever seen have an exchange with you
> here has struggled to understand your intended meaning.
So you specifically claim that it is highly unlikely you will be likely to
actually understand what i wrote.
If that is so, why do you continue making silly statements about what you
think i mean ?
>>> Do you mean that the likelihood of finding the global minimum is
>>> decreased because you're searching for it?
>>
>> No.
>> It is not you searching.
>> It is searching itself.
>
> So you meant that the likelihood of find the global minimum is decreased
> by searching? Need of English lessons noted.
The act of searching can indeed be obstructive to finding.
As anyone who ever lost pretty much anything will attest to.
The strict method of searching leads to overlooking them glasses right on
your nose.
Or in remembering something, strict continuation in attempts to retrieve
often lead to dead ends.
Then not searching at all relaxes the strictness and a different avenue can
be taken.
(after which is kinda simply pops up)
>>>> To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
>>>
>>> I'm also unsure as to what you're getting at here.
>>
>> There are a great many of local minima.
>> So they are found easily.
>>
>> Duh.
>
> So "To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy",
> translated from Bassosese, was supposed to mean "It is easy to get stuck
> in a local minimum because there are many of them"?
No.
It is easy to find them.
The getting stuck in them is due to adherence to strict methods.
>>>>>> The method needs to change frequently.
>>>>>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>>>>>
>>>>> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study of
>>>>> magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> It is about the should be.
>>>
>>> More weaseling noted.
>>
>> More ignorance noted.
>>
>> If any method should be used, it implicates it as the only method that
>> can be used.
>
> This also makes no sense.
Not to you.
>>>> (note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just that)
>>>
>>> There are degrees of methodicalness.
>>
>> No.
>> Everything follows some method.
>
> I would say there are degrees of methodicalness.
Nope.
Chaos itself is a method.
There is no measure.
The strictness of adherence to a particular method is measurable.
Like adhering to the scientific method, which we already have seen leads to
local minima all the time.
> Reading a book from start to finish, a chapter at a time, is more
> methodical than reading random segments.
Nope.
It is just a different method.
>>> I wouldn't call your approach to studying magick particularly methodical
>>
>> Heh.
>> What is my approach to studying magick ?
>
> I don't know.
So why call it anything ?
> I do know that you said it frequently changes, which is enough information
> for me to make the above judgment.
I claim it should change.
Where do i claim i adhere to that ?
>>> Here's a tip: you cannot stop your internal monologue by starting a new
>>> internal monologue.
>>
>> So why do you continue with the same one ?
>
> Whether it's a new internal monologue or an existing one, they're both
> still internal monologues; it makes no difference.
In that it is not stopped, yeah, no difference at all.
>>> I would say that the more methodical you are, the more likely you are to
>>> have a good method.
>>
>> Borg drone, the search for perfection is flawed.
>
> It isn't about achieving perfection, but striving for it.
What if striving for perfection is a blockage in being able to achieve
perfection ?
> By being methodical you're stacking the odds in your favour, making it
> more likely that you'll avoid bullshit.
Bullshit is required.
You need the entire tapestry.
>> Failure is required.
>
> Determining what constitutes a failure is a problem in itself, hence the
> need for a trustworthy method.
Set goal, fail achieving that goal, voila, failure.
For instance, to write a good book, it is likely you will need to first
write mediocre books as part of obtaining the neccesary skills.
> A rotten method will appear to succeed while it fails miserably.
Heh.
The appreciation of achievement is not dependant on the rottenness of a used
method.
Or is it for you ?
The methods where sound, so the result is sound aswell.
(if we stipulate that there would be a possibility of assessing the
soundness of methods and results)
> Sometimes studying a subject with an sort-of-reliable method is worse than
> doing no studying at all.
Do tell.
And be sure to mention a reliable method.
(eg anyting short of perfection will not do)
>>>> It is about adherence to strict methodology.
>>>
>>> If you're going to design a method to do something, then you're probably
>>> better off strictly adhering to it to give it a chance, rather than
>>> constantly changing it.
>>
>> Why would that be better ?
>
> If you decided to try only one 45-minute session of meditation, you would
> probably dismiss it afterwards due to a lack of results.
Then again, if you only meditate (strict adherence to meditation) you will
be dead in a couple of days.
Perhaps we could look at death as a sorta global minimum :)
>>> You could constantly change your method of studying magick and not get
>>> anywhere, since they don't have opportunity to produce results.
>>
>> Why would adhering to the same flawed methods be superior to constantly
>> changing methods to adhere to improved data ?
>
> Because you may be dismissing methods as flawed even though they would
> have been effective if you had of stuck with them. See my above meditation
> example.
Perhaps my taking your example and applying strictness to it changes your
opinion there.
>>> In my experience of studying subjects, I've had more results when
>>> sticking to a deeply-considered, well-thought-out method.
>>
>> Did it adhere more to your preconceptions ?
>
> Did what adhere more to my preconceptions?
Your results ofcourse.
> A well-thought-out method of study infers conclusions from evidence, while
> attempting to minimising the influence of things like preconceptions,
> chance, and circumstance.
How can it be well thought out and minimising the influence of
preconceptions ?
It are those preconceptions that are the basis for your well thinking.
> Distinguishing between evidence and your interpretation of the evidence
> can be incredibly tricky and laden with traps; it is easy to consider your
> interpretation of evidence as the evidence itself.
Stronger even, it is build in to statistics, that if you predict a result in
a certain direction, the burden of proof is halved.
(not just any difference between H-0 and H-alternative, but a specific one)
>>> That said, if you keep performing the same action, you should expect the
>>> same result. Being methodical is different to stubbornly sticking to an
>>> ineffectual method.
>>
>> No, it ultimately is exactly the same thing.
>>
>> Stagnation.
>
> If a method is doing what you wish it to do, then it doesn't matter if it
> "stagnates".
It does not stagnate, it was already stagnant from the onset, seeing how it
is strictly adhered to.
You are the one that becomes stagnant from this overuse of a single
viewpoint.
> My multiplication-by-hand method doesn't need to change.
You are the one that becomes stagnant if you consider 2+2 should be 4.
(and not 22, or some symbolic reference, or pretty much a myriad of other
viewpoints)
>>>>> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob" is
>>>>> the appropriate word.
>>>>
>>>> Oh how you shower me with praise.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> You're a fool as well... oh, that's another compliment, isn't it?
>>
>> Indeed it is.
>
> Hilarious idiocy noted.
Still just can't seem to think of yourself as a fool without it bothereing
you ?
How stagnant.
>> Perhaps you are starting to pay attention.
>
> You're not -- I'll tell you that for free.
There there.
>>>>> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's a
>>>>> good method for discovering the truth of a matter.
>>>>
>>>> There can not be a single good method.
>>>
>>> I know one good method for multiplying any two integers by hand. I don't
>>> need another.
>>
>> Closed mind noted.
>
> What precisely am I closed minded to in this example?
Perhaps there are more refined methods aswell, for multiplication of large
numbers for instance.
Using a short hand code creating words as placeholders and such.
See ?
>>>> Reality is in motion you see.
>>>
>>> Some things change, others don't.
>>
>> Everything changes.
>> Holding on to particulars holds you back to them.
>
> 2 + 2 = 4.
That is one solution, within a defined boundary.
2+2 can be loads of things.
> The Earth will orbit the Sun for the rest of my life.
But that is incorrect.
They both orbit the centre of our solar system.
(which is not in the centre of the sun, and after which they orbit around
loads of other stuff, perhaps the entire universe)
See how it is stagnating ?
> These things I can say with certainty. They don't change.
Ah, but they do change.
As the universe expands, gravity changes.
Our moon slowly moves away from us, the year is not the same length, etc
etc.
You are just too strictly bound in your local minimum :)
>> You and they have already changed.
>>
>>> The rules of mathematics don't change,
>>
>> Yes they do.
>
> Perhaps tomorrow it'll be 2 + 2 = 5, eh? You better try it on your
> calculator tomorrow just to make sure.
Mathematics is not limited to integers.
>>> and my method of multiplying by hand is good for life.
>>
>> Solo-orgasmic ?
>
> Thinking about masturbation while reading my posts noted.
Inability to thread lightly noted.
>>>>> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very
>>>>> close attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the
>>>>> reliability of your beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Beliefs ?
>>>>
>>>> Let's call them assumptions.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> More accurate.
>
> It just changes the meaning of what I said.
Yup.
Into something more accurate.
> Whether it's more accurate or not depends upon the meaning I intended to
> convey, not on facts as you're implying here.
Well, if you talk about beliefs, we are done.
If you talk about assumptions we can continue.
Seems reason enough.
>> (and assumptions are not taken for granted, they are premisses for
>> certain viewpoints)
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption
> as.sump.tion
> noun
> 1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
A suppostion.
Something assumed to be true for a particular purpose.
Something taken for granted;
You just take me for an assumption!
(not too bad actually)
>>>>> -- two things you fail to do, incidentally --
>>>>
>>>> Two things inherent in my claim that change is immanent.
>>>
>>> It seems that you're not aware of the assumptions that you take for
>>> granted.
>>
>> Heh, perceptions.
>
> As I said, it seems that you're not aware of the assumptions that you take
> for granted.
Heh, perceptions.
>>> How you react to this belief that "change is immanent" appears to be
>>> considerably hindering your ability to learn about anything, since it
>>> appears to make you avoid planning. I suspect that you're reactive, not
>>> proactive -- the opposite of you'd expect from someone who considers
>>> themselves a magician.
>>
>> I am Bassos.
>> Do you consider yourself to be a magician ?
>
> Not really, no.
So your strict methodology in studying magick was unsuccessful.
Or was that not what you wanted to state by your consideration ?
>>>>> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is
>>>>> needed in my explanation.
>>>>
>>>> It was perhaps short.
>>>> Not clumsy.
>>>> Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research into
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> That you consider it perfectly understandable, despite it actually being
>>> an exceedingly clumsy analogy, suggests that you're lost in your own
>>> head.
>>
>> So you did not research it, did you ?
>
> I studied artificial neural networks at university.
Interesting.
As a part of what ?
> While I'm a little rusty on the subject, I still suspect I understand the
> subject far better than you do.
Ofcourse.
Such suspections are to be expected from people stuck in local minima.
>> You thinking to be able to make a definate classification of something i
>> wrote.
>
> Forming definite classifications isn't difficult.
Perhaps you should have inquired what i meant by definate.
As in actual, true, real. (and stagnant, unchanging; boring)
Not just it being a real classification, but a true one.
> I can classify all your posts as bullshit, and that is that. Easy.
Still not a definate one.
Not so easy after all.
Absorbed
In this case I think it's your misunderstanding. If I believe that it
was me that didn't understand you, I would try to understand what your
intended meaning is, as I have done elsewhere during this exchange.
>> When I said "if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning",
>> I was putting forward a hypothetical situation.
>
> It is just not a hypothetical situation related to what you replied to.
>
> So it has no bearing on the discussion.
It does. If "the study of magick should be methodical" is incorrect,
then within your analogy that means that the neural network doesn't have
a method for learning. I accept that in Bassosese this isn't the case.
>> When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical"
>> is incorrect, inside your crappy analogy, that would mean not using
>> any method for learning for a neural network.
>
> "Should be" apparantly still evades your understanding.
I understand how you're trying to weasel here. To a rational human, that
sentence simply means "an effective study is a methodical study". From
what you say below about authority, you don't seem to understand this.
> It is a statement from authority where no such authority exists.
It's not a statement from authority. If you want to study magick
effectively, then your study should be methodical. You can do the study
unmethodically, but then you're liable to learn little, if anything at all.
>>>>> And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're changing your position.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> You are slowly catching up.
>>
>> On the contrary, you stated a claim that you didn't intend to make.
>
> Nonsense.
> You are simply misrepresenting it.
You have absolute faith in your own interpretation of your words,
despite how silly they actually are. The fact is that your words didn't
state what you intended, and now you're trying to pretend that they do
-- this is what you always do.
>>>>>> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and
>>>>>> should be methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of
>>>>>> reaching a local minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local
>>>>>> minima you shouldn't search for any minima at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>> At least that is not what i claimed above.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the fact that that is exactly what your claimed above.
>>>
>>> Where do i claim you should not look for any minima at all ?
>>>
>>> Be specific.
>>
>> When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical"
>> is incorrect.
>
> That is not a claim you should not look for any minima.
I would say it is, but ultimately it is a matter of how you interpret
those words.
> It is a claim you will definately find some local one by using strict
> methods.
A strict method of learning for a neural network doesn't mean it will
definitely find a local minimum. It might get lucky.
>> If the study shouldn't be methodical, then you shouldn't use a method
>> to find minima.
>
> I already showed you how every act is a methodical act.
>
> STRICT methods is what is being discussed.
> Not just any old methods.
It's what you thought you were discussing, even though it had nothing to
do with Tom's original statement. Yet again, it is revealed that your
original reply has nothing to do with what it's reply to.
>>>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>>>>> actually be decreased.
>>>>
>>>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>>>
>>> Ignorance noted.
>>
>> Inability to communicate in English noted.
>
> Heh, yeah, when talking to a mouse, it is your fault the mouse does not
> understand.
> Ofcourse.
> (wanna bet you wil take that metaphor and abuse it ?)
If it isn't immediately obvious to you how your sentence is ambiguous,
then I expect there is little I can say to convince you that it is.
>> Incidentally, it's not only me that struggles to understand your
>> ramblings; pretty much everyone I've ever seen have an exchange with
>> you here has struggled to understand your intended meaning.
>
> So you specifically claim that it is highly unlikely you will be likely
> to actually understand what i wrote.
Nope. I said that I struggle to understand your ramblings, which is
exactly what is happening in this exchange.
>>>> Do you mean that the likelihood of finding the global minimum is
>>>> decreased because you're searching for it?
>>>
>>> No.
>>> It is not you searching.
>>> It is searching itself.
>>
>> So you meant that the likelihood of find the global minimum is
>> decreased by searching? Need of English lessons noted.
>
> The act of searching can indeed be obstructive to finding.
> As anyone who ever lost pretty much anything will attest to.
> The strict method of searching leads to overlooking them glasses right
> on your nose.
Oh dear. Your analogy with neural networks is really going down the pan
now. And all that bleating about "I'm not saying don't use a method to
study a subject", and yet here you are claiming exactly that again. I'm
sure you'll remind me that not searching is a method of searching.
Truly, you're an idiot.
So how can a neural network avoid "the act of searching" in order to
help it find the global minimum? I better brace myself for laughs here.
> Or in remembering something, strict continuation in attempts to retrieve
> often lead to dead ends.
> Then not searching at all relaxes the strictness and a different avenue
> can be taken.
You had never read about quantum physics. You were just relaxing,
watching television, and then...
> (after which is kinda simply pops up)
...Yeah, then a complete understanding of quantum physics simply popped
up into your head. And, what's more, your understanding is valid and
reliable, and nobody can tell you otherwise.
This method is almost certainly going to lead you to bullshit. If you
believe that the truth "simply pops up", then you're more clueless than
I thought. You cannot be sure of the validity of any conclusion that
"simply pops up". If you want your beliefs to be at all reliable, then
the conclusion must be found by rigorous and fastidious investigation,
when every possibility of error has been explored and discounted.
>>>>> To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also unsure as to what you're getting at here.
>>>
>>> There are a great many of local minima.
>>> So they are found easily.
>>>
>>> Duh.
>>
>> So "To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy",
>> translated from Bassosese, was supposed to mean "It is easy to get
>> stuck in a local minimum because there are many of them"?
>
> No.
> It is easy to find them.
> The getting stuck in them is due to adherence to strict methods.
So when you said "To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too
easy", you meant "It is easy to find local minima because there are many
of them"?
>>>>>>> The method needs to change frequently.
>>>>>>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study
>>>>>> of magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is about the should be.
>>>>
>>>> More weaseling noted.
>>>
>>> More ignorance noted.
>>>
>>> If any method should be used, it implicates it as the only method
>>> that can be used.
>>
>> This also makes no sense.
>
> Not to you.
And then you snip my attempt to understand your meaning. You're as
helpful as ever... Or perhaps you realised how stupid a sentence that was.
>>>>> (note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just that)
>>>>
>>>> There are degrees of methodicalness.
>>>
>>> No.
>>> Everything follows some method.
>>
>> I would say there are degrees of methodicalness.
>
> Nope.
> Chaos itself is a method.
>
> There is no measure.
I'm saying that there are degrees of methodicalness by the way I define
the word. If something is more orderly, then it is more methodical, as I
define it. Chaos, being inherently unordered, is less methodical.
Whether that can be measured or not, I'm not sure, but I don't think it
matters. What appears miraculous isn't measurable either, and yet you
still discuss magick.
>> Reading a book from start to finish, a chapter at a time, is more
>> methodical than reading random segments.
>
> Nope.
> It is just a different method.
It's a more orderly and systematic way of reading a book, and therefore
it's more methodical, as I define it.
>>>> I wouldn't call your approach to studying magick particularly
>>>> methodical
>>>
>>> Heh.
>>> What is my approach to studying magick ?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
> So why call it anything ?
I'm calling it something based on what you have said about your approach
to studying magick to make a point. This isn't complicated.
>> I do know that you said it frequently changes, which is enough
>> information for me to make the above judgment.
>
> I claim it should change.
> Where do i claim i adhere to that ?
You said: "The method needs to change frequently. (in specifically
magick, change modes alot)".
>>>> I would say that the more methodical you are, the more likely you
>>>> are to have a good method.
>>>
>>> Borg drone, the search for perfection is flawed.
>>
>> It isn't about achieving perfection, but striving for it.
>
> What if striving for perfection is a blockage in being able to achieve
> perfection ?
When it comes to understanding a subject, there is no perfection.
>> By being methodical you're stacking the odds in your favour, making it
>> more likely that you'll avoid bullshit.
>
> Bullshit is required.
> You need the entire tapestry.
I personally don't want to hold bullshit beliefs, but each to their own.
>>> Failure is required.
>>
>> Determining what constitutes a failure is a problem in itself, hence
>> the need for a trustworthy method.
>
> Set goal, fail achieving that goal, voila, failure.
When studying a subject, if you learn something that you consider
correct but is actually erroneous, then you are unaware of your failure.
> For instance, to write a good book, it is likely you will need to first
> write mediocre books as part of obtaining the neccesary skills.
>
>> A rotten method will appear to succeed while it fails miserably.
>
> Heh.
> The appreciation of achievement is not dependant on the rottenness of a
> used method.
Inability to read noted. If I design a method to learn calculus, if I
then learn something that I consider to be calculus, but which is
actually not calculus at all, then my method will appear to have
succeeded while it has actually failed miserably.
>> Sometimes studying a subject with an sort-of-reliable method is worse
>> than doing no studying at all.
>
> Do tell.
Many nutjobs make a half-baked attempt at understanding quantum physics,
and end up believing in something that has nothing remotely to do with
quantum physics. Since they stubbornly cling to their beliefs concerning
quantum physics, their attempt to study quantum physics was worse for
them than if they hasn't studied it at all.
I think you occasionally slip into such a role. I recall a conversation
you had with Rick discussing neurology, and it became apparently that
you didn't understand the subject very well, and yet refused to be
corrected by someone who did. Rick promptly gave up the discussion.
> And be sure to mention a reliable method.
> (eg anyting short of perfection will not do)
Basically, the key to studying any subject is ensure that your
conclusions will be inferred from the evidence. That is far easier said
than done. Describing a reliable method in detail would take longer than
I'm presently willing to commit here. I believe that by reading my posts
with you here, you could piece together what I consider to be a reliable
method.
>>>> In my experience of studying subjects, I've had more results when
>>>> sticking to a deeply-considered, well-thought-out method.
>>>
>>> Did it adhere more to your preconceptions ?
>>
>> Did what adhere more to my preconceptions?
>
> Your results ofcourse.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I was first investigating politics,
the answers I was getting seemed too crazy to be true. However, I knew
that my investigation was fairly sound, and therefore that politicians
weren't the "good people" that I originally suspected. Then came the
question of why people did such "evil deeds", why they didn't care about
the suffering of others, which produced an even more astonishing answer.
>> A well-thought-out method of study infers conclusions from evidence,
>> while attempting to minimising the influence of things like
>> preconceptions, chance, and circumstance.
>
> How can it be well thought out and minimising the influence of
> preconceptions ?
>
> It are those preconceptions that are the basis for your well thinking.
I would agree that you cannot eliminate the influence of your
preconceptions. I didn't appreciate the subtle and insidious way such
things influenced my conclusions until I personally experienced and
became aware of it. I'm wouldn't be surprised if they still sometimes
influence me now without my knowledge.
To answer your question, if you were to investigate one thing, you do it
by designing a method of discovering the truth that is like a
mathematical formula, reducing your investigation to performing a cold
calculation. I think the investigation should be like number crunching.
The influence of your preconceptions is minimised since they play no
role in the number crunching. The skill is in the designing of your
investigation, not the investigation itself.
I guess you could say that your preconceptions influence your ability to
design a method to discover the truth of a matter. I think this is a
more philosophical and theoretical point than a practical one. In the
final analysis, if you don't want to believe a load of bullshit, you do
the best job you can with what you've got. Just because you cannot do a
perfect job doesn't mean you give it up altogether.
>>>> That said, if you keep performing the same action, you should expect
>>>> the same result. Being methodical is different to stubbornly
>>>> sticking to an ineffectual method.
>>>
>>> No, it ultimately is exactly the same thing.
>>>
>>> Stagnation.
>>
>> If a method is doing what you wish it to do, then it doesn't matter if
>> it "stagnates".
>
> It does not stagnate, it was already stagnant from the onset, seeing how
> it is strictly adhered to.
>
> You are the one that becomes stagnant from this overuse of a single
> viewpoint.
If it continues to do the job, then regardless of whether I am "the one
that becomes stagnant", whatever that means, it doesn't matter. There is
absolutely no reason for me to explore alternative methods of
multiplying two integers by hand.
>> My multiplication-by-hand method doesn't need to change.
>
> You are the one that becomes stagnant if you consider 2+2 should be 4.
> (and not 22, or some symbolic reference, or pretty much a myriad of
> other viewpoints)
You know, this continual concern with numerology makes you seem like a
complete fruitcake. Nobody with any sense cares about that crap.
>>>>>> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe
>>>>>> "noob" is the appropriate word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh how you shower me with praise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> You're a fool as well... oh, that's another compliment, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Indeed it is.
>>
>> Hilarious idiocy noted.
>
> Still just can't seem to think of yourself as a fool without it
> bothereing you ?
I am foolish in some ways; it doesn't bother me. What I'm finding
entertaining is the bizarre way you interpret all derogatory comments as
compliments, you complete and utter idiot.
>>>>>> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if
>>>>>> it's a good method for discovering the truth of a matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> There can not be a single good method.
>>>>
>>>> I know one good method for multiplying any two integers by hand. I
>>>> don't need another.
>>>
>>> Closed mind noted.
>>
>> What precisely am I closed minded to in this example?
>
> Perhaps there are more refined methods aswell, for multiplication of
> large numbers for instance.
> Using a short hand code creating words as placeholders and such.
>
> See ?
I realise that there may be more refined methods. The point is that the
investment of time to find such a method isn't worth it. I am perfectly
content with my current method.
>>>>> Reality is in motion you see.
>>>>
>>>> Some things change, others don't.
>>>
>>> Everything changes.
>>> Holding on to particulars holds you back to them.
>>
>> 2 + 2 = 4.
>
> That is one solution, within a defined boundary.
> 2+2 can be loads of things.
Sure, if you want to attribute your own idiosyncratic interpretation of
the symbols "2", "+", "=", and "4". However, as you say, within their
"defined boundary", it doesn't change.
>> The Earth will orbit the Sun for the rest of my life.
>
> But that is incorrect.
Heh. So, according to you, the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. Does the
Moon also not orbit the Earth?
>> These things I can say with certainty. They don't change.
>
> Ah, but they do change.
2 + 2 = 4 doesn't change. You pretty much just accepted that.
> As the universe expands, gravity changes.
> Our moon slowly moves away from us, the year is not the same length, etc
> etc.
That the moon slowly moves away won't stop the Earth orbiting the Sun
for the rest of my life.
> You are just too strictly bound in your local minimum :)
You have this strange belief that everything changes that causes you to
ignore things that don't change. It's probably an excuse to not have to
plan anything, and to drift through life like a zombie. Because why plan
anything? Everything changes!
>>>>>> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very
>>>>>> close attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the
>>>>>> reliability of your beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Beliefs ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's call them assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> More accurate.
>>
>> It just changes the meaning of what I said.
>
> Yup.
> Into something more accurate.
"Whether it's more accurate or not depends upon the meaning I intended
to convey, not on facts as you're implying here." Didn't you understand
that?
It's only more accurate if you know exactly what my intended meaning
was. Since that resides in my head, you cannot know what my intended
meaning was and therefore you cannot know whether it's more accurate or not.
>> Whether it's more accurate or not depends upon the meaning I intended
>> to convey, not on facts as you're implying here.
>
> Well, if you talk about beliefs, we are done.
> If you talk about assumptions we can continue.
> Seems reason enough.
Rather bizarre comments. You're unwilling to continue the conversation
if I discuss beliefs.
>>>> How you react to this belief that "change is immanent" appears to be
>>>> considerably hindering your ability to learn about anything, since
>>>> it appears to make you avoid planning. I suspect that you're
>>>> reactive, not proactive -- the opposite of you'd expect from someone
>>>> who considers themselves a magician.
>>>
>>> I am Bassos.
>>> Do you consider yourself to be a magician ?
>>
>> Not really, no.
>
> So your strict methodology in studying magick was unsuccessful.
>
> Or was that not what you wanted to state by your consideration ?
I would say that the study of magick was successful, but my ability to
practice what I learned has, for the most part, been unsuccessful. It's
difficult to judge, since I've undoubtedly changed due to meditation,
and that change is continuing. My actions haven't changed much, however,
and in that sense I would call it unsuccessful.
>>>>>> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is
>>>>>> needed in my explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was perhaps short.
>>>>> Not clumsy.
>>>>> Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research
>>>>> into it.
>>>>
>>>> That you consider it perfectly understandable, despite it actually
>>>> being an exceedingly clumsy analogy, suggests that you're lost in
>>>> your own head.
>>>
>>> So you did not research it, did you ?
>>
>> I studied artificial neural networks at university.
>
> Interesting.
> As a part of what ?
As part of my degree.
>>> You thinking to be able to make a definate classification of
>>> something i wrote.
>>
>> Forming definite classifications isn't difficult.
>
> Perhaps you should have inquired what i meant by definate.
> As in actual, true, real. (and stagnant, unchanging; boring)
>
> Not just it being a real classification, but a true one.
All classifications are subjective and arbitrary. That is why it is easy
to create a definite classification.
bassos
Based on what ?
I claim heuristics are used (and thus indeed methods)
I also claim that to stick to a single search method is inferior to
adaptation.
Nowhere in there is a claim about a no method using at all heuristic search
pattern.
Even though that is also possible.
Think a kohonen map.
(change value of a node/connection based on activation of nearby nodes)
That is not searching at all, it is building.
(using like is near like)
>>> When I said "if a neural network doesn't have a method for learning", I
>>> was putting forward a hypothetical situation.
>>
>> It is just not a hypothetical situation related to what you replied to.
>>
>> So it has no bearing on the discussion.
>
> It does. If "the study of magick should be methodical" is incorrect, then
> within your analogy that means that the neural network doesn't have a
> method for learning.
The neural network is not required to use a particular method and stick with
it.
It does use several methods for learning.
And even with that usage, there is no claim that any of those used methods
*SHOULD* be used.
>>> When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical" is
>>> incorrect, inside your crappy analogy, that would mean not using any
>>> method for learning for a neural network.
>>
>> "Should be" apparantly still evades your understanding.
>
> I understand how you're trying to weasel here.
Heh.
Projection much ?
> To a rational human, that sentence simply means "an effective study is a
> methodical study".
Well, perhaps if you posted it.
But it was Tom, and he can be more precise.
(see my loving kindness in action)
> From what you say below about authority, you don't seem to understand
> this.
Heh, perceptions.
>> It is a statement from authority where no such authority exists.
>
> It's not a statement from authority.
If anyone claims something should be used, it is a claim from authority.
(namely specifically claiming it is better than any other method, cos only
by said specific method the least bullshit is gotten to)
> If you want to study magick effectively, then your study should be
> methodical.
So you claim.
Now take the viewpoint of eternity.
Can you see how strictly methodical is inherently flawed ?
(in a beautiful design, there is some motion, not perfect stagnation)
> You can do the study unmethodically, but then you're liable to learn
> little, if anything at all.
So you claim.
If mysticism is about stripping away the dross, enlightenment is not about
learning, it is about discarding.
(granted, that is only a goal of magick, not it's only function)
>>>>>> And it is not about no method, it is about a (too) strict method.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're changing your position.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> You are slowly catching up.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, you stated a claim that you didn't intend to make.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>> You are simply misrepresenting it.
>
> You have absolute faith in your own interpretation of your words,
There you go with them silly presentations of your thoughts about what i may
mean.
(in this case, a parameter of your puppet of me)
> despite how silly they actually are.
I actually claim that even an author cannot understand what hir written
words mean.
See how your clinging to your preconceptions hinders your understanding ?
> The fact is that your words didn't state what you intended, and now you're
> trying to pretend that they do -- this is what you always do.
The fact is, my words did.
You misrepresented them and argued against that.
Now you are complaining i do not accept your straw man as true.
>>>>>>> When you say that the statement "the study of magick can and should
>>>>>>> be methodical" is incorrect because of "the chances of reaching a
>>>>>>> local minimum", you're arguing that to avoid local minima you
>>>>>>> shouldn't search for any minima at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> At least that is not what i claimed above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the fact that that is exactly what your claimed above.
>>>>
>>>> Where do i claim you should not look for any minima at all ?
>>>>
>>>> Be specific.
>>>
>>> When you said that "the study of magick can and should be methodical" is
>>> incorrect.
>>
>> That is not a claim you should not look for any minima.
>
> I would say it is, but ultimately it is a matter of how you interpret
> those words.
Yeah, if you ultimately completely ignore what words mean, you can make up
any old silly thing.
>> It is a claim you will definately find some local one by using strict
>> methods.
>
> A strict method of learning for a neural network doesn't mean it will
> definitely find a local minimum. It might get lucky.
And there you go demonstrating you do not understand how neural nets work.
There is always, from the get go a local minimum.
Said local minimum meaning the lowest number of aggregate energy in the net.
(google hebbian learning)
So you start with random values, and before you start any modifications,
voila, local minimum number 1.
>>> If the study shouldn't be methodical, then you shouldn't use a method to
>>> find minima.
>>
>> I already showed you how every act is a methodical act.
>>
>> STRICT methods is what is being discussed.
>> Not just any old methods.
>
> It's what you thought you were discussing, even though it had nothing to
> do with Tom's original statement.
I also explained why i added strict.
And after that demonstrated several times how every act is a methodical act.
> Yet again, it is revealed that your original reply has nothing to do with
> what it's reply to.
Heh.
Projection much ?
>>>>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>>>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>>>>>> actually be decreased.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance noted.
>>>
>>> Inability to communicate in English noted.
>>
>> Heh, yeah, when talking to a mouse, it is your fault the mouse does not
>> understand.
>> Ofcourse.
>> (wanna bet you wil take that metaphor and abuse it ?)
>
> If it isn't immediately obvious to you how your sentence is ambiguous,
Oh lol.
Are you now claiming you never read me explaining why most of my
posts/sentences/remarks/insults are ambiguous ?
It is what you choose.
> then I expect there is little I can say to convince you that it is.
Well, seeing how i actually (sometimes) make an effort to be ambiguous on
purpose, i'd say not so much difficulties in that.
I suspected you might whine about the futility of communicating with words
to a creature that does not understand words.
(which would have given me an opportunity to demonstrate that the metaphor
is therefore apt :P)
>>> Incidentally, it's not only me that struggles to understand your
>>> ramblings; pretty much everyone I've ever seen have an exchange with you
>>> here has struggled to understand your intended meaning.
>>
>> So you specifically claim that it is highly unlikely you will be likely
>> to actually understand what i wrote.
>
> Nope. I said that I struggle to understand your ramblings, which is
> exactly what is happening in this exchange.
Well, i think your efforts in this exchange are surprisingly well thought
out.
So congratulations for keeping that sting-reaction a bit tempered.
>>>>> Do you mean that the likelihood of finding the global minimum is
>>>>> decreased because you're searching for it?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> It is not you searching.
>>>> It is searching itself.
>>>
>>> So you meant that the likelihood of find the global minimum is decreased
>>> by searching? Need of English lessons noted.
>>
>> The act of searching can indeed be obstructive to finding.
>> As anyone who ever lost pretty much anything will attest to.
>> The strict method of searching leads to overlooking them glasses right on
>> your nose.
>
> Oh dear. Your analogy with neural networks is really going down the pan
> now.
This is a new analogy.
I diversify :)
> So how can a neural network avoid "the act of searching" in order to help
> it find the global minimum? I better brace myself for laughs here.
I mentioned kohonen maps.
But here it is a jumping analogies to look from a fresh perspective.
>> Or in remembering something, strict continuation in attempts to retrieve
>> often lead to dead ends.
>> Then not searching at all relaxes the strictness and a different avenue
>> can be taken.
>
> You had never read about quantum physics. You were just relaxing, watching
> television, and then...
I am talking about remembering something.
The actual activity in the brain.
>> (after which is kinda simply pops up)
>
> ...Yeah, then a complete understanding of quantum physics simply popped up
> into your head. And, what's more, your understanding is valid and
> reliable, and nobody can tell you otherwise.
Think smaller.
Like in the continuation of the lost glasses, a name, or an appointment, or
pretty much anything forgotten.
You are going with the something totally unknown before pops up.
That happens aswell, but is not related to the memory search paradigm.
> This method is almost certainly going to lead you to bullshit.
What method ?
> If you believe that the truth "simply pops up", then you're more clueless
> than I thought.
A memory can and does simply pop up.
(read back in the metaphor, no truth is related, only memory)
See how your preconceptions blinded you to understanding my words ?
> You cannot be sure of the validity of any conclusion that "simply pops
> up".
It is about after getting stuck-ish in a local minimum in a memory search,
that the relaxation (changing methods) produces the required result.
Not at all about ontology.
> If you want your beliefs to be at all reliable,
Who wants beliefs ?
(far to stagnant/rigid/boring)
It is them tentative assumptions we can discuss.
> then the conclusion must be found by rigorous and fastidious
> investigation, when every possibility of error has been explored and
> discounted.
That in itself is an impossibility.
So accept that we can never know anything.
Thus also not the best methods.
The most promising alternative is to use multiple approaches.
(for yet another example; think how a pure determinist cannot be in awe)
>>>>>> To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also unsure as to what you're getting at here.
>>>>
>>>> There are a great many of local minima.
>>>> So they are found easily.
>>>>
>>>> Duh.
>>>
>>> So "To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too easy",
>>> translated from Bassosese, was supposed to mean "It is easy to get stuck
>>> in a local minimum because there are many of them"?
>>
>> No.
>> It is easy to find them.
>> The getting stuck in them is due to adherence to strict methods.
>
> So when you said "To search for any minimum seems highly flawed, cos too
> easy", you meant "It is easy to find local minima because there are many
> of them"?
No.
Although that is implied in the claim.
It would be more like :
It is easy to find local minima because there are many of them, so it is
more effective to look for something other than local minima.
>>>>>>>> The method needs to change frequently.
>>>>>>>> (in specifically magick, change modes alot)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're contradicting yourself. You originally said that "the study
>>>>>>> of magick can and should be methodical" is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is about the should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> More weaseling noted.
>>>>
>>>> More ignorance noted.
>>>>
>>>> If any method should be used, it implicates it as the only method that
>>>> can be used.
>>>
>>> This also makes no sense.
>>
>> Not to you.
>
> And then you snip my attempt to understand your meaning. You're as helpful
> as ever... Or perhaps you realised how stupid a sentence that was.
Well, i did snip one part where i misread you.
I thought in the harvard/princeton website checking thingy, you meant that
the value of a university can be derived from the methods used in creating
their website.
But upon rereading you merely mentioned that methods posted on websites of
reputable universities lead to interesting results.
(or something similar)
In this case here, it is not a mistake.
If any method should be used, it may be claimed that leaves open the
possibilities of other methods to be used.
But in the case of the method referred to, it is the scientific method.
Which discounts as unscientific a lot of other methods.
So i went with it is the only acceptable method to stress a point.
>>>>>> (note, i added the term strict to the conversation to avoid just
>>>>>> that)
>>>>>
>>>>> There are degrees of methodicalness.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> Everything follows some method.
>>>
>>> I would say there are degrees of methodicalness.
>>
>> Nope.
>> Chaos itself is a method.
>>
>> There is no measure.
>
> I'm saying that there are degrees of methodicalness by the way I define
> the word.
Well, yes.
The degree of methodicalness if the method is reading from page 1 to the end
is the manner in which books are read from page 1 to end.
However;
The degree of methodicalness in reading books from middle to end to start is
the manner in which books are read from middle to end to start.
The methods differ, not their methodicalness.
> If something is more orderly, then it is more methodical, as I define it.
That is presenting a preference of some methods over other methods.
Has very little to do with the manner them methods are adhered to.
> Chaos, being inherently unordered, is less methodical.
It's method is chaos.
It is always chaotic.
Perfect methodicalness.
> Whether that can be measured or not, I'm not sure, but I don't think it
> matters.
Modes of operation do not matter.
Effects do.
> What appears miraculous isn't measurable either, and yet you still discuss
> magick.
Well, i define magick as action.
It is Tom's flowery romantic goetia one that uses other people to determine
magicalness.
(who is the sceptic now ? :P)
>>> Reading a book from start to finish, a chapter at a time, is more
>>> methodical than reading random segments.
>>
>> Nope.
>> It is just a different method.
>
> It's a more orderly and systematic way of reading a book, and therefore
> it's more methodical, as I define it.
It is more orderly.
Approaching stuff orderly is a method.
How strict you approach stuff orderly is how methodical you act.
It is not more systematic either.
It uses a different system.
>>>>> I wouldn't call your approach to studying magick particularly
>>>>> methodical
>>>>
>>>> Heh.
>>>> What is my approach to studying magick ?
>>>
>>> I don't know.
>>
>> So why call it anything ?
>
> I'm calling it something based on what you have said about your approach
> to studying magick to make a point. This isn't complicated.
Where did i write about my approach to magick ?
(note, i did, several times, just not here)
>>> I do know that you said it frequently changes, which is enough
>>> information for me to make the above judgment.
>>
>> I claim it should change.
>> Where do i claim i adhere to that ?
>
> You said: "The method needs to change frequently. (in specifically magick,
> change modes alot)".
Yup.
So ?
Even though claims indeed are easy, where do i claim to walk the walk ?
>>>>> I would say that the more methodical you are, the more likely you are
>>>>> to have a good method.
>>>>
>>>> Borg drone, the search for perfection is flawed.
>>>
>>> It isn't about achieving perfection, but striving for it.
>>
>> What if striving for perfection is a blockage in being able to achieve
>> perfection ?
>
> When it comes to understanding a subject, there is no perfection.
So if there is no perfection, why strive for it ?
>>> By being methodical you're stacking the odds in your favour, making it
>>> more likely that you'll avoid bullshit.
>>
>> Bullshit is required.
>> You need the entire tapestry.
>
> I personally don't want to hold bullshit beliefs, but each to their own.
I do not mention beliefs, except in denouncing them as conversation killers.
I mentioned bullshit.
Why do you think that implied a belief in bullshit ?
>>>> Failure is required.
>>>
>>> Determining what constitutes a failure is a problem in itself, hence the
>>> need for a trustworthy method.
>>
>> Set goal, fail achieving that goal, voila, failure.
>
> When studying a subject, if you learn something that you consider correct
> but is actually erroneous, then you are unaware of your failure.
Solution is simple.
Do not consider things to be correct or wrong.
Just viewpoints.
The after study, test it out to achieve failure.
(note that the scientific method is actually formed around failure.
It is only scientific if it can be disproven.
But then, not a lot of glory in getting negative results, and so the trap
goes)
>> For instance, to write a good book, it is likely you will need to first
>> write mediocre books as part of obtaining the neccesary skills.
>>
>>> A rotten method will appear to succeed while it fails miserably.
>>
>> Heh.
>> The appreciation of achievement is not dependant on the rottenness of a
>> used method.
>
> Inability to read noted.
And you where acting so promising.
> If I design a method to learn calculus, if I then learn something that I
> consider to be calculus, but which is actually not calculus at all, then
> my method will appear to have succeeded while it has actually failed
> miserably.
No.
Your consideration that you had mastered calculus was in error.
Thus appreciation of achievement.
>>> Sometimes studying a subject with an sort-of-reliable method is worse
>>> than doing no studying at all.
>>
>> Do tell.
>
> Many nutjobs make a half-baked attempt at understanding quantum physics,
> and end up believing in something that has nothing remotely to do with
> quantum physics.
Belief has also to do with appreciation of achievement.
In fact, using a method you have high confidence in, increases the
likelyhood of appreciating wrong outcomes as right solutions.
And we are back to fundamentalism.
> Since they stubbornly cling to their beliefs concerning quantum physics,
> their attempt to study quantum physics was worse for them than if they
> hasn't studied it at all.
>
> I think you occasionally slip into such a role.
I do not hold beliefs.
I entertain tentative assumptions.
And i vary said assumptions.
> I recall a conversation you had with Rick discussing neurology, and it
> became apparently that you didn't understand the subject very well, and
> yet refused to be corrected by someone who did.
It became apparantly, nice freudian slip, thanks.
(-ly)
Nobody understands neurology.
So are you now claiming you think me sincere ?
> Rick promptly gave up the discussion.
A clear sign of victory.
(both true, not true and irrelevant, nice and warming)
>> And be sure to mention a reliable method.
>> (eg anyting short of perfection will not do)
>
> Basically, the key to studying any subject is ensure that your conclusions
> will be inferred from the evidence.
Not just inferred.
Logically have to follow from the evidence.
But then again, slippery slope galore.
What do you use as evidence.
Data-massage is rampant, cos there is pressure to publish or perish.
> That is far easier said than done. Describing a reliable method in detail
> would take longer than I'm presently willing to commit here.
Reliable is about test-retest conformity.
Valid is about actually testing what it is you assume to be studying.
> I believe that by reading my posts with you here, you could piece together
> what I consider to be a reliable method.
Replicability of predictions ?
How would that work in magick ?
Make the same talisman 10 weeks in a row for 10 different people and see if
they all react the same ?
Have 100 mages create 100 talismans for 100 different people and see again ?
Make 1 talisman per week for a single individual and do a longitudinal study
?
(and then 100 mages making 100 talismans per week for 100 individuals)
Ceteris Paribus does not exist.
Magick works best in the moment, as a unique act.
Panta Rei.
>>>>> In my experience of studying subjects, I've had more results when
>>>>> sticking to a deeply-considered, well-thought-out method.
>>>>
>>>> Did it adhere more to your preconceptions ?
>>>
>>> Did what adhere more to my preconceptions?
>>
>> Your results ofcourse.
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When I was first investigating politics, the
> answers I was getting seemed too crazy to be true. However, I knew that my
> investigation was fairly sound, and therefore that politicians weren't the
> "good people" that I originally suspected.
You suspected politicians to be unitarian ?
Elbow grease and backstabbing, while spinning tales and riding popular
opinion.
> Then came the question of why people did such "evil deeds", why they
> didn't care about the suffering of others, which produced an even more
> astonishing answer.
Politics is about power gathering and subsequently keeping it.
Funny tidbit; In the Netherlands, there is a 'club' of former prime
ministers.
Every single one of them admits that the position of power changed them more
than they had thought possible.
(not sure about the exact quote, but it is similar)
>>> A well-thought-out method of study infers conclusions from evidence,
>>> while attempting to minimising the influence of things like
>>> preconceptions, chance, and circumstance.
>>
>> How can it be well thought out and minimising the influence of
>> preconceptions ?
>>
>> It are those preconceptions that are the basis for your well thinking.
>
> I would agree that you cannot eliminate the influence of your
> preconceptions.
Ok.
> I didn't appreciate the subtle and insidious way such things influenced my
> conclusions until I personally experienced and became aware of it.
After a fact ?
(imo, thinking to be aware of your preconceptions while acting is silly)
> I wouldn't be surprised if they still sometimes influence me now without
> my knowledge.
With every act.
As it has to be.
> To answer your question, if you were to investigate one thing, you do it
> by designing a method of discovering the truth that is like a mathematical
> formula, reducing your investigation to performing a cold calculation.
To create the miracle of the one thing.
There only is one thing going on.
We are limited in what we can experience.
Choosing a particular method over any other method creates hurt.
(AC; one thing over any other thing)
> I think the investigation should be like number crunching.
> The influence of your preconceptions is minimised since they play no role
> in the number crunching. The skill is in the designing of your
> investigation, not the investigation itself.
Au contraire.
(no mon frere yet)
Observer bias.
Environmental variables.
Date, time, place, surroundings, all part of the method.
Prepare aswell as you like, the point is to find out something new, so by
definition it is impossible to prepare perfectly.
(unless you take my definiton of perfect as ; cause and effect in perfect
harmony)
> I guess you could say that your preconceptions influence your ability to
> design a method to discover the truth of a matter.
And i did.
> I think this is a more philosophical and theoretical point than a
> practical one.
Where does theory turn into practicality ?
Isn't that some sort of feedback loop ?
(adapt)
> In the final analysis, if you don't want to believe a load of bullshit,
> you do the best job you can with what you've got. Just because you cannot
> do a perfect job doesn't mean you give it up altogether.
Indeed.
But knowing it is unlikely to be the perfect method;
You change methods, to look from a different viewpoint.
>>>>> That said, if you keep performing the same action, you should expect
>>>>> the same result. Being methodical is different to stubbornly sticking
>>>>> to an ineffectual method.
>>>>
>>>> No, it ultimately is exactly the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Stagnation.
>>>
>>> If a method is doing what you wish it to do, then it doesn't matter if
>>> it "stagnates".
>>
>> It does not stagnate, it was already stagnant from the onset, seeing how
>> it is strictly adhered to.
>>
>> You are the one that becomes stagnant from this overuse of a single
>> viewpoint.
>
> If it continues to do the job, then regardless of whether I am "the one
> that becomes stagnant", whatever that means, it doesn't matter.
Really ?
You like stagnation ?
> There is absolutely no reason for me to explore alternative methods of
> multiplying two integers by hand.
Not if you are nice and comfortable in a local minimum, content to live your
live as a semi-automaton, cos why change ?
Change is scary, innit ?
The great unknown is there beyond habit.
>>> My multiplication-by-hand method doesn't need to change.
>>
>> You are the one that becomes stagnant if you consider 2+2 should be 4.
>> (and not 22, or some symbolic reference, or pretty much a myriad of other
>> viewpoints)
>
> You know, this continual concern with numerology makes you seem like a
> complete fruitcake.
Heh.
No such numerology interest showing here.
> Nobody with any sense cares about that crap.
But then again, numerology enhances apprecation of experience.
So it would make sense that nobody cares about that particular bit of
bullshit, but just embraces it to enhance living.
(doh)
>>>>>>> To describe your own argument in your own words... I believe "noob"
>>>>>>> is the appropriate word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh how you shower me with praise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a fool as well... oh, that's another compliment, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed it is.
>>>
>>> Hilarious idiocy noted.
>>
>> Still just can't seem to think of yourself as a fool without it
>> bothereing you ?
>
> I am foolish in some ways; it doesn't bother me.
In what ways are you foolish ?
> What I'm finding entertaining is the bizarre way you interpret all
> derogatory comments as compliments
Bzzt, wrong.
The terms noob and fool are not derogatory.
They refer to an enlightened state of moving.
> you complete and utter idiot.
Idiot :
Mentally deficient.
There you go again with claiming to know what is true.
(note, the norm is highly likely to actually represent a local minimum)
>>>>>>> The method by which you study magick doesn't need to change if it's
>>>>>>> a good method for discovering the truth of a matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There can not be a single good method.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know one good method for multiplying any two integers by hand. I
>>>>> don't need another.
>>>>
>>>> Closed mind noted.
>>>
>>> What precisely am I closed minded to in this example?
>>
>> Perhaps there are more refined methods aswell, for multiplication of
>> large numbers for instance.
>> Using a short hand code creating words as placeholders and such.
>>
>> See ?
>
> I realise that there may be more refined methods.
So why boast about staying unenlightened ?
>>>>>> Reality is in motion you see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some things change, others don't.
>>>>
>>>> Everything changes.
>>>> Holding on to particulars holds you back to them.
>>>
>>> 2 + 2 = 4.
>>
>> That is one solution, within a defined boundary.
>> 2+2 can be loads of things.
>
> Sure, if you want to attribute your own idiosyncratic interpretation of
> the symbols "2", "+", "=", and "4". However, as you say, within their
> "defined boundary", it doesn't change.
That is why the suggestion to change boundaries is so nice of me.
>>> The Earth will orbit the Sun for the rest of my life.
>>
>> But that is incorrect.
>
> Heh. So, according to you, the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun.
That is not just me.
It is what humanity considers to be true.
The mass of every object in our solar system contributes to the entire mass
of our solar system.
The gravitational centre is therefore determined by the location of every
object with mass in our solar system.
(thus proven astrology)
Did you not know that the earth does not orbit the sun but that they both
orbit the gravitational centre of our solar system ?
(true, our sun has way more matter than the other objects combined, that
still does not prevent a wobble in the suns position.)
> Does the Moon also not orbit the Earth?
Even with that, indeed no.
If the moon would dissapear instantly, we all die.
(gravitational forces on the water of the earth alone will kill us)
Another injection of QI info : did you know that the earth is kinda crushed
abit by the weight of the polar ice ?
(think a sphere, then add loads of mass on the poles, then crush a bit)
>>> These things I can say with certainty. They don't change.
>>
>> Ah, but they do change.
>
> 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't change. You pretty much just accepted that.
Only within the local minimum of your mathematical constraints.
>> As the universe expands, gravity changes.
>> Our moon slowly moves away from us, the year is not the same length, etc
>> etc.
>
> That the moon slowly moves away won't stop the Earth orbiting the Sun for
> the rest of my life.
It does not orbit the sun now.
>> You are just too strictly bound in your local minimum :)
>
> You have this strange belief that everything changes that causes you to
> ignore things that don't change.
Ah.
You have some eternal things to share ?
(perhaps the planck lenght, or the mass of an electron)
> It's probably an excuse to not have to plan anything, and to drift through
> life like a zombie. Because why plan anything? Everything changes!
Just because we can go anywhere does not mean we do not have preferences for
going somewhere.
>>>>>>> However, I would say that it is a method that you should pay very
>>>>>>> close attention to, since its effectiveness largely determines the
>>>>>>> reliability of your beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beliefs ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's call them assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> More accurate.
>>>
>>> It just changes the meaning of what I said.
>>
>> Yup.
>> Into something more accurate.
>
> "Whether it's more accurate or not depends upon the meaning I intended to
> convey, not on facts as you're implying here." Didn't you understand that?
Whatever meaning you intended to convey is irrelevant to the meaning of what
you wrote.
Can't you understand that ?
Keep targetting scanners floating, only lock on when you move.
(-reference : Floating)
> It's only more accurate if you know exactly what my intended meaning was.
I am not talking about what you may or may not have meant.
I write a comment on what you wrote.
The more accurate is my statement from authority.
> Since that resides in my head, you cannot know what my intended meaning
> was and therefore you cannot know whether it's more accurate or not.
Neither can you.
Kinda the point.
>>> Whether it's more accurate or not depends upon the meaning I intended to
>>> convey, not on facts as you're implying here.
>>
>> Well, if you talk about beliefs, we are done.
>> If you talk about assumptions we can continue.
>> Seems reason enough.
>
> Rather bizarre comments. You're unwilling to continue the conversation if
> I discuss beliefs.
Beliefs are far more resilient to adaptation as assumptions.
>>>>> How you react to this belief that "change is immanent" appears to be
>>>>> considerably hindering your ability to learn about anything, since it
>>>>> appears to make you avoid planning. I suspect that you're reactive,
>>>>> not proactive -- the opposite of you'd expect from someone who
>>>>> considers themselves a magician.
>>>>
>>>> I am Bassos.
>>>> Do you consider yourself to be a magician ?
>>>
>>> Not really, no.
>>
>> So your strict methodology in studying magick was unsuccessful.
>>
>> Or was that not what you wanted to state by your consideration ?
>
> I would say that the study of magick was successful, but my ability to
> practice what I learned has, for the most part, been unsuccessful.
So what did you study for it to be successful ?
Or more precise; what was your goal in studying magick, if it apparantly was
not becoming a mage.
> It's difficult to judge
Nonsense.
Claims are easy, remember ?
> since I've undoubtedly changed due to meditation, and that change is
> continuing.
Would you accept that any daydream is a meditation of sorts ?
Worry about the past/future also meditations.
Worry itself ?
Public Image ?
> My actions haven't changed much, however, and in that sense I would call
> it unsuccessful.
Perhaps we could use a different means of assessing succes.
Even though you apparantly consider yourself to be kinda performing the same
acts as before your studies;
Do those acts also feel the same ?
Have the same impact ?
Come with the same connotations ?
(i find it difficult to imagine someone rigorously applying strict
methodology in the application of magical practise that considers hirself
doing the same thing)
>>>>>>> Notice that no clumsy analogy with artificial neural networks is
>>>>>>> needed in my explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was perhaps short.
>>>>>> Not clumsy.
>>>>>> Perfectly understandable to anyone who did a modicum of research into
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you consider it perfectly understandable, despite it actually
>>>>> being an exceedingly clumsy analogy, suggests that you're lost in your
>>>>> own head.
>>>>
>>>> So you did not research it, did you ?
>>>
>>> I studied artificial neural networks at university.
>>
>> Interesting.
>> As a part of what ?
>
> As part of my degree.
What field ?
Have you got a paper online ?
>>>> You thinking to be able to make a definate classification of something
>>>> i wrote.
>>>
>>> Forming definite classifications isn't difficult.
>>
>> Perhaps you should have inquired what i meant by definate.
>> As in actual, true, real. (and stagnant, unchanging; boring)
>>
>> Not just it being a real classification, but a true one.
>
> All classifications are subjective and arbitrary. That is why it is easy
> to create a definite classification.
That is why it is easy to classify.
And impossible to classify definately.
Alrah
blown in from somewhere out of sight around the snowy mountain.*
Absorbed
Based on what you said.
> I claim heuristics are used (and thus indeed methods)
> I also claim that to stick to a single search method is inferior to
> adaptation.
>
> Nowhere in there is a claim about a no method using at all heuristic
> search pattern.
>
> Even though that is also possible.
>
> Think a kohonen map.
> (change value of a node/connection based on activation of nearby nodes)
>
> That is not searching at all, it is building.
> (using like is near like)
Your analogies are getting further and further away from the reality of
studying magick, which is supposedly what they're supposed to be
relating to.
According to Wikipedia, these kohonen maps you're talking about are
self-organising maps that use unsupervised learning. Neural networks
that use unsupervised learning may provide information about how the
data that you've fed into it is organised, but it won't extrapolate
anything from that data.
If you tried to related this to studying a subject, this would be the
equivalent of collating all the views and opinions of people who have
said something on the subject, the similarities and differences between
them, while not actually investigating the validity of these views and
opinions. I would call that collecting and organising information, not
studying.
>> If you want to study magick effectively, then your study should be
>> methodical.
>
> So you claim.
> [snip]
>> You can do the study unmethodically, but then you're liable to learn
>> little, if anything at all.
>
> So you claim.
Let me put it this way: these two statements that I've made above are
obvious facts. The reason you're disputing them is because you're
disputing something other than the thing I'm writing about.
If you're going to read a book effectively, you start at the beginning
and work your way through to the end. That is methodical. You could read
it unmethodically, by reading a random page at a time, but ultimately
it's a stupid way to read the book if you intend to understand its
contents. Put simply, that's basically all my above claims state.
> I actually claim that even an author cannot understand what hir written
> words mean.
Words have no objective meaning, you complete and utter idiot. An author
will know exactly what their words mean to them, but that might not
necessarily be the same meaning that others will find from reading those
words. An author may change their mind about what their words mean, but
ultimately what they mean to them is what they mean. Different people
can put different meanings on the same words, and no meaning is more
correct than another.
What I believe you're trying to say here is that bad authors let what
they intended to say influence their understanding of what they've
actually said. A bad writer, like yourself, on writing a sentence, is
unable to decipher the meaning of the words they've written as defined
by a dictionary due to the influence of their intended meaning. They
therefore tend to assume that the words they write always convey their
intended meaning, as you've wonderfully demonstrated above and
throughout this entire exchange.
>>> It is a claim you will definately find some local one by using strict
>>> methods.
>>
>> A strict method of learning for a neural network doesn't mean it will
>> definitely find a local minimum. It might get lucky.
>
> And there you go demonstrating you do not understand how neural nets work.
My point is that a "strict method" may find the global minimum
immediately, rather than just a local minimum. A local minimum is, by
definition, not a global minimum, since it is only the minimum locally.
> There is always, from the get go a local minimum.
Not if it's the global minimum or if there are no minimums at all.
>>>>>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>>>>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>>>>>>> actually be decreased.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance noted.
>>>>
>>>> Inability to communicate in English noted.
>>>
>>> Heh, yeah, when talking to a mouse, it is your fault the mouse does
>>> not understand.
>>> Ofcourse.
>>> (wanna bet you wil take that metaphor and abuse it ?)
>>
>> If it isn't immediately obvious to you how your sentence is ambiguous,
>
> Oh lol.
>
> Are you now claiming you never read me explaining why most of my
> posts/sentences/remarks/insults are ambiguous ?
Nope. It just seems hard to believe that you prefer nobody to understand
you by choice. Lunacy noted.
Since that's the case, why don't you write everything in Dutch?
Ambiguity assured.
>> then I expect there is little I can say to convince you that it is.
>
> Well, seeing how i actually (sometimes) make an effort to be ambiguous
> on purpose, i'd say not so much difficulties in that.
I don't think your words are often ambiguous by design, but by error. If
it were all by design, then there would be the possibility that they
could be clear and precise. You've never demonstrated the ability to
communicate clearly and precisely -- in fact, you've repeatedly
demonstrated the exact opposite.
> I suspected you might whine about the futility of communicating with
> words to a creature that does not understand words.
> (which would have given me an opportunity to demonstrate that the
> metaphor is therefore apt :P)
Well, I think I may grant your wish here. Using English to communicate
with someone who doesn't understand English is futile.
> Well, i think your efforts in this exchange are surprisingly well
> thought out.
>
> So congratulations for keeping that sting-reaction a bit tempered.
Heh. I think your efforts are pretty much the same as they've always been.
>>> Or in remembering something, strict continuation in attempts to
>>> retrieve often lead to dead ends.
>>> Then not searching at all relaxes the strictness and a different
>>> avenue can be taken.
>>
>> You had never read about quantum physics. You were just relaxing,
>> watching television, and then...
>
> I am talking about remembering something.
> The actual activity in the brain.
Oh, I see: you were discussing something unrelated to what we were
originally discussing. This is what happens when I push you to explain
what you mean.
>> This method is almost certainly going to lead you to bullshit.
>
> What method ?
Your method of studying a subject, or "finding a local minimum", that
involves lettings your conclusions "simply pop up". We were discussing
how to effectively study a subject, not how to remember where something
is. Now might be a good time for that memory to simply pop up.
> See how your preconceptions blinded you to understanding my words ?
By my preconceptions, do you mean that I expect you to not randomly
change the topic of conversation? Seriously, you should go over this
part of our exchange from the beginning, review it carefully, so you can
see what a dimwit you've been.
>> You cannot be sure of the validity of any conclusion that "simply pops
>> up".
>
> It is about after getting stuck-ish in a local minimum in a memory
> search, that the relaxation (changing methods) produces the required
> result.
Admission that you're talking about something completely unrelated noted.
bassos
Vague waving noted.
>> I claim heuristics are used (and thus indeed methods)
>> I also claim that to stick to a single search method is inferior to
>> adaptation.
>>
>> Nowhere in there is a claim about a no method using at all heuristic
>> search pattern.
>>
>> Even though that is also possible.
>>
>> Think a kohonen map.
>> (change value of a node/connection based on activation of nearby nodes)
>>
>> That is not searching at all, it is building.
>> (using like is near like)
>
> Your analogies are getting further and further away from the reality of
> studying magick, which is supposedly what they're supposed to be relating
> to.
Or so you fail to appreciate.
> According to Wikipedia
<thus started the dude claiming to know more about neural nets than me>
> Let me put it this way: these two statements that I've made above are
> obvious facts.
Obviously.
There is no such thing as facts.
> The reason you're disputing them is because you're disputing something
> other than the thing I'm writing about.
Projection much ?
> If you're going to read a book effectively, you start at the beginning and
> work your way through to the end.
Then redesign reality.
I dare you.
>> I actually claim that even an author cannot understand what hir written
>> words mean.
>
> Words have no objective meaning, you complete and utter idiot.
Which is exactly what i claim, you total and utter iiot.
How stupid can you be ?
(i see you regressed)
> What I believe you're trying to say here is that bad authors let what they
> intended to say influence their understanding of what they've actually
> said.
You are not even near anything resembling what i wrote.
>>>> It is a claim you will definately find some local one by using strict
>>>> methods.
>>>
>>> A strict method of learning for a neural network doesn't mean it will
>>> definitely find a local minimum. It might get lucky.
>>
>> And there you go demonstrating you do not understand how neural nets
>> work.
>
> My point is that a "strict method" may find the global minimum immediately
And a redomstration.
The only way that a strict method would immediately work, is if everything
is known beforehand.
How rusty are you ?
>> There is always, from the get go a local minimum.
>
> Not if it's the global minimum or if there are no minimums at all.
You are confused.
>>>>>>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>>>>>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum may
>>>>>>>> actually be decreased.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Inability to communicate in English noted.
>>>>
>>>> Heh, yeah, when talking to a mouse, it is your fault the mouse does not
>>>> understand.
>>>> Ofcourse.
>>>> (wanna bet you wil take that metaphor and abuse it ?)
>>>
>>> If it isn't immediately obvious to you how your sentence is ambiguous,
>>
>> Oh lol.
>>
>> Are you now claiming you never read me explaining why most of my
>> posts/sentences/remarks/insults are ambiguous ?
>
> Nope. It just seems hard to believe that you prefer nobody to understand
> you by choice. Lunacy noted.
The claim that nobody understands me is yours.
> Since that's the case, why don't you write everything in Dutch? Ambiguity
> assured.
Nonsense.
Would i really have to educate you about such trivial matters aswell ?
Stop getting to be boring.
(feel free to accept that as a brave exit speech)
>>> then I expect there is little I can say to convince you that it is.
>>
>> Well, seeing how i actually (sometimes) make an effort to be ambiguous on
>> purpose, i'd say not so much difficulties in that.
>
> I don't think your words are often ambiguous by design, but by error.
There you go again.
Attributing thoughts to me.
> If it were all by design
You would be, and are, inferior.
> then there would be the possibility that they could be clear and precise.
They are.
You just lack the skills to appreciate reality.
> You've never demonstrated the ability to communicate clearly and precisely
Rewrite :
You never demonstrated an ability to understand what i wrote.
(not really true)
> -- in fact, you've repeatedly demonstrated the exact opposite.
Wow, all so absolute with you.
>> I suspected you might whine about the futility of communicating with
>> words to a creature that does not understand words.
>> (which would have given me an opportunity to demonstrate that the
>> metaphor is therefore apt :P)
>
> Well, I think I may grant your wish here. Using English to communicate
> with someone who doesn't understand English is futile.
Thanks.
You do not understand me.
Nor my words.
I do not think it is futile to talk with you though.
>> Well, i think your efforts in this exchange are surprisingly well thought
>> out.
>>
>> So congratulations for keeping that sting-reaction a bit tempered.
>
> Heh. I think your efforts are pretty much the same as they've always been.
And what are those ?
>>>> Or in remembering something, strict continuation in attempts to
>>>> retrieve often lead to dead ends.
>>>> Then not searching at all relaxes the strictness and a different avenue
>>>> can be taken.
>>>
>>> You had never read about quantum physics. You were just relaxing,
>>> watching television, and then...
>>
>> I am talking about remembering something.
>> The actual activity in the brain.
>
> Oh, I see: you were discussing something unrelated to what we were
> originally discussing. This is what happens when I push you to explain
> what you mean.
Must be.
>>> This method is almost certainly going to lead you to bullshit.
>>
>> What method ?
>
> Your method of studying a subject, or "finding a local minimum", that
> involves lettings your conclusions "simply pop up". We were discussing how
> to effectively study a subject, not how to remember where something is.
> Now might be a good time for that memory to simply pop up.
So rereading that, do you experience shame ?
>> See how your preconceptions blinded you to understanding my words ?
>
> By my preconceptions, do you mean that I expect you to not randomly change
> the topic of conversation?
How bout you ?
> Seriously, you should go over this part of our exchange from the
> beginning, review it carefully, so you can see what a dimwit you've been.
Indeed.
>>> You cannot be sure of the validity of any conclusion that "simply pops
>>> up".
>>
>> It is about after getting stuck-ish in a local minimum in a memory
>> search, that the relaxation (changing methods) produces the required
>> result.
>
> Admission that you're talking about something completely unrelated noted.
Must be.
Absorbed
I've already explained what I believe your misunderstanding is,
including quotes.
>>> I claim heuristics are used (and thus indeed methods)
>>> I also claim that to stick to a single search method is inferior to
>>> adaptation.
>>>
>>> Nowhere in there is a claim about a no method using at all heuristic
>>> search pattern.
>>>
>>> Even though that is also possible.
>>>
>>> Think a kohonen map.
>>> (change value of a node/connection based on activation of nearby nodes)
>>>
>>> That is not searching at all, it is building.
>>> (using like is near like)
>>
>> Your analogies are getting further and further away from the reality
>> of studying magick, which is supposedly what they're supposed to be
>> relating to.
>
> Or so you fail to appreciate.
I'm not a mind reader.
>> According to Wikipedia
>
> <thus started the dude claiming to know more about neural nets than me>
>
>> Let me put it this way: these two statements that I've made above are
>> obvious facts.
>
> Obviously.
Not to you, apparently.
> There is no such thing as facts.
As the word "facts" is commonly defined, there are such things as facts.
>> If you're going to read a book effectively, you start at the beginning
>> and work your way through to the end.
>
> Then redesign reality.
>
> I dare you.
Reality, as I define it, only exists in the present moment, and
therefore it is impossible to redesign it. A better dare would be to
accept reality for what it is.
>>> I actually claim that even an author cannot understand what hir
>>> written words mean.
>>
>> Words have no objective meaning, you complete and utter idiot.
>
> Which is exactly what i claim, you total and utter iiot.
As I said, a bad writer, like yourself, on writing a sentence, is unable
to decipher the meaning of the words they've written as defined by a
dictionary due to the influence of their intended meaning. They
therefore tend to assume that the words they write always convey their
intended meaning, as you're demonstrating yet again.
> How stupid can you be ?
> (i see you regressed)
This progression and regression that you believe you're seeing is a
story that only exists in your head. That you change your mind about my
progress or regression from post to post should give you a hint that
that's the case.
>>>>> It is a claim you will definately find some local one by using
>>>>> strict methods.
>>>>
>>>> A strict method of learning for a neural network doesn't mean it
>>>> will definitely find a local minimum. It might get lucky.
>>>
>>> And there you go demonstrating you do not understand how neural nets
>>> work.
>>
>> My point is that a "strict method" may find the global minimum
>> immediately
>
> And a redomstration.
I am not sure what you believe we're discussing, but if you believe I'm
in error, then it's not a type of artificial neural network that I've
studied.
>>>>>>>>> In itself, i might indeed agree with the statement that :
>>>>>>>>> To search for the global minimum, the finding of said minimum
>>>>>>>>> may actually be decreased.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a poorly written sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignorance noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inability to communicate in English noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh, yeah, when talking to a mouse, it is your fault the mouse does
>>>>> not understand.
>>>>> Ofcourse.
>>>>> (wanna bet you wil take that metaphor and abuse it ?)
>>>>
>>>> If it isn't immediately obvious to you how your sentence is ambiguous,
>>>
>>> Oh lol.
>>>
>>> Are you now claiming you never read me explaining why most of my
>>> posts/sentences/remarks/insults are ambiguous ?
>>
>> Nope. It just seems hard to believe that you prefer nobody to
>> understand you by choice. Lunacy noted.
>
> The claim that nobody understands me is yours.
I said people struggle to understand your intended meaning, not that
they cannot understand a single thing you say.
>> Since that's the case, why don't you write everything in Dutch?
>> Ambiguity assured.
>
> Nonsense.
You just implied that you write ambiguously on purpose. Since you wish
to obfuscate your intended meaning, writing in Dutch would be a superb
way to go.
>>>> then I expect there is little I can say to convince you that it is.
>>>
>>> Well, seeing how i actually (sometimes) make an effort to be
>>> ambiguous on purpose, i'd say not so much difficulties in that.
>>
>> I don't think your words are often ambiguous by design, but by error.
>
> There you go again.
>
> Attributing thoughts to me.
I'm not attributing thoughts to you, but stating an opinion. What I'm
saying is that when your words are ambiguous, I don't believe it's by
design most of the time; I think it's mostly because you've failed to
form your intended meaning in words.
>> If it were all by design
>
> You would be, and are, inferior.
Charming.
>> then there would be the possibility that they could be clear and precise.
>
> They are.
I disagree. It is exactly this sort of claim by you that makes me think
there is something wrong with your ability to use language, but I think
it's actually due to all the noise in your head.
>> You've never demonstrated the ability to communicate clearly and
>> precisely
>
> Rewrite :
> You never demonstrated an ability to understand what i wrote.
> (not really true)
I rarely demonstrated an ability to understand your intended meaning. To
consistently understand your intended meaning, because of your
ambiguity, you'd have to be a mind reader.
>>> I suspected you might whine about the futility of communicating with
>>> words to a creature that does not understand words.
>>> (which would have given me an opportunity to demonstrate that the
>>> metaphor is therefore apt :P)
>>
>> Well, I think I may grant your wish here. Using English to communicate
>> with someone who doesn't understand English is futile.
>
> Thanks.
>
> You do not understand me.
>
> Nor my words.
You're not going to take the opportunity to demonstrate that your
metaphor is apt?
> I do not think it is futile to talk with you though.
Well, that's nice.
>>> Well, i think your efforts in this exchange are surprisingly well
>>> thought out.
>>>
>>> So congratulations for keeping that sting-reaction a bit tempered.
>>
>> Heh. I think your efforts are pretty much the same as they've always
>> been.
>
> And what are those ?
I don't know what your efforts are, but whatever they are, the result is
the same old bullshit. An exchange with pretty much always results in
arguments concerning definition and meaning.
>>>>> Or in remembering something, strict continuation in attempts to
>>>>> retrieve often lead to dead ends.
>>>>> Then not searching at all relaxes the strictness and a different
>>>>> avenue can be taken.
>>>>
>>>> You had never read about quantum physics. You were just relaxing,
>>>> watching television, and then...
>>>
>>> I am talking about remembering something.
>>> The actual activity in the brain.
>>
>> Oh, I see: you were discussing something unrelated to what we were
>> originally discussing. This is what happens when I push you to explain
>> what you mean.
>
> Must be.
I think you're finally getting it.
>>>> This method is almost certainly going to lead you to bullshit.
>>>
>>> What method ?
>>
>> Your method of studying a subject, or "finding a local minimum", that
>> involves lettings your conclusions "simply pop up". We were discussing
>> how to effectively study a subject, not how to remember where
>> something is. Now might be a good time for that memory to simply pop up.
>
> So rereading that, do you experience shame ?
Nope. I cannot remember the last time I felt shame about something I
wrote on alt.magick.
>>> See how your preconceptions blinded you to understanding my words ?
>>
>> By my preconceptions, do you mean that I expect you to not randomly
>> change the topic of conversation?
>
> How bout you ?
Evasion noted.
>> Seriously, you should go over this part of our exchange from the
>> beginning, review it carefully, so you can see what a dimwit you've been.
>
> Indeed.
Really, I think you're getting it.
>>>> You cannot be sure of the validity of any conclusion that "simply
>>>> pops up".
>>>
>>> It is about after getting stuck-ish in a local minimum in a memory
>>> search, that the relaxation (changing methods) produces the required
>>> result.
>>
>> Admission that you're talking about something completely unrelated noted.
>
> Must be.
That was a well-thought-out reply. This is really promising.
Congratulations.