< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jan-11-03|| ||pawntificator: The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of being a figment of someone else's imagination. It certainly removes a great deal of responsibility from my shoulders, anyhow. I didn't pay my parking ticket? Go talk to Sneaky.|
And yet, I can't bring myself to believe that one being would go through all the trouble of giving my life (and everyone else's) all the boring detail of reality just so that I would be here for them to defeat in chess.
|Jan-11-03|| ||PVS: You could just adopt metaphysical determinism. |
|Jan-11-03|| ||pawntificator: What, dear sir, are the distinguishing aspects of metaphysical determinism? I suppose I could go look it up... I'd need more information before I adopt anything! Adoption is a big responsibility. |
|Jan-11-03|| ||PVS: I believe that if metaphysical determinism obtains, there is no responsibility for anything. It is
often taken as the very general thesis about the world that all events without exception
are effects - events necessitated by earlier events. Hence any event of any kind is an
effect of a prior series of effects, a causal chain with every link solid. The thesis is
fundamentally simple. If the thesis is true, future events are as fixed and unalterable
as the past is fixed and unalterable.. |
Although there are wide implications to this, as Simon Blackburn points out, the most
important issue historically has been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it
applies in a general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we believe
that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that are freely chosen and within
the power of the agent to decide. We are guilty only if we could have done otherwise.
But if determinism is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise.
|Jan-11-03|| ||pawntificator: That is fascinating! How freeing to be able to believe in determinism! Right now I have the choice between two things, smashing this computer to bits, or trying to muddle my way through this idea. No matter which one I choose, I am free from responsibility because the result has been determined already by the events that have taken place up until now! Unfortunately, I don't believe that past events could be the cause for me choosing one or the other alternative because of my fondness for the notion of free will. Also, at this point I could still choose either option, so there is no way that the future could already be determined. There is too much uncertainty. Maybe that is only my limited powers of perception, and not knowing myself which decision to make does not alter the inescapable fact that whatever I choose was going to be what I chose no matter what. My head is reeling. PVS, please tell me that these ideas we are discussing, or any philosophical item we could discuss, hasn't already been exhaustively covered to the furthest extent by greater minds than ours. |
|Jan-11-03|| ||PVS: The topic has been discussed without definite solution. Once a definite solution is found it ceases to be philosophy. There is a philosopher named Ted Honderich who has done of lot of work on free will and determinism, last year he published a short book on the topic you might enjoy. It is called "How Free Are You?: The Determinism Problem." |
|Jan-11-03|| ||pawntificator: Well I'm going to check out that book. Thanks! Hey PVS, are you a member of gameknot.com? I'd like to play you a game if you are! And if you aren't, then you should be! 14 days per move! |
|Jan-11-03|| ||PVS: I am long done with playing chess. Poker is my only game now. |
|Jan-11-03|| ||THE GENERAL: can someone explain all this ? i am confused. maybe rhiannon since his post began it all. it should be very short. |
|Jan-11-03|| ||PVS: <can someone explain all this ? it should be very short.>|
I do not think a short explanation is possible. I would refer you to "How Free Are You?: The Determinism Problem" by Ted Honderich or Bertrand Russell's classic "The Problems of Philosophy."
<i am confused. maybe rhiannon since his post began it
You may additionally be confused about this person's gender.
|Jan-12-03|| ||pawntificator: Confused about this person's gender, heh heh. Isn't rhiannon the name of a song? I guess I assumed it was a woman, though I am doubting that assumption now. |
So you are long done with playing chess? I am afraid I don't understand. I know what each of the words mean individually, but put together in that order they formulate an idea that I can't possibly begin to comprehend, heh heh. Kidding of course. But then, perhaps you are just pulling my leg as well. I can't believe you would give up such a wonderful game! You never play a computer program all alone in the seclusion of your own home? Not even for the heck of it? For shame! Letting such a mind as yours go to waste. Well, I guess that isn't true, as you certainly have a vast and diverse bank of knowledge. Still. My advice is this: go play chess.
|Jan-12-03|| ||mdorothy: Well, I'm gonna relate chess to something that came up with people here.. Chess is like watching football. It can be great some days, but when your team is down 5 starters (all offensive weapons, big run stopper, and fastest defensive player) and then loses to the falcons in the first round of the playoffs, its horrible.. recently i lost a crazy game of chess online.. my opponant never stopped attacking, but he overextended himself, and after i defended it all, i took a major lead, but blew it somehow... then chess seems to suck.. especially since i didnt get that game saved so i could look it over.. ya just gotta keep playin and once you get a win or two, you get your confidence back.. such is life. as far as bang for the buck, i think chess is the best game out there, for mind enrichment. |
|Jan-25-03|| ||pawntificator: The more I consider this Solipsism, the better I like it. However, I would like to change just one thing. The world is an unfolding drama, a movie in which we are each our own star character. We write our own lines and decide what course the action is going to take. Everything is at our fingertips, the sky is the limit! Except instead of the world being a figment of my imagination, I think it should be a creation of some sort of "God." Is there already something like that? heh heh |
|Jan-25-03|| ||PVS: It sounds like something from Hindu theology. I cannot direct you to the proper darshana. There is a concept that we are all characters in God's dream. Maybe Anand can clue us in. |
|Feb-07-03|| ||pawntificator: Hey! This thread made it on the database statistics page! heh hehh |
|May-31-03|| ||Larsker: <"There is but one truly serious question and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of life. All the rest -- whether or not the world has three or four dimensions, whether to meet e4 with e5 or c5 -- comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." >|
The formulation is not by Khalifman but by Albert Camus. http://www.selfknowledge.org/resour...
(As it is wellknown, Camus was an existentialist - so all this talk about suicide makes sense in that perspective).
Talking about chess and literature: "The Royal Game" (Schachnovelle) by Stefan Zweig http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVal... deals with chess and sanity.
From it this quote: "Chess is more lasting in its being and presence than all books and achievements, the only game that belongs to all peoples and all ages of which none knows the divinity that bestowed it on the world to slay boredom, to sharpen the senses, to exhilarate the spirit."
|Jun-02-03|| ||Cecil Brown: I've come a little late to this one , but :
"Any philosopher's argument that does not therapeutically treat human suffering is worthless, for just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy if it does not help expel the sufferings of the mind"
|Jun-02-03|| ||THE GENERAL: did anyone ever get to the bottom of this? |
|Jun-02-03|| ||THE GENERAL: < PVS: I am long done with playing chess. Poker is my only game now.>|
I HEARD THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF POKER WAS WON BY A CHESS GRANDMASTER. COULD THIS BE TRUE?
|Jun-02-03|| ||Bears092: Maybe it was our very own PVS ;) |
|Jun-03-03|| ||PVS: <I HEARD THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF POKER WAS WON BY A CHESS GRANDMASTER. COULD THIS BE TRUE?> |
<Maybe it was our very own PVS ;)>
Unhappily no, it was not I. I believe The General is referring to Dan Harrington who finished third in the main event of the World Series of Poker, which is recognized as the world championship of that game. He collected $650,000. Mr. Harrington is a USCF master. He won the world championship of poker in 1995.
|Jun-18-03|| ||THE GENERAL: <PVS: Unhappily no, it was not I. I believe The General is referring to Dan Harrington who finished third in
the main event of the World Series of Poker, which is recognized as the world championship of that
game. He collected $650,000. Mr. Harrington is a USCF master. He won the world championship of
poker in 1995.>
THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THIS MATTER UP.
|Apr-07-07|| ||sheaf: why has anand completely given up 1c4 and 1.d4??|
|Apr-07-07|| ||KamikazeAttack: Anad has always been a 1.e4 player. He did experiment with 1.d4 few years ago though.|
|Apr-14-10|| ||Kazzak: The three pages prior contain metaphysical nonsense.|
Here, Anand opens as white with Nf3.
A strange game, which ended Khalifman's short reign as WCC ... and where Anand maybe got lucky.
30... Nc5 sealed Khalifman's fate.
But here's the thing - Anand swoops down on these mistakes immediately, and knows how to turn them into wins.
So let's trust that Topalov has shaped up his game after Linares, where there were a few too many such freebie opportunities in his game -- some of which his opponents didn't spot, where Anand does.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·