Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Frederik

Member
  • Content count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Frederik last won the day on June 3 2016

Frederik had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

40 Good

About Frederik

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany
  • Interests
    Philosophy and Psychology, Self-Knowledge, Endurance Sports, Health and Nutrition, and Natural Living.
  • Occupation
    Online Therapist
  1. Socrates Jones: PRO-PHILOSOPHER

    I see you have multiple criticisms of UPB, which is fine, of course. I am just wondering since that is the case, how come you are not reading UPB?
  2. Socrates Jones: PRO-PHILOSOPHER

    Yeah, once one tries to make great arguments oneself I believe it's pretty easy to experience an increase in the amount of admiration for what Stefpai does Mmmh, I may be missing something here, but I am not sure how UPB relies on humans? That would be like saying we cannot ever be sure that two and two apples makes four because we are fallible, but two and two apples in nature will always be four apples, regardless of humans. In the same way, "Theft is moral" is an impossible moral guideline because once theft is seen as moral, one cannot morally "not want to be stolen from" anymore and thus theft ceases to exist. Where is it that you would say man's falliability would make this fact subjective to change and manipulation, if you think that? I'm not trying to be critical here, it's just that UPB is very important to me and if your argument were true, that would pretty much destroy the U in the UPB
  3. Socrates Jones: PRO-PHILOSOPHER

    Hey, many thanks for posting this! I knew I have played that game as soon as you described the choices one is given. The funny thing is that the first time I played it must have been years ago before I knew about FDR and now that I have played it again it gives me some perspective. In short, playing the game feels a bit like moving on rails because there is only one predefined way in which to attack an argument. When discussing God you cannot question its existence, when talking about the Social Contract you are not able to bring up that children cannot enter contracts, when debating the Sovereign/the State you cannot question its moral nature. I, for once, don't have quite the IQ to quickly discover the sometimes very nuanced hints in which one can attack the argument – which the character does for oneself, in ways that may not even be anticipated (it's a whole dialogue that gets kicked off). So sometimes it came down to guesswork and ending up Game Over a few times. That was frustrating! I remember that from the first time playing. I share your doubts about whether this game has sparked critical thinking among the general populace. It has not been my personal experience. Nothing ever came close to Stef's rational approach and sheer consistency, which of course is absent in almost all other philosophers. Naturally, UPB is not included in the game and if it were, it would be a completely different game. (Spoiler below) It is fascinating to me how philosophy that comes so close to the solution can be so useless after all. My life did not change at all when I played that game for a couple hours, but I knew my life would change completely after watching The Story of Your Enslavement with its 13 minutes in length. Isn't that amazing? It gives me some insight into the almost magical ineffectiveness of academic philosophy. It exists only in order to give people a false sense of purpose and understanding – to turn the smart minds of our time into mere useful idiots at the cost of discrediting the one discipline that has given us the freedom to philosophize in the first place! I would be curious to hear your thoughts, Siegfried!
  4. I guess it makes sense that my post would seem like an ad because I don't explain the technology. In a nutshell, in Hashgraph every node (the client, like your computer running the program) tells random other nodes the data it has (transactions, coordinates, or other data), plus information it randomly received from other nodes. It's called "Gossip protocol" for obvious reasons and is not a new invention. So my node A sends my transaction to another node B, then A and B send to C and D, next round four nodes send out my information – exponentially, so it only takes 20 iterations for 1 million nodes to know my transaction which is the fastest possible way to distribute data in a network. Also, the nodes tell each other what they heard other nodes telling other nodes together with the timestamps, so they "gossip about gossip." The benefit of that gossip about gossip is that every node has all the data every other node has and that very quickly. This also demonstrates the fairness in Hashgraph, because all nodes are equal in power and no single node decides which transactions get to be included. To decide on the correct order of the transactions, a voting system is used. But instead of sending votes all around in the network of who has seen which data when and to "vote for it", we can just forget about that part because everyone already knows how everyone "would" vote if there was a an actual vote – hence it's called "virtual voting" and is, together with the Gossip protocol, what makes Hashgraph incredibly efficient. That's the basic gist of it I'll insert it into the opening post. Now Hashgraph is much safer than Blockchain. While in blockchain there is never perfect certainty in the order of transactions, in Hashgraph there is 100 % certainty and that after a very short amount of time (seconds, not hours). Blockchain is not byzantine fault tolerant despite what people commonly believe. Hashgraph has the highest byzantine fault tolerance there is. The 51 % number you quoted is actually false – every consensus algorithm can not guarantee integrity once more than one third of its participants have evil intentions. Leemon Baired explains why that is right here: CESC2017 - Leemon Baird - Hashgraph Security and Attack Resilience, 19m 54s That should clear it up
  5. What am I failing to grasp?

    Do you have someone in your life who listens to you empathetically? Maybe a therapist or a close friend?
  6. I wanted to introduce you guys to a technology which may change the future of our planet much more than Bitcoin will. It may even make Bitcoin obsolete. If you know how Blockchain works, this topic should interest you. ––––––––––– So... Does expending huge amounts of resources to solve math problems that nobody really cares about make the world a better place? Does "7 transactions a second maximum" sound like future world currency technology? Is it fair that approximately every 10 minutes one single computer likely part of a supercluster wins the lottery and decides which transactions get to be included in the next block? Is waiting for 1 hour for confirmation of a payment that even then isn't 100 % guaranteed sound viable in today's age, let alone in 20 years from now? I'd say no, no, no, and no. But is there an alternative? Yes. It's called Hashgraph. ––––––––––– Hashgraph is a Distributed Ledger Technology much like Blockchain, yet very different – and much better. In a nutshell, in Hashgraph every node (the client, like your computer running the program) tells random other nodes the data it has (transactions, coordinates, or other data), plus information it randomly received from other nodes. It's called "Gossip protocol" for obvious reasons and is not a new invention. So my node A sends my transaction to another node B, then A and B send to C and D, next round four nodes send out my information (exponential, so it only takes 20 iterations for 1 million nodes to know my transaction). Also, the nodes tell each other what they heard other nodes telling other nodes together with the timestamps, so they "gossip about gossip." The benefit of that gossip about gossip is that every node has all the data every other node has. This also demonstrates the fairness in Hashgraph, because all nodes are equal in power and no single node decides which transactions get to be included. To decide on the correct order of the transactions, a voting system is used. But instead of sending votes all around in the network of who has seen which data when and to "vote for it", we can just forget about that part because everyone already knows how everyone "would" vote if there was a an actual vote – hence it's called "virtual voting" and is, together with the Gossip protocol, what makes Hashgraph incredibly efficient. It's extremely efficient and fast, plus fair and secure. In fact, it's much more efficient, faster, fairer and securer than Blockchain! It's a straight upgrade. It was invented 5 years ago by Leemon Baired of http://www.swirlds.com/ and they have only been public about this technology since September 2017. ––––––––––– You want to learn more? See their website (above) or check out the following resources: Hidden Secrets Of Money Episode 8 featuring Bitcoin and Hashgraph (video) Overview of Swirlds Hashgraph (article) How Hashgraph Consensus Works (presentation) Swirds' Leemon Baird Talks Hashgraph (lecture) ––––––––––– It may sound like I'm here to advertise, but I am of course in no way affiliated to them. I just have recently stumbled across Hashgraph in The Hidden Secrets of Money and have been learning much about it. I find Hashgraph fascinating as this seems to solve all the problems that Bitcoin currently has. Most notably the extreme energy expense (between 1/2000th and 1/1200th of world's electricity!) and limited scalability. Maybe you guys find this interesting, too? Have you heard about it before? What are your thoughts? Cheers!
  7. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    Well, I think Freedomain Radio is an exception in a lot of ways and I am very thankful for that I agree with you and believe that in general, your recommendation is good when it comes to public intellectuals trying to market themselves.
  8. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    That certainly makes sense! I think Stef isn't the kind of guy that would want to call his show "The Stefan Molyneux Show" and having us being part of the "Stefan Molyneux community". Cult aleeert!! Stefan Molyneux – Founder of "The Stefan Molyneux Podcast" – Sounds weird to me My educated guess is that the main reason he gave this show a different name than his own is his aim to make this show as little about him as possible. He is always reiterating that it's not about him, but about reason and evidence and the truth – as opposed to so many other public figures like Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro who like to give answers instead of principles and arguments. They don't reason from first principles, and therefore the conversation becomes much more about themselves and their personal "beliefs". And incidentally, their shows are called "The Rubin Report" and "The Ben Shapiro Show"
  9. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    Well, I think we first have to recognize that there are only so many words in the dictionary itself, right? And the percentage of words which could potentially serve as a brand name is miniscule I would assume. What I mean so say by that is we can't tell from the empiricism of brand names whether companies actually prefer unique words or common words, right? But for example, I find Freedomain Radio a very good name. It's actually describing many qualities of what it is, and I associate.. Free Domain ~ We, the community within this domain, are free, and we share freely. Freedom is important to us. Radio ~ It's kind of a Radio show, which it is. Plus, it doesn't have too many syllables because I find Radio goes off as one (Free-Do-main-Radio), which I think is very important (note how few syllables there are in Coke, Pepsi, Apple, Tesla, Fanta, Ford, Bayer, even Mercedes or Microsoft). Proctor & Gamble on the other hand is too long, which is why they make P&G out of it... I know I am by no means proving anything and in that sense it's a bit ridiculous, because I could just as well choose very long and unfortunate brand names that are still well known... But I just think that these catchy brands have the most potential to become literally branded into the collective unconscious. That being said, I think just as debate.org is a good brand name for that, arguments.com were suiting for this project, too.
  10. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    Oh, sure. I have not expressed myself very clearly. I meant that a simple noun generally has less potential to become a recognized brand. Successful beverages are not called "Sprinkly" or "Refreshing", but "Coke" and "Pepsi" – invented words. I'm sure you now get what I mean
  11. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    No, it's not a common noun. For as long as your name is unique, domains will not have to cost you more than 20 bucks. I don't even think it is particularly clever to set up a website without a unique name for reasons of brand recognition. Examples of prices from iPage:
  12. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    How are .com domains expensive? I bought mine for 5 or 10 bucks I think. I believe it's more about what kind of domain name it is, right? How much have you guys paid?
  13. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    I am curious about your project. What would the arguments be about? Do you intend a focus on politics, metaphysics, ethics, etc.? What is your reasoning behind your goal to save western civilization with arguments as opposed to, say, peaceful parenting, therapy, etc.? I'm not trying to criticize, I am just curious about your thoughts on it Through which channels do you intend to gain income? Thanks!
  14. Therapy recommendation

    Guys, I know that Stef is not aware of Coherence Therapy, but it's DA BOMB! Seriously, it's the therapy concept that is the most empirical, logical, most effective. Check it out!
  15. arguments.com - Collaborators wanted

    What's the difference to http://www.debate.org/ ?
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.