Maybe both? Probably the latter though.
But either way, how do we do it recursively until everybody gets it? That’d be the greatest trick we could ever accomplish.
Maybe we should make this thread an algorithm for spawning other, increasingly more intelligent threads? :o Like reproduction and evolution of memes.
Well, not to brag, but I am quite a bit farther along than that. And I went to some great schools. Including one you’ll never ever hear about.
If you wanted to talk about bin Laden, you should have opened a thread on bin Laden. Tacking him onto a longer spiel is not the way to create a debate. If you want to discuss bin Laden, open a new thread to do so. (Although if you need to resolve this stuff to approach that discussion, let this thread run its course, first, to keep the two topics genuinely separate.)
Oh and you might be confused by my CS grad school remark. I would be a rather non-traditional student if I went along that path now, but I think I will and I have my reasons for believing that I won’t have too much trouble with it. But I’m stilling thinking about moving to Fiji to play jokes on stray cats. I think I’ll be fine either way, trust me :o
Thank you for understanding me.
You should recognize that Rene Descartes, the “Father of Modern Philosophy”, supersedes all other philosophers. 
Great insight. Neo is the One.
I thought I was confusing tomndebb. 
Remember, in The Matrix, what Agent Smith said to Neo about Morpheus:
This needs to be resolved to approach that discussion. Not to confuse tomndebb, **hoenikker **or anyone else, I replied to a post by BigT; however, I intentionally and consciously only quoted the relevant part of the post (relevant to the OP) leaving out the “kill thousands”, “millions”, “bin Laden”, “Hiroshima”, part, which, as I agree with tomndebb, is a separate topic.
I’m very confused. Trust me on this one. I’ll try my best not to confuse you, so I’ll just name some keywords that are causing my confusion now without making it too explicit: collective unconscious, synchronicity, deja vu, psychoses, symmetry, pedantry, ontology, measure functions, embarassment, Truman Show, Matrix.
So what hell are you trying to tell me, man? 
How sure are you about sure are you about what you’re trying to tell me? Try to make it easier for me to figure out next time, ok?
Ok. 
Nah. I think the methods are clear. What’s missing is simply a clear goal and motivation.
IOW a manifesto. Insert yours here. Note of course that it requires both an appeal to certain principles (and perhaps a world view), and also a call to specific action.
Maybe we can move to Cafe Society and talk about inversions of perspective in fictional works? Like the inversion at the end of I Am Legend (the book), which was basically exactly along the Truman-anti-Truman axis (or possibility Neo-anti-Neo, as the two are similar but not quite the same inversion.)
I’d hate to drop all the math usage though :o
But that’s too hard for me, because I have no clue if I understand anything at all! (I am truly equally confused about both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, and am truly indifferent to both. Not just moderate, but indifferent. And I understand the issues, at least I think I do.)
So that’s why we need to do this recursively. We need to bootstrap this with an algorithm that produces an algorithm which produces an algorithm that converges on the perfect thread. I’m sure tomndebb will be happy to help as long as we explain to him what we want to do. And we can be patient, doing it one step at a time.
Lots of threads on some other forums are like this by the way. They discuss one topic and go on forever, but because there’s a limit to the number of posts they always have to start over with a new OP, the character of the thread changes. And threads cross-pollinate, so these characteristics recombine in interesting ways.
Just go through the history of the Games and Technology forums on Penny Arcade if you don’t believe me.
The stereotypical scientific method seems to work well enough. Come up with a provisional falsifiable manifesto. Then we’ll test it.
Alright fine, if you force me, I’ll say something, but it’s not really a manifesto.
Basically, the “perfect” algorithm of life is Zen Buddhism. We should all strive to become perfect Zen masters laughing at the universe and joking with each other about it because it’s so amusing. And not because we get it, but’s because we’re sure we don’t. This is the absolute maximization of human utility over the space of memetic evolution and transmission over some future horizon which will subsequently lead to the singularity over a larger future horizon. (But by then, I doubt we’ll really be human.)
And if you tell me I’m wrong about it because people won’t do any work, I’ll tell you you’re wrong. Because I’m very very amused about this whole thing and am currently working on a very very ambitious idea because I want to; I’m just not sure if the best place to do it is grad school or Fiji. And I’m not sure if the best way to do it (over the appropriate horizon ;)) is by writing computer programs or by playing recursive jokes on cats. I’m rather indifferent to both right now.
So if you believe me, and want to spread these memes, please recursively try your best to improve the readership of this thread by considering recursively all factors which increase the readership of a thread including the factors you won’t ever admit in public but that everyone knows are true. (Hello, Truman :p)
Everyone got it? I’m getting kind of tired on this, so I hope at least Kozmik picks this up and rolls with it.
ETA: It’s falsifiable, kind of. We’ll just do it and figure out if it works when we’re all Zen masters at the end of time. If it’s falsified, then we’re no longer Zen masters at the end of time. But then again, what was Zen again? Kind of recursive, no?
But everyone already has Buddha nature.
Wait, are you SURE? I truly have no clue what you just said to me so I’m not going to argue it. I really don’t want to be Truman :o
Oh my god, this is why I want to the cats thing. I think the cats are ready for it, and I’m pretty sure they’re not going to do anything to confuse me. And if I were Truman to the cats, it would be very very very funny later, not embarrassing.
Ever read Douglas Adams’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy? Same idea I think I got it from there, but I’m not sure, Jungian collective unconscious and all.
Just posted in General Questions, in case you think I’m joking.
But of course, I’m joking, I must be, right?
Well there’s the universal algorithm based on least knowledge, which I guess is the most applicable and recursive and is simply do what you are able to change what you want to be different while preserving what you want to stay the same.
Then there’s mid-level algorithms that deal with specific goals (changes), which could potentially be at cross purposes.
And then there’s higher level algorithms that deal metaphysically with the relationships and nature of different goals which is where the zen comes in.
But really each one leads to the next such that you come full circle.
Pretty much everyone who has been enlightened has said that everyone already is enlightened, they just aren’t in a constant state of awareness about it.
I’ve had moments of clarity and during these, I’ve understood that and come to the same conclusion.
OK then, I think you might be quite right. Maybe we don’t have to do anything at all.
Maybe the cats then? They’ll like it, I’m sure. And I’ll have fun too
Right, exactly! So that’s why i’m indifferent on my CS research (in AI, no less). Actually, since you’ve “taught” me so much, I’m leaning toward the recursive jokes on cats now. :o