How scientific is the idea that there is nothing but science to learn?
Or perhaps one must reinvent the wheel to drive a car.
To me, the answer to any of such questions, is "name is name".
A reference to a thing is that thing itself, yet simultaneously not that thing.
It is also always empty, and unbound.
Or we can keep arguing in absolutes, and be sure the answer is always past the horizon.
Yeah, my argument, when taken that far, is unworkable.
When considering how far to maximize the reward function, the metaphor of a treadmill is apt.
There are forces constantly pulling backwards, and if I don't keep ahead of them, I might as well going backwards on my own.
We take the conflict and complexity, and give it space.
So I'd say "to remain conflicted is a kind of hypocrisy." or maybe to roll the dice at complexity and conflict isn't much better than pure hypocrisy.
I'm having a bit of trouble phrasing this, I think because life isn't discrete lik... (read more)