Subnostr

What do you think of this translation quality? It just uses Google translation services. nostr:note1v8wzma8nqf4yax97ww5mfpfxggykkst3hhltfm3nysz2grn6h2jqfpw00w

Replying to

Marks

I’m still using the 1.5 build of Damus because I wanted to keep #OnlyZaps before it got removed. Should I jump to 1.7? I can always run my own build from source with that feature enabled.

Scott 2y ago

🫢

nostr:note1gjd2str0tfqvrcwdttskxkd52vmsagc477gsr858k0ug86nuj60qzn6uas

Scott 2y ago

Replying to https://twitter.com/BradR_01/status/1696282422856294537:

@BradRollins01 @CodifyBaseball Wow.

Scott 2y ago

I'm long on the word synchronize.

Replying to

Scott

Maybe you define real like this: that which is within you is synchronized with that which is outside of you.

Scott 2y ago

You could*

Replying to

Geist

I don't know if I would call the subjective untrustworthy, it could vary person to person but it doesn't have to, its just whatever you see something as, which could be influenced by drugs, experience, sleep deprivation etc.

Scott 2y ago

Maybe you define real like this: that which is within you is synchronized with that which is outside of you.

Replying to

Geist

I have a high degree of trust that a video us real if I took it, slightly less is a family or friend took it and vouches for it, less if its on social media etc.

Scott 2y ago

Gotcha, gotcha. I feel like the way you were using the word “subjective” earlier made it sound like you view it as something that is untrustworthy. Is that accurate?

Replying to

Geist

Hmm, yes it seems like this is one of those questions people have asked for forever and never settled on. The varying degrees of abstractness and what makes something obvious still leads me back to subjective experience and degrees of trust. More tomorrow if you want to add, time for bed, GN.

Scott 2y ago

What do you mean by degrees of trust?

Replying to

Geist

I think its real, you think its real, but I am searching for a universizable definition for real. Its easy to assume something is real when you can touch it, but you can't touch bitcoin. I could say bitcoin is real based on assumptions about the node software, the block hash, the fixed supply etc., but that is a different set of requirements at first glance than how you would normally determine if a physical object is real, collectors items aside.

Any elaboration on the "relationship" between the subjective and the objective?

Scott 2y ago

Hmm. Philosophical history probably tells us that your quest is somewhat futile.

Everything we experience has varying degrees of concreteness/abstractness and I think that determines how easy it is to tell if that thing is real.

I don’t think you’re going to come up with some magic criteria that will make abstract realities all-of-sudden obvious. As bitcoin is a little more abstract, it will always be harder to grasp than something tangible.

As far as the relationship, I think the unity between the self and non-self is deeper than the distinction. So that would mean we have a deep connectedness with that which is beyond us.

Replying to

Geist

Right, the self is subjective and the nonself is unprovable, so real is a quality of the self/subjective, and the objective may or may not conform, but also doesn't care. Though, if something is objective but not real it may be reinterpreted as real at a later date, I would think, and that may come back to the point about subjective experience and degrees of trust. In this sense, we can't know if bitcoin is objective, but it can be real depending on your perspective.

Scott 2y ago

I think “real” is more about the relationship between the subjective and the objective and not specifically about one or the other. As far as bitcoin, isn’t it self-evident that it is real? I didn’t think that was being questioned.