guys?
Is this where you jump in to say "stop it now!!!"?
You need to be careful about that...you're going to become a meme like "Leave Brittany alone!!!".
You know that is part of France, right?
I make no apologies for not knowing more about Britney Spears. In fact, I consider it a triumph .
You really should know about Brittany, though. 
Chess will be solved by the end of 2028.
There's an infinite set of 'chess solved' interpretations.
How about this next one.
Most people don't play chess - aren't interested and don't invest time in it in any way.
Its already 'solved' for them. Because there was no issue in the first place.
--------------
And just as its obvious that the tablebases are struggling terribly to solve for just 8 pieces on board - with 50 million trillion trillion trillion possible chess positions in total possible ...
its also obvious that 'subjectives' are not defined by 'subjective perceptions'.
If I had to define 'things subjective' in some way - (I don't plus its obvious that they exist) - then I'd define them through their cause.
Which is DNA.
DNA operating to survive and reproduce and to build and do and be all the things that are subjective.
---------------------
DNA was discovered much less than a century ago.
Before that - things like natural selection and instincts and behaviour were known about - and cells were known about. But not DNA.
The science of DNA is still in its early stages.
DNA is real. Its not a 'perception'.
Knowledge of DNA is already impacting forensics in a big way and agriculture too.
Medicine? Probably more and more.
But DNA and how it works and what it does is reality. Not 'perception'.
guys?
Is this where you jump in to say "stop it now!!!"?
You need to be careful about that...you're going to become a meme like "Leave Brittany alone!!!".
You know that is part of France, right?
I make no apologies for not knowing more about Britney Spears. In fact, I consider it a triumph .
You really should know about Brittany, though.
I don't know much about the two Brittany's either.
Britanny - and Normandy. Normandy's where the Scandinavians were - en route to taking over England in 1066. Right?
But I always forget where Brittany is.
Edit: looked it up. Normandy is between Brittany - a peninsula on the left and the Pas de Calais on the right- with the three of them kind of forming the entire north coast of France.
--------------------------------
And Britney Spears is about 45 now.
There are tricks for remembering things.
One I kept forgetting was port and starboard.
Two tricks fixed it.
Port is four letters and so is left. Bingo!
Plus port is a shorter word than starboard and left is a shorter word than right.
So I left that by getting it right.
> And Britney Spears is about 45 now.
Here is one of Britney Spears best games (playing on one of her alt accounts). By the way she's not 45, she's like 58 lol.
> And Britney Spears is about 45 now.
Here is one of Britney Spears best games (playing on one of her alt accounts). By the way she's not 45, she's like 58 lol.
Wiki said she's born in 1981.
@dsgeorg
Hi!
Britney Jean Spears was born on December 2, 1981, in McComb, Mississippi, the second child of James "Jamie" Parnell Spears and Lynne Irene Bridges.
How do you get 58 from that?
Lol !
A different Brittney ...
Nice game! The bishop at g7 is a Beast.
Very weak play by white from move three onwards. Both white's bishops were misplaced and white should be trying to play f5, not e5.
I think Britney was petrified by Qa1 and just couldn't take it anymore. Game is not easy when you're over 55.
How do you get 58 from that?
arithmetic isn't some ppls strong suit
Port is four letters and so is left.
howbout NERT & COGS ? know those ? ...we sail alot-ALOT here.
White didn't need to commit to long castling so early.
It's understandable but I wouldn't have.
Even playing it as played, 7.d5 looks much better for white, whereas Bc4 is pointless and will be a target for tlack.
Except that there are a single or small set of moves that are objectively "best" in each position, so the subjective is not really meaningful.
Except that the subjective is nearly always meaningful.
Context.
The context is ... reality.
The subjective exists. Desire. The drive to survive. To protect one's family. Emotions. Even in common everyday life the subjective is an enormous 'set'.
Subjective 'perception' is a subset.
Some relevant factors:
If you compare the subjective with mathematical constructs -
such constructs have no stronger basis for actual existence than subjectives do.
If one were to look through the universe could you find anything that is purely 'two'?
How about pi?
Degrees of reality: the physically concrete is primary. Numbers can describe but are secondary. And there's the ethereal. Things like 'reverse time travel'.
Point: Numbers don't 'win' over subjectives as far as existence is concerned.
I wasn't asking. I was saying my comments were in the context of solving chess, where subjective opinions carry no weight in the actual solving of the game.
That's a bit of a stretch because it means that no-one can have any opinion on the best methodology for solving it. Why give or ask for opinions on correct methodology if they are to carry no weight?
And are you saying that your opinions aren't subjective?
Except that there are a single or small set of moves that are objectively "best" in each position, so the subjective is not really meaningful.
Except that the subjective is nearly always meaningful.
Context.
The context is ... reality.
The subjective exists. Desire. The drive to survive. To protect one's family. Emotions. Even in common everyday life the subjective is an enormous 'set'.
Subjective 'perception' is a subset.
Some relevant factors:
If you compare the subjective with mathematical constructs -
such constructs have no stronger basis for actual existence than subjectives do.
If one were to look through the universe could you find anything that is purely 'two'?
How about pi?
Degrees of reality: the physically concrete is primary. Numbers can describe but are secondary. And there's the ethereal. Things like 'reverse time travel'.
Point: Numbers don't 'win' over subjectives as far as existence is concerned.
I wasn't asking. I was saying my comments were in the context of solving chess, where subjective opinions carry no weight in the actual solving of the game.
That's a bit of a stretch because it means that no-one can have any opinion on the best methodology for solving it. Why give or ask for opinions on correct methodology if they are to carry no weight?
And are you saying that your opinions aren't subjective?
I repeat - I wasn't asked. I said.
And 'somebody' didn't seem to understand the other's use of 'actual solving' and then made some false logic. And then added a strawman too.
Such things happen constantly to those who think they can't be wrong.
But can those two errors compare to a post we had a day or two ago.
to the effect that since we 'cant be nervous' before we're born then how or why can or should we be 'nervous' after being born??'
Does that win the Illogic Title?
And he's afraid of asteroids too. And afraid of his own posts. Quite a 'fear list' he has.
Moral: If you find yourself fearing and worried - make a list - assign a fear and worry score to each item. Then add them up and see what the total is.
Hey they even made a movie with a title like that.
The Sum of All Fears.
Except that there are a single or small set of moves that are objectively "best" in each position, so the subjective is not really meaningful.
Except that the subjective is nearly always meaningful.
Context.
The context is ... reality.
The subjective exists. Desire. The drive to survive. To protect one's family. Emotions. Even in common everyday life the subjective is an enormous 'set'.
Subjective 'perception' is a subset.
Some relevant factors:
If you compare the subjective with mathematical constructs -
such constructs have no stronger basis for actual existence than subjectives do.
If one were to look through the universe could you find anything that is purely 'two'?
How about pi?
Degrees of reality: the physically concrete is primary. Numbers can describe but are secondary. And there's the ethereal. Things like 'reverse time travel'.
Point: Numbers don't 'win' over subjectives as far as existence is concerned.
I wasn't asking. I was saying my comments were in the context of solving chess, where subjective opinions carry no weight in the actual solving of the game.
That's a bit of a stretch because it means that no-one can have any opinion on the best methodology for solving it. Why give or ask for opinions on correct methodology if they are to carry no weight?
And are you saying that your opinions aren't subjective?
I repeat - I wasn't asked. I said.
And 'somebody' didn't seem to understand the other's use of 'actual solving' and then made some false logic. And then added a strawman too.
Such things will happen constantly to those who think they can't be wrong.
You're extremely jumpy ..... I was answering Dio. 
Somebody doesn't seem to understand its a public forum.
And is projecting again.
i luv reading Opti's stuff when he posts abt philosophy. He's sooo knowledgeable. and I thank u for the education !
Of course.