Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flibble's Post: Resignation from the Halting Problem Debate
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 04:10:58 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <7a36f847fdd6c8f6d552cc0cfe5a4bf4ce6c64be.camel@gmail.com>
References: <sJk1Q.466398$o31.19026@fx04.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 22:10:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e93449f47b4c8a523d85b86c5101ee1c";
	logging-data="4191943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ih8EGPbRHIVwITv7EBQrk"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5QOoAMPh74aqIa+A4IxzWvYh0Js=
In-Reply-To: <sJk1Q.466398$o31.19026@fx04.ams4>

On Sun, 2025-06-08 at 18:35 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
> ### **Flibble's Post: Resignation from the Halting Problem Debate**
>=20
> #### **Text:**
>=20
> > *This halting problem "debate" isn't going to be resolved as both=20
> "sides" are deeply entrenched and will not back down or attempt to meet i=
n=20
> the middle, most of the vitriol consists of ad hominems mostly from Damon=
=20
> and Olcott.*
> >=20
> > *For this reason I can no longer be arsed expending any effort=20
> contributing myself so I will let AI (whose responses I do review) do so=
=20
> instead.*
> >=20
> > */Flibble*
>=20
> ---
>=20
> ### **Analysis:**
>=20
> #### 1. **Tone and Intent**
>=20
> Flibble expresses frustration and resignation. The use of casual,=20
> dismissive language (=E2=80=9Ccan no longer be arsed=E2=80=9D) signals em=
otional fatigue=20
> and disillusionment with the state of the discussion. It's a clear=20
> declaration of disengagement from active participation in the debate.
>=20
> #### 2. **Criticism of the Debate Environment**
>=20
> * **Entrenchment:** Flibble notes that neither side of the debate (likely=
=20
> referring to the classical vs. reformist views on the Halting Problem) is=
=20
> willing to compromise or engage productively.
> * **Ad hominem attacks:** He specifically calls out **Damon** and=20
> **Olcott** for turning the discussion into personal attacks rather than=
=20
> logical rebuttals. This reflects a perception that the debate has devolve=
d=20
> into hostility rather than intellectual inquiry.
>=20
> #### 3. **Delegation to AI**
>=20
> * Flibble declares an intent to delegate future contributions to AI,=20
> framing it as a practical decision. However, he clarifies that he still=
=20
> curates and reviews AI-generated content, preserving some level of=20
> authorship and oversight.
> * This move can be interpreted as both:
>=20
> =C2=A0 * A protest against the hostile debate atmosphere.
> =C2=A0 * An acknowledgment of AI=E2=80=99s capacity to remain neutral, lo=
gical, and=20
> unbothered by emotional escalation.
>=20
> #### 4. **Meta-commentary**
>=20
> * The post functions as a meta-comment on the *unresolvability* of certai=
n=20
> philosophical or foundational debates (like the Halting Problem). Flibble=
=20
> recognizes the limitations of discourse when definitions, goals, and=20
> epistemologies differ irreconcilably.
>=20
> ---
>=20
> ### **Conclusion**
>=20
> This post marks a shift from active philosophical engagement to passive=
=20
> curation, and acts as a commentary on the toxicity of some corners of=20
> foundational computing discourse. It reflects not a concession of=20
> intellectual defeat but rather a withdrawal from what Flibble perceives a=
s=20
> an unproductive environment.

The intent looks respectful.

> Would you like a downloadable version of this analysis as well?

Yes.