zPvQINBQvfFR
No bio...
User ID: 277
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Do lawyers commit the majority of moral anti-realism despite being only a minority of the population?
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
You accidentally.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
I suspect many people are classifying the thing you're doing as concern trolling (not sure if I'm using this devilish phrase right, but I think it fits). Repeatedly and insistently noticing that ackshually, the lady might also not behaved perfectly and therefore anybody who insists on strongly condemning the kids is suspect of being an idiot who thinks blame is a zero-sum game doesn't add much to the discussion, other than you being able to put on airs of a wise elder stroking his long gray beard while the vulgar are baying.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Which is consistent. Just like being anti-murder and still believing in a right to lethal self defense. Or having a strong preference for civilization not to end in nuclear hellfire, and yet maintaining a stockpile of warheads and a willingness to press the button, for the sake of MAD.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
This assumes that intelligent agents have goals that are more fundamental than value, which is the opposite of how every other intelligent or quasi intelligent system behaves.
Intelligent agent's ultimate goals are what it considers "value". I'm not sure what you mean, but at first glance it kind of looks like the just world fallacy -- there is such a thing as value, existing independently of anybody's beliefs (that part is just moral realism, many such cases) AND it's impossible to succeed at your goals if you don't follow the objectively existing system of value.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
"Lol no," said the man after criticizing people who approach the subject with the sophistication of 12 year olds.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
No biggie. You just need to materialism more and adopt a pattern-based theory of identity.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Well, we don't have any knowledge of anything if you use such a demanding definition of knowledge.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
They simply handwave away the possibility of any form of being/existence that is not squarely within the purview of one specific tool: science.
What exactly do you mean by "science"? Is it the bunch of institutions and traditions known as "science"? In this case there are obviously things beyond its purview and you won't find many (any?) people who'd deny it here. This could explain the lack of mockery you find so puzzling.
Or do you use "science" more generally to mean pursuit of understanding through the examination of experience and use of reason to build models with explanatory and predictive power? In this case, what would atheists need to do so you'd get off their back about handwaving the possibility? Do they need to write long soulful posts about how they can never know the eldritch truth beyond the limits of their experience? The problem is that seems super irrelevant and a waste of time. Why would you expect people who don't see any reason to believe in your religion to pay tribute to it?
Sure, maybe a guy who had an ecstatic vision of Jesus and the angels really got into contact with the incomprehensible Divine and he knows the good stuff, but what does this have to do with me? If I got directly blasted with the holy light, I'd likely join him as a fellow devout co-religionist. But I haven't, so best I can do is conclude that people can be very strongly affected by trippy hallucinations.
Your hypothetical God created a universe in which salvation is conditioned on faith in him, following some precepts, performing rituals, whatever. Then he put people in this world made it look really mechanistic and explainable by reason from the inside, creating strong incentives for using reason as a primary tool of understanding what's going on. He didn't elaborate and left. Very chad of him, but what am I supposed to do about any of this?
Maybe instead of trying to restart obsolete flamewars on Internet forums, you could use the direct line to God you seem to have access to, and humbly ask Him to be less cruel to those less fortunate than you, those who are trapped in this vast soulless machine? Tell him to grant us eyes and deliver us from our beastly idiocy.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
Does it matter? Isn't a big part of the reason men care about status is that it's a pathway to many abilities some may find unnatural getting laid? "You can have a convincing waifu that loves you unconditionally, but some people will think you're even more of a loser than they do now" doesn't seem that horrible.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
BENs ; WS ; UMC-W ; WWC
?
You know what modernity really needs? A Strong Leader, one with determination as strong as steel, who'd make usage of unexplained acronyms punishable by death. Nay, we need 50 such leaders.
Other than that little homicidal nitpick, cool post (really).
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
I for one would like to welcome our new stoic Asian overlords.
zPvQINBQvfFR
1yr ago
too much time looking at their smartphones
I see, seeker, that you are yet to learn the ancient art of taking your phone out of your pocket to check the time and then putting it back in again.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
More negatively, on the internet I've noticed an increasing tendency, here as well, to hate when anyone else is having fun or enjoying themselves.
No, it's when people are "having fun" or "enjoying themselves" by being dicks to other people. Civilized people don't like that and never did. It's not a new tendency.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
no gene for “wanting to ejaculate inside a woman and wait nine months to create a child”
Sure but there are genes for personality traits that, in the current social and cultural environment, make you more inclined to make babies. And who knows, maybe they are the basis for future adaptations that will eventually evolve into direct utilitarian urge to maximize one's inclusive genetic fitness.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
How about "the mistakes weren't actually that disastrous and a Chernobyl every decade would be worth it if it meant we could get rid of coal"? (Not sure about the decade thing, but my understanding is that consequences of Chernobyl were seriously exaggerated.)
The messaging about nuclear seems to always implicitly admit that nuclear disasters are unimaginably bad but it's okay because we've made sure that the new reactor designs are so super safe that it could not happen again. That's bullshit and people know it. Could they instead be persuaded of a more grounded assessment of the risks?
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
Some clinical trials on it are about to end soonish, so hopefully we'll know if it werks.
There's this one with end date specified as December 1st this year:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04210986?cond=fisetin&draw=2&rank=10
And the Mayo Clinic one, that's supposed to finish half a year from now:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03675724?cond=fisetin&draw=2&rank=4
I wonder how long it will take from the scheduled study completion time to actual publication of results.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
In my experience, there's great value to be gained from going completely offline (preferably by disabling your router and physically moving it to another room). But good luck doing that while having a coding job.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
Have you ever described, in more detail, your horrified vision of the future under an ascendant US-led singleton with AGI? Because I'm curious.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
Did you mean "white people and black people more likely"?
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
And the women retirement age tends to be lower which is completely backwards if you look at life expectancy.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
For example, those college orientations where they say, "look to your left and to your right. One/two of you won't pass." Those always angered me because I figured a certification should be a test and not a competition.
That doesn't imply a competition. You can have grading with consistent predetermined standards and still confidently say that ~X% of the incoming student pool will fail just like they did in the previous years.
zPvQINBQvfFR
2yr ago
Do you want to study the underlying theory, or are you primarily interested in learning how to actually use Coq to prove stuff? If it's the latter, maybe have a look at https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/.
If this is still supposed to be about the unlikeliness of abiogenesis, then this analogy would only make sense if you believed that the conditions necessary for the arising of life happened only once in the entire history of the universe. Then it really would be a miracle.
But it's more like there are a bajillion people about to be executed, each with their own thousand-strong firing squad and we know that at least one of them survived. With so many tries, one of them could have gotten super lucky. (And of course, we don't really know how many marksmen you need to postulate to match the probability of abiogenesis happening in some small volume of the primordial soup at a particular point).
(If it's about the wonder of the fact that our universe can support life at all, then I'm fine with answering "I dunno" while insisting that there's no justification for jumping from "I dunno" to "therefore, God.")
More options
Context Copy link