It is not that I am dull, it is that my questions and ideas are a threat to your religious world view.
You overestimate the threat that you pose. Your ideas are mostly harmless. Actually I believe having you here for a little bit was a net benefit to us. Trying to explain things across overwhelming inferential distance (and to people who are not @#%$@s) is useful. As is seeing other people attempting to do the same.
All the experimenting with imaginary numbers will not explain a thing about reality. It is relgion plain and simple.
Didn’t anyone tell you? We Believe that Eliezer is the reincarnation of Pythagoras come to share the Good News about imaginary numbers and complex amplitudes.
Well, I was going to describe a hypothesis and rationally explain a theory to you that answers all questions and unites everything. Yes, you heard right, a Grand Unified Theory....but my GUT tells me you prefer “point-less” discussions.
Teehee. You have a Grand Unified Theory that doesn’t use mathematics. That’s adorable.
As evidenced by his response to your comment, we are well into feeding-the-troll. Please stop.
I admit that this wasn’t clear earlier in the discussion, which made the conversation worthwhile. (especially when he agreed to consider the community argument for empiricism by reading the first sequence) But enough is enough.
Well, I hope it has been a benefit to some. I’m just testing ideas out and wanting to learn and I have learned some things… so great!
Judging from the lack of counterarguments, accusations, dodging, strawmen, shifting of goal posts, and so forth, the ideas I am sharing strike at the heart of folks belief system.
EDIT: What negative thumbs for leaving? I said I’ll be back. Just giving you a chance to gather your thought s so you can answer my questions next time. And when I get back, I’ll know far more than I do now. I’ll either be apologizing for being so dull, or ‘splainin’ why you are dull!
To be honest, you sound bitter or something, although given the difference of opinion being as radical as it is, that is pretty understandable (so are the downvotes, for the same reason). Maybe let it cool off for a bit. I have an interest in hearing what you think after you have spent more time here.
You remind me of Silas Barta, and I think we could use more people who radically disagree with major pieces of LW, because it is good practice if nothing else.
You remind me of Silas Barta, and I think we could use more people who radically disagree with major pieces of LW, because it is good practice if nothing else.
Monkeymind seems the very opposite of SilasBarta. SilasBarta often makes excellent points, if at times expressed in a more-obnoxious-than-necessary manner. Monkeymind, by contrast, is cordial enough, but has nothing to offer intellectually.
(Also, if Silas has radical disagreements with major pieces of LW, I haven’t noticed.)
Bluntly, I don’t think Monkeymind is worth your or LW’s time. They claim that science and mathematics are not used in designing or constructing technologies, reject scientific consensus on the grounds that the informal explanation is unintuitive, and purport to have discovered a (mathless) Grand Unified Theory. Disagreement can be handy, but it needs to be a little better thought out.
You overestimate the threat that you pose. Your ideas are mostly harmless. Actually I believe having you here for a little bit was a net benefit to us. Trying to explain things across overwhelming inferential distance (and to people who are not @#%$@s) is useful. As is seeing other people attempting to do the same.
Didn’t anyone tell you? We Believe that Eliezer is the reincarnation of Pythagoras come to share the Good News about imaginary numbers and complex amplitudes.
Teehee. You have a Grand Unified Theory that doesn’t use mathematics. That’s adorable.
As evidenced by his response to your comment, we are well into feeding-the-troll. Please stop.
I admit that this wasn’t clear earlier in the discussion, which made the conversation worthwhile. (especially when he agreed to consider the community argument for empiricism by reading the first sequence) But enough is enough.
x
Is this still true?
Well, I hope it has been a benefit to some. I’m just testing ideas out and wanting to learn and I have learned some things… so great!
Judging from the lack of counterarguments, accusations, dodging, strawmen, shifting of goal posts, and so forth, the ideas I am sharing strike at the heart of folks belief system.
BYE!
EDIT: What negative thumbs for leaving? I said I’ll be back. Just giving you a chance to gather your thought s so you can answer my questions next time. And when I get back, I’ll know far more than I do now. I’ll either be apologizing for being so dull, or ‘splainin’ why you are dull!
To be honest, you sound bitter or something, although given the difference of opinion being as radical as it is, that is pretty understandable (so are the downvotes, for the same reason). Maybe let it cool off for a bit. I have an interest in hearing what you think after you have spent more time here.
You remind me of Silas Barta, and I think we could use more people who radically disagree with major pieces of LW, because it is good practice if nothing else.
Monkeymind seems the very opposite of SilasBarta. SilasBarta often makes excellent points, if at times expressed in a more-obnoxious-than-necessary manner. Monkeymind, by contrast, is cordial enough, but has nothing to offer intellectually.
(Also, if Silas has radical disagreements with major pieces of LW, I haven’t noticed.)
Bluntly, I don’t think Monkeymind is worth your or LW’s time. They claim that science and mathematics are not used in designing or constructing technologies, reject scientific consensus on the grounds that the informal explanation is unintuitive, and purport to have discovered a (mathless) Grand Unified Theory. Disagreement can be handy, but it needs to be a little better thought out.