Given that the user tries to make the same argument again and again and doesn’t participate in LW discussions that aren’t about his core agenda I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does. Almost every single one of his posts are about his site or responding to comments on it. Just because he is polite about it doesn’t mean he is not a spammer.
Responding to comments is the majority of my discussions and are not about my core agenda. They are discussions which might’ve stemmed from (on it) it, yet still are separate discussions which have their own value. This also dismisses what ChristianKI implies in of itself. Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda. It was a discussion. On lesswrong.
I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does.
I’ve not linked to my site, but a site, which proposes a new view or idea and discussed of it in the past. Maybe once a month and you think I shouldn’t be allowed to do so here. It’s quite surprising as instead of refuting said idea you seem to imply I am a spammer.
I’ll be honest. Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
The reason why I posted it in the first place was because it was re-made. It looked spam-like because I copy pasted the entire content into the comments which made an ugly wall of text. Big mistake and I am sorry for that.
Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda.
The main discussion thread was about your ideas. The fact that the discussion also lead to talking about laws because you made false claims about the community surrounding clicking misses the point.
You didn’t show interest in discussions with have nothing to do with your pet agenda.
Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
How were you capable of critiquing my ideas then? You don’t have to trust my judgment, trust Bachir’s unless his track-record isn’t telling enough. Well, actually, you should think for yourself.
Given that we disabled downvoting that isn’t a high bar.
I’ve posted here
Yes, but those posts were written after my above post. They are also quite short but I grant that they are a sign that you are interested in participating more in other discussions.
Can’t answer for others who’ve previously looked at it, but for myself, I didn’t see the point. I kind of tune out when it starts off with some weird religious-sounding theory.
If you’re not getting much traction on LW, the proper response is to take the idea elsewhere, not modify the presentation and try again.
I’m going to write a little regarding what you said about religion.
There is probably a brain mechanism which religions are driven by. If there is, there needs not to be such a thing as non-religious or a religious theory. We can keep it at brain mechanisms, and later what trains it to be that way or how to switch it with System 2. As evident by brain scans of praying, religious actions shows activity in the reward circuits of the brain. So does abstract concepts, like money, especially in the more evolved parts of brain like the orbitofrontal cortex.
If these are able to activate the reward system, then one could reasonably conclude that you’re able to instead of being rewarded by prayer or money, by rationality. Extrinsic rewards as we know are trained so we can reasonably conclude we can condition ourselves to rationality.
Since one interpretation of quantum mechanics shows that reality is probabilistic, (waves) we can also add this in the mix, inductive reasoning for said rationality and actions(actions instead of prayer in the context of reward) are considered for their negative or positive expected value.
Of course if you are driven by probabilistic rationality, the first thing to do would be to restructure your belief-system to decrease the binary thinking to stay consistent as we might like to feel this way emotionally.
It makes sense that your identity might vanish as you’d see experience, consciousness and what we are for what it is. A means to an end, a cell in a body where as the experience itself is a way for us to evolve rapidly.
fix up this wall of text or I am removing this post for being too spam like.
Given that the user tries to make the same argument again and again and doesn’t participate in LW discussions that aren’t about his core agenda I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does. Almost every single one of his posts are about his site or responding to comments on it. Just because he is polite about it doesn’t mean he is not a spammer.
Responding to comments is the majority of my discussions and are not about my core agenda. They are discussions which might’ve stemmed from (on it) it, yet still are separate discussions which have their own value. This also dismisses what ChristianKI implies in of itself. Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda. It was a discussion. On lesswrong.
I’ve not linked to my site, but a site, which proposes a new view or idea and discussed of it in the past. Maybe once a month and you think I shouldn’t be allowed to do so here. It’s quite surprising as instead of refuting said idea you seem to imply I am a spammer.
I’ll be honest. Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
The reason why I posted it in the first place was because it was re-made. It looked spam-like because I copy pasted the entire content into the comments which made an ugly wall of text. Big mistake and I am sorry for that.
The main discussion thread was about your ideas. The fact that the discussion also lead to talking about laws because you made false claims about the community surrounding clicking misses the point.
You didn’t show interest in discussions with have nothing to do with your pet agenda.
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
Well I think I was quite unsure about that specific thing. I’ve posted here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/og0/ea_has_a_lying_problem/dkle and here http://lesswrong.com/lw/og1/pplapi_is_a_virtual_database_of_the_entire_human/dkmb and received positive points for both. So I do have interests outside my pet agenda. Even if it was today or yesterday.
How were you capable of critiquing my ideas then? You don’t have to trust my judgment, trust Bachir’s unless his track-record isn’t telling enough. Well, actually, you should think for yourself.
Given that we disabled downvoting that isn’t a high bar.
Yes, but those posts were written after my above post. They are also quite short but I grant that they are a sign that you are interested in participating more in other discussions.
Ok, thanks for your feedback.
It’s kind of entertaining… like watching a road accident in slow motion.
Might be instructive to keep around as a cautionary example of rationality-woo.
Done, what do you think about it?
Can’t answer for others who’ve previously looked at it, but for myself, I didn’t see the point. I kind of tune out when it starts off with some weird religious-sounding theory.
If you’re not getting much traction on LW, the proper response is to take the idea elsewhere, not modify the presentation and try again.
I’m going to write a little regarding what you said about religion.
There is probably a brain mechanism which religions are driven by. If there is, there needs not to be such a thing as non-religious or a religious theory. We can keep it at brain mechanisms, and later what trains it to be that way or how to switch it with System 2. As evident by brain scans of praying, religious actions shows activity in the reward circuits of the brain. So does abstract concepts, like money, especially in the more evolved parts of brain like the orbitofrontal cortex.
If these are able to activate the reward system, then one could reasonably conclude that you’re able to instead of being rewarded by prayer or money, by rationality. Extrinsic rewards as we know are trained so we can reasonably conclude we can condition ourselves to rationality.
Since one interpretation of quantum mechanics shows that reality is probabilistic, (waves) we can also add this in the mix, inductive reasoning for said rationality and actions(actions instead of prayer in the context of reward) are considered for their negative or positive expected value.
Of course if you are driven by probabilistic rationality, the first thing to do would be to restructure your belief-system to decrease the binary thinking to stay consistent as we might like to feel this way emotionally.
It makes sense that your identity might vanish as you’d see experience, consciousness and what we are for what it is. A means to an end, a cell in a body where as the experience itself is a way for us to evolve rapidly.
That’s the point I think.