our current understanding of the brain and empirical evidence is at least giving some hints to how to falsify or prove it
That’s nice, but you’re asking us to mess with our brains now in the hope that the benefits or harms may become testable some time in the future.
you’ll critically think for yourself for the first time in your life and you’ll feel great!
Saying this does not enhance your credibility, any more than it helps (some) Christians’ credibility when they tell people they are Totally Depraved and can do no good without the Christian god. You know nothing about my track record of thinking critically for myself.
when the day comes when we inhale nanorobots, you’re fine to let go of everything you thought was you!
what?
They all talk of the singularity yet are incapable of understanding what it really means for them.
what?
Tell me what I believe as you seem to have already made up your mind.
You show every sign of believing that this “clicking” thing bring substantial cognitive benefits. (If you don’t in fact believe that then I would be interested to know why you are selling it so hard.)
why don’t you want to help?
Because there are only 24 hours in each day and 365.25ish days in each year, and there are lots of other things I want to do more than I want to help you test your snake oil.
you can trust someone with a proven track record instead.
I guess you mean the person who goes by the name Athene. Their “proven track record” consists of: being good at poker. (Right?) That’s a genuine skill, for sure, but why should I think this sufficient reason to believe what they say about “clicking”? I mean, I can find people with far more impressive accomplishments who believe some absolutely crazy things.
That’s nice, but you’re asking us to mess with our brains now in the hope that the benefits or harms may become testable some time in the future.
I’m questioning even if it was measured that you’d change your mind, you’ll say yes now probably but I’m still not sure even then?
“Messing with our brains” seems quite emotionally loaded. I’m unsure when we’re not messing with our brains.
Saying this does not enhance your credibility, any more than it helps (some) Christians’ credibility when they tell people they are Totally Depraved and can do no good without the Christian god. You know nothing about my track record of thinking critically for myself.
what?
what?
Augmenting your strengths and flaws makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, just make us stronger. Identity and self is, without a doubt, an illusion and a flaw. So you’ll be stronger because of that, you’re ready to let go of everything you thought was you.
You show every sign of believing that this “clicking” thing bring substantial cognitive benefits. (If you don’t in fact believe that then I would be interested to know why you are selling it so hard.)
I do believe that sir. Intelligence as well, as defined by David Krauker. However I’m not 99% sure.
Because there are only 24 hours in each day and 365.25ish days in each year, and there are lots of other things I want to do more than I want to help you test your snake oil.
Why are you arguing then. What’s driving you.
I guess you mean the person who goes by the name Athene. Their “proven track record” consists of: being good at poker. (Right?) That’s a genuine skill, for sure, but why should I think this sufficient reason to believe what they say about “clicking”? I mean, I can find people with far more impressive accomplishments who believe some absolutely crazy things.
Well his track record goes back tens of years from his political engagements to raising millions of dollars for charity. If you know of someone else which have proposed a conditioning-scheme with testimonies and theories backed up by some neuroscience research I would be happy to look. Whether it be a religion similar to Einstein’s or not.
Please do not “quote” me in a manner that misrepresents what I have said. Both of those “what?”s were responses to things you wrote; they did not occur immediately after one another, nor immediately after the paragraph immediately preceding them in what you “quoted”.
In case it wasn’t clear, the “what?”s were because what you were saying appeared to me to have devolved into something close to word salad. If what you wrote in response to them was meant to be clarifying, I’m afraid it didn’t really succeed.
Why are you arguing then?
I’m hoping it might lead to (1) you presenting some actual evidence (though it is becoming very clear that you haven’t any) or (2) you admitting you haven’t any and stopping preaching around here, or—a poor third place by comparison with the first two outcomes -- (3) it becoming extra-clear to everyone else here that you haven’t anything of any value to offer.
Clearly #1 isn’t going to happen. It looks as if you haven’t the humility for #2. And I’m not sure #3 is actually needed; no one else shows any sign of being taken in. So I should probably drop it.
Please do not “quote” me in a manner that misrepresents what I have said. Both of those “what?”s were responses to things you wrote; they did not occur immediately after one another, nor immediately after the paragraph immediately preceding them in what you “quoted”.
In case it wasn’t clear, the “what?”s were because what you were saying appeared to me to have devolved into something close to word salad. If what you wrote in response to them was meant to be clarifying, I’m afraid it didn’t really succeed.
Well I was clarifying your what’s, that’s why I quoted them, what was above it was a misquote however. Nanobots and singularity implies probably an augmentation of the human species. Since identity and self is an illusion/flaw, an augmentation would mean the end of that and you’d be ready to give it up then.
(1) you presenting some actual evidence (though it is becoming very clear that you haven’t any)
Some actual evidence? Can you specify what you mean? What if Yudkowsky came up with an exercise to increase your rationality, would you wait for studies on Yudkowsky’s exercise before trying it? (exercise is downplaying the significance of this, however) since I am presuming you mean studies specifically made on the click. You can google however much you want regarding other neuroimaging, which will, undoubtedly, improve your understanding of your brain and thus able to come to a more reasonable position on this exercise.
(2) you admitting you haven’t any and stopping preaching around here, or—a poor third place by comparison with the first two outcomes
I have been refuting claims or explaining things to the best of my ability, if there is no study (which costs a lot) right now, then there is none, I have everything I have right now to work with. If you knew about your brain you’d able to make a more accurate conclusion on the mountain of evidence required. It’s not that of a remarkable claim. Religions have done it for thousands of years. We just use the same mechanisms.
(3) it becoming extra-clear to everyone else here that you haven’t anything of any value to offer.
Clearly #1 isn’t going to happen. It looks as if you haven’t the humility for #2. And I’m not sure #3 is actually needed; no one else shows any sign of being taken in. So I should probably drop it.
At the end of the day, reality has its say, the objective reality, whether any of us like it or not.
That’s nice, but you’re asking us to mess with our brains now in the hope that the benefits or harms may become testable some time in the future.
Saying this does not enhance your credibility, any more than it helps (some) Christians’ credibility when they tell people they are Totally Depraved and can do no good without the Christian god. You know nothing about my track record of thinking critically for myself.
what?
what?
You show every sign of believing that this “clicking” thing bring substantial cognitive benefits. (If you don’t in fact believe that then I would be interested to know why you are selling it so hard.)
Because there are only 24 hours in each day and 365.25ish days in each year, and there are lots of other things I want to do more than I want to help you test your snake oil.
I guess you mean the person who goes by the name Athene. Their “proven track record” consists of: being good at poker. (Right?) That’s a genuine skill, for sure, but why should I think this sufficient reason to believe what they say about “clicking”? I mean, I can find people with far more impressive accomplishments who believe some absolutely crazy things.
I’m questioning even if it was measured that you’d change your mind, you’ll say yes now probably but I’m still not sure even then?
“Messing with our brains” seems quite emotionally loaded. I’m unsure when we’re not messing with our brains.
Augmenting your strengths and flaws makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, just make us stronger. Identity and self is, without a doubt, an illusion and a flaw. So you’ll be stronger because of that, you’re ready to let go of everything you thought was you.
I do believe that sir. Intelligence as well, as defined by David Krauker. However I’m not 99% sure.
Why are you arguing then. What’s driving you.
Well his track record goes back tens of years from his political engagements to raising millions of dollars for charity. If you know of someone else which have proposed a conditioning-scheme with testimonies and theories backed up by some neuroscience research I would be happy to look. Whether it be a religion similar to Einstein’s or not.
Please do not “quote” me in a manner that misrepresents what I have said. Both of those “what?”s were responses to things you wrote; they did not occur immediately after one another, nor immediately after the paragraph immediately preceding them in what you “quoted”.
In case it wasn’t clear, the “what?”s were because what you were saying appeared to me to have devolved into something close to word salad. If what you wrote in response to them was meant to be clarifying, I’m afraid it didn’t really succeed.
I’m hoping it might lead to (1) you presenting some actual evidence (though it is becoming very clear that you haven’t any) or (2) you admitting you haven’t any and stopping preaching around here, or—a poor third place by comparison with the first two outcomes -- (3) it becoming extra-clear to everyone else here that you haven’t anything of any value to offer.
Clearly #1 isn’t going to happen. It looks as if you haven’t the humility for #2. And I’m not sure #3 is actually needed; no one else shows any sign of being taken in. So I should probably drop it.
Well I was clarifying your what’s, that’s why I quoted them, what was above it was a misquote however. Nanobots and singularity implies probably an augmentation of the human species. Since identity and self is an illusion/flaw, an augmentation would mean the end of that and you’d be ready to give it up then.
Some actual evidence? Can you specify what you mean? What if Yudkowsky came up with an exercise to increase your rationality, would you wait for studies on Yudkowsky’s exercise before trying it? (exercise is downplaying the significance of this, however) since I am presuming you mean studies specifically made on the click. You can google however much you want regarding other neuroimaging, which will, undoubtedly, improve your understanding of your brain and thus able to come to a more reasonable position on this exercise.
I have been refuting claims or explaining things to the best of my ability, if there is no study (which costs a lot) right now, then there is none, I have everything I have right now to work with. If you knew about your brain you’d able to make a more accurate conclusion on the mountain of evidence required. It’s not that of a remarkable claim. Religions have done it for thousands of years. We just use the same mechanisms.
At the end of the day, reality has its say, the objective reality, whether any of us like it or not.