blhayk

• blhayk 8 Feb 2024 6:58 UTC

  4 points

  3

  on: How to deal with the sense of de­mo­ti­va­tion that comes from think­ing about de­ter­minism?

  All of these responses are faith-based arguments in the guise of rational explanation. At the same time though, they all demonstrate a healthy mindset that is indeed the most rational one to hold given the information at our disposal RIGHT NOW. Forecasting into the future, when all of the aforementioned unknowns and randomness inevitably become known and predictable, is when believing in determinism can lead one down a dark path. I empathize with your perspective and have dealt with these thoughts and feelings myself. In the end, it comes down to being able to train yourself to purposefully pick and choose the aspects of life you choose to judge with fierce rationality and the aspects in which you allow a little leeway… or maybe just tweaking your definition of rationality as a whole to maximize long-term happiness.

• blhayk 8 Jan 2022 6:38 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: NoSignalNoNoise’s comment on: Omicron var­i­o­la­tion?

  From what I understand, individuals with natural immunity, who contracted COVID pre-vaccine, have a stronger antibody count than those who were vaccinated when vaccinations became first avaliable, but not as strong as those who were recently boosted. The data, along with the recent CDC guidlines make it clear that the effectiveness of vaccinations and boosters diminishes at a faster rate than that of natural immunity. Also, what makes you confident that an Omicron booster will develop before the next varient? Genuine question. Not trying to be combative.

  @Randomized_Controlled : This is a question I too am asking myself. Its definitely a controversial question any political ideology or corporate agenda would never allow to be posed mainstream, but from a purely rational persepective, I think is is 100% worth asking. No reason why you couldnt locate a friend who tested positive with the mild or no symptoms of Omicron , spend some time, and then immediately isolate until a negative test… seems reasonable to me honestly. As always, I am open to any response that includes a well though out argument and, most importantly, DATA, that indicates I am wrong. Ive been wrong before and am always looking to learn.

• blhayk 17 Oct 2020 2:50 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: blhayk’s comment on: What should ex­pe­rienced ra­tio­nal­ists know?

  Also I’m not sure rationality is as complex as you are suggesting. Its as simple as asking yourself “Do I have evidence for what I feel inclined to believe?” A persons ability to consciously ask along with their ability to objectively answer will lead to a rationality based existence. (to the extent at which it is possible)

• blhayk 17 Oct 2020 1:46 UTC

  1 point

  on: What should ex­pe­rienced ra­tio­nal­ists know?

  I have a problem with the short term existence of real AI. I am new to this site and likely will discuss topics many are familiar with. I don’t know if self consciousness can be created artificially through code influenced by even the smallest amount of human emotion and unconscious irrationality. Humans evolved through conditions that, when it comes down to it, were based in objective reality. Even if an “irrational” event threating existence occurred, it is safe to say that those influenced the most by objective reason survived, even if the example of “rationality” sounds insane to us today. It makes sense naturally that an organism rejecting the innumerable physical laws guiding our universe(most of which are unknown to our “higher level of consciousness”) are the least likely to propagate. I almost think there is an unwritten physical law, too hard to prove at the moment through any known scientific means, that states one consciousness can not create another species/​ mind with a consciousness grounded in intelligence vastly superior to its creators. I don’t think it is possible to teach a computer 2+2= 4 and then attempt to teach it to learn from an algorithm that isn’t written, whether consciously or unconsciously, to answer questions 100% coinciding w/​ objective physical/​ mathematical reality, and expect it will develop a superior and even threatening consciousness. If a consciousness does develop it will be through drawing from info in a corrupted/​unrepresentative data set. It will be extremely flawed and easy to combat with any objective human reasoning. Again, I am new to this site and likely wrong. I’m hoping to hear a perspective that uses either empirical evidence or basic logic to reject my hypothesis.