I think he meant unintuitive in the sense of “not accessible by human intuition, type 1, fast thinking” not “hard to grasp upon reflection by my intended audience”
Neotenic
Karma: 163
Cognitive Load and Effective Donation
Money threshold Trigger Action Patterns
How can I strategically write a complex bestseller? (4HS001)
A Rational Altruist Punch in The Stomach
The error was epiphenomenal.
Pluralistic Existence in Many Many-Worlds
I think Tegmark’s claim is unequivocally that we should endorse Dark Artsy subsets of scientific knowledge to promote science and whatever needs promotion (rationality perhaps). So yes, the thing being claimed is the thing you are emotionally inclined to fear/dislike. By him and by me.
Though just to be 100% sure, I’d like to have a brief description of your meaning of “dark arts” to avoid the double transparency fallacy.
Strategic Bestseller: Taking the Blog Path (4HS002)
Once I decided to undereat while travelling. The result was that for the first month I was in hypomania almost, very excited about things and places. I also slept much less and kept away from easy pleasures. At some point, at the end of the month, this hyper-functional system broke down, and I realized that though I thought I was dancing, in a club, I was actually not taking my feet of the ground. I suspected I might be tired, and went to bed. 17 hours later I woke up. I interpreted that as “I put myself in emergency mode and became more interested and productive, still this nitro didn’t get me the nourishment I needed after a month, so the body gave up and sent a message to the mind (or the medial prefrontal cortex) saying—That was all you had. Give up now, hope for a better crop tomorrow.”
It is less crazy than it sounds the more you study philosophy of physics I suppose. It basically depends on accepting or not that matter could be just relational properties, with nothing intrinsic.
I felt the exact same.
Decreasing cognitive load in general makes people more rational. Joshua Greene cites that under a cognitive task, people are more likely to eat cake than an apple. There is less resource left for high-order cognitive tasks, like ‘avoid cake’.
Meaning that hurrying Koreans are dedicating less cognition to “to litter or not to litter” and if bins were around, they simply wouldn’t have to do that.
I have some trouble conceiving of what would beat a consistent argument a googol fold.
Now I don’t anymore.I stand corrected.
Thank you Gwern.
The latter, which I was clarifying in an edit to the original post as you asked.
I still think it is productive to instrumentally talk of Many Worlds, to see which concepts break.
Fair enough. So basically if my post was trying to immunize readers, you’d be immune already.
I agree that people should refrain from using the word ‘existence’. If they are many worlds supporters, I think they still need some work done, that the concept of existence was attempting to do, but I claimed here fails to.
If, like you, they are not many-world supporters, then ‘existence’ only means causally connected to me. And the word can be avoided without paying any price by saying its equivalent.
Could we use “threshold for letting someone else take credit” as a signal for altruism?
So the reason is that Tegmarks claim is that the the mathematical properties not only define the Multiverse, but also that they constitute the entire extension of it. If there were substances, properties, or objects, that behaved mathematically well, that would still falsify his claim.
If the only way to get a clearer picture of the world—to enhance it epistemically, as it were—were to make it much better to start with, would the Utilitarians finally have found an argument that convinces any epistemic rationalist?
you read all posts?
You may want to change the title to “Analytic Philosophy” or “Contemporary Philosophy” since Modern Philosophy usually refers to something far removed from anything related to “Good and Real” by Drescher.