You may be correct, but the speaker in that case was probably referencing the Italian Hall Disaster, a genuine precedent. A rationalist can’t just chose to ignore a data point like just because they don’t like the way it’s normally used.
PrometheanFaun
But there must be better ways to find out the reasons not to do it. Just doing it instead is a tremendous waste of time.
Talking to the sorts of people who would or should have tried already might be one avenue.
Ah. So roughly like this: If you can convince people in advance that you can do it, and you find it satisfying for people to think you can do it, you’ve achieved half of your goals already and therefore have less cause to actually finish the project.
In this model, the effect will be less pronounced when the anouncer doesn’t believe that the anouncees really see them as being bound to complete the project. This could be achieved in two ways; the anouncer hears them doubt, or imagines that they doubt. Give open doubt to naive dreamers to help them to avoid this trap.
Obvious to me. Native speaker.
No. I personally exhibit a viable human idiogenetic strain which places no value on comfort or pleasure as end-goals—a living counterexample. I try to adhere to the essence of the dictum of life as closely as possible; survive and explore. I’d expect that to be a more enduring invariant shared by distinct lineages than a fear of pain.
Though if humanity were a species for which our agents truly couldn’t resist merging thoughts in every moment- and we very nearly are- I wouldn’t exist. But that still only speaks of humanity.
The title lead me to expect an article about seeing through peoples’ foreignness for the person they really are. Going from thinking “they do things in that silly manner because their culture has mislead him and made them insane,” to understanding that they’ve probably never had the chance to question their culture’s ways and they would if you’d give them one.
As an exploration, it would have been of great value to me and, I believe, to the rest of the lesswrong community. We are strange. At some point we’re going to have to start wearing that on our sleeves to be true to ourselves, but we need outsiders to be able to see through our strange practices, to see that we’re not a big crazy cult. If we knew what we’d have to do to look past others’ foreignisms, we’d be better equipped to lead them to do the same for us.
P.S. Please write this article.
It’s worth noting that the results of this poll could be skewed by the fact that it’s much easier to for students to give an answer.
On that note.. could anyone recommend a good tracker for literature?
Oh, go on then.
However, equivalences are also the bread and butter of inference. Distinguishing more than you need to will slow you down.
Aucklander student of logic and computation, reporting. I’m ready to meet when you are.
It’s also cowardly or anti-social. Forgiving is the easy thing to do, forgive and you longer have to enact any reprisal and you can potentially keep an ally. You also allow a malefactor to get away with their transgression, which will enable them to continue to pull the same shit on other people.
Personally I find having an inconsistent mind so intolerable that as far as I know, I’d face a choice between
A: blocking the aliens out of my head completely
B: Assimilating with them completely.
Correspondingly I have endeavoured to establish a rapport with evolution’s design deep enough that I can either
A: Consciously adapt it to the epoch of intelligent agency, for example, instilling within it a fear of solar collapse, a sense of the kinship linking all life on earth, and a cognizance of extra-solar hunting grounds for it to aspire towards. These might sound like rationalizations of noble goals we’d communally established post hoc.. well yes, they would either way, I think those goals were only able to be ennobled upon the favour of evolution’s old intents of surviving and spreading.
B: Truly accept as not horrible and perfectly normal, the subjectively horrible unacceptable things that would drive most people away from forging this kind of self-rapport. I’d give examples but these are by their nature hard to index, as if they’re communicated tactfully, they don’t seem horrible at all.
But then, I was drawn to this thread for a reason. I wonder if all my progress under A is just a mat of rationalizations and if the reality of Her Design is too ugly for me to publicly embrace, and if that very design has been built to anticipate that, and that is why our vocal selves are blanketed with confusion as to our intents.
My current unsubstantiated evpsych theory is that music is a collective mood-control language. A communication channel for getting everyones’ attitudes in synch, songs to be used by the confident members with clear vision, to be shouted down if misplaced, or amplified and repeated if resonant. Does that sound plausible, considering your situation? Is it possible you’ve developed under conditions that would naturally cause you to be especially unreactive to a thing like that?
I could understand the pursuit of sanity would correlate with a disconnection from the mass’s attitude control systems. Sometimes I find even as I laugh I wish the funny-man would shut up, as I dance I wish the music had not spoken to me, as I help I wish I had not been able to empathise in the first place. I wish I could just think my own thoughts.
Which complications? I thought poly and kids mix just fine. Ideally, you get help with raising the kids, the kids get more positive adult influences in their life.
Whose genes and womb do you use?
I look forward to confronting that question, actually. I’m reluctant to assume my genes are the ones that deserve greater representation in humanity’s future. No matter who I end up with, if we exercise our wonderful poly selflessness and work together to decide who can provide the best legacy, we can at least say that the results will be better than if we’d each just individually had the standard 2.2 kids as per the status quo.
but for some reason explicit discussion and debate is discouraged
The reason is an assumption that if we discuss those topics, rationality will leave the building. Since rationality is what we’re here for, we must not discuss those topics. Maybe one day we’ll be ready to discuss those topics, but I don’t think we are at this point.
Well, OK, What if we change our pitch from “approximate mind simulation” to “approximate identity-focal body simulation”?
Oh, hey. Is this the lecture hall for Utopic Fascism Deprogramming 101? Cool, d’you mind if I sit next to you? I’m really excited about this class. We might have to drop it though, I hear that the lecturer might not even be planning on showing up.
A terrible ‘marijuana substitute’ is broadly marketed under the name “spice”. [ D:< How dare they! ]