= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Holy Books (Or Rationalist Sequences) Don’t Implement Themselves - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (149)
How much of what you don't like about LDS is entangled with the organizational structure?
I don't have a strong answer, just some concerns.
It may be that a lot of what's wrong there is having a hard boundary between members and non-members. If so, rationalists may be able to beat that one by wanting people to be more rational, though there do seem to be some firm lines in this community, like being obligated to be a materialist.
You may be stuck with that one, especially in regards to cryonics, at least in the sense that you can't do much to help them.
I'm not sure what you mean by the word "materialist" in this context. Could you explain?
Materialist as in reductionist, as in Thou Art Physics not as in being materialistic.
Ok (sigh of relief). That's what I thought but I'm not used to seeing the word used to mean 'reductionist'.
Not exactly. Strange as it sounds, there are non-reductive materialist philosophers.
We are all reductionist girls*, living in a reductionist world.
* For a sufficiently broad value of "girls", or a sufficiently narrow value of "all".
It is hard to say.
I have no doubt that rationalists will prevail eventually, and I wish luck to the ones that try.
Edit - please disregard this post