Old_Gold comments on Is Spirituality Irrational? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: lisper 09 February 2016 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (429)

Sort By: Controversial

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Old_Gold 16 February 2016 03:50:25AM 3 points [-]

That surprises me.

It shouldn't. Unfortunately, "taking offense" is some people's standard reaction to arguments they can't refute.

Comment author: gjm 16 February 2016 12:36:50PM 1 point [-]

It's also some people's standard reaction to being insulted. And an argument can be irrefutable (1) by being right, (2) by being too vague and allusive to get a grip on, or (3) by being nonsense. Or (4) by there actually being no argument to refute. In this case, lisper hasn't made any actual argument for characterizing not having "spiritual experiences" as a kind of blindness, he's just gone ahead and done it.

(There's no shame in being colour-blind, says lisper. Quite true. There should be no shame in being unintelligent either, but most people here would be greatly displeased at being called unintelligent. There should be no shame in being ugly, but most people -- perhaps fewer here than in most venues -- would be greatly displeased at being called ugly.)

Comment author: Old_Gold 17 February 2016 06:10:13AM 1 point [-]

It's also some people's standard reaction to being insulted.

True, and unfortunately polymathwannabe seems to regard any implication that the identity he likes to dress as is less than perfect to be a personal attack on him.

Comment author: lisper 16 February 2016 07:16:46PM 0 points [-]

Being stupid or ugly is not quite the same as being color-blind or spirituality-blind because stupidity and ugliness have a more direct impact on your reproductive fitness,

Comment author: gjm 16 February 2016 11:05:24PM 1 point [-]

not quite the same

Of course it's not quite the same. Neither is being stupid quite the same as being ugly. But do you really think a thing is only a real insult if it's about something that directly impacts your reproductive fitness? That seems a very odd idea to me. (And I question whether being intelligent -- as opposed to unintelligent, rather than outright stupid -- is a net benefit to reproductive fitness; I would guess that typical reproductive fitness is no worse at IQ 100 than at IQ 140. If you think "unintelligent" implies stupider than that, feel free to pretend I said "not especially intelligent" instead of "unintelligent".)

Comment author: Conscience 13 April 2016 11:54:10AM 0 points [-]

And because stupidity have more direct impact on IQ score, uglyness on actor profession opportunities, color-blind on painter options and spirituality-blindness on inner feeling of well-being perhaps?

Comment author: chaosmage 13 April 2016 01:53:03PM *  0 points [-]

If we're being very charitable, spirituality-blindness might mean something like "low trait absorption)" which would imply a reduced ability to benefit from placebo effects.

edit: Sorry, I didn't figure out how to make a link that includes a closing bracket work in this comment syntax.

Comment author: gjm 13 April 2016 04:16:18PM *  1 point [-]

I didn't figure out how to make a link that includes a closing bracket work

Replacing it with %29 will do. I'm not sure whether preceding it with a backslash does. Let's see.

URL-encoding with percent signs: trait absorption.

Backslashes on parentheses:trait absorption.

Looks like they both work.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 16 February 2016 03:38:57PM -1 points [-]

Have you had spiritual experiences? How do you explain them? How would you convince others of the reality of those experiences?