= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Beyond the Reach of God - 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 (270)
Your comment saddens me. It displays the typical lesswrong mindset that lesswrong is the last resort of sanity and everyone else is just stupid and not even worthy of more than a downvote.
I don't see much evidence that a lot of people here even try to understand the other side or try to politely correct them.
If you really dislike everyone else so much why don't you people turn this into a private mailing list where only those that are worthwhile can participate? Or make a survey a mandatory part of the registration procedure where everyone who fails some basic measure is told to go away.
Either that or you stop bitching and ignore stupid comments. Or you actually try to refine people's rationality by communicating the insights that the others miss.
Have you tried Wikipedia? "In the more general use of the word a causal relationship between the phenomena is implied: the epiphenomenon is a consequence of the primary phenomenon;"
What he tried to say is that "moral and spiritual aspects" of the human condition might be an implied consequence of the initial state of a certain cellular automaton.
Really? I think my flaw has generally been the opposite, I try to talk to people far beyond the extent that it is meaningful Just recently that was exemplified.
Who is "us people"? People that downvoted deeb without a comment? But I'm not one of them -- I downvoted him only after explaining in detail why he's being downvoted. The typical LW member? You've been longer in LessWrong than I have been, I believe, and have a much higher karma score. I'm much closer to being an outsider than you are.
You are looking at the medicinal section -- when one talks about spiritual or moral aspects of the human condition, the philosophical meaning of the word is normally understood. "In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental phenomena are epiphenomena in that they can be caused by physical phenomena, but cannot cause physical phenomena. " as the article you linked to says.
Perhaps you know what he tried to say, but I don't. Even if he meant what you believe him to have meant (which is still a wrong usage of the word), I still don't see how this works as a meaningful objection to the article.
Well, your reply to me is much better. You exposed some flaws in my reasoning with actual arguments while being more polite even given the fact that my comment wasn't. That's what I like to see more of.
I used that word before the way I indicated. Not that you are wrong...but I usually look up words at Wikipedia or Merriam-Webster and when the definition seems fit use them for my purposes. Sure, that's laziness on my side. But it might be useful to sometimes apply a bit of guesswork at what someone else could have meant on an international forum.
I guess. I just can't identify with most people here so it's hard to see me as a part of this community.
Yes, but you don't try to learn true things from the points they make, or even to gently coax them out of innocent mistakes. You try to hand them their asses in front of an audience. And the audience already knows that mysterianism is silly. Insulting someone doesn't teach them not to write incoherent posts, and doesn't teach outsiders that incoherent posts are bad. It does teach us that you are badass, but we've sort of gotten the point by now.
Good points.
Except the part about being "badass", which is probably the least like I feel, and is probably the least likely I 'teach' to anyone. "Weak-willed enough that I got counterproductively angry, and depressed" is closer to how I feel after I get more involved in a thread than I should have.
I should probably wait a couple hours before I reply to a post that annoys me -- by then I'll probably be able to better evaluate if a reply is actually worthwhile, and in what manner I should respond.
I find that more often the most useful approach turns out to be downvote then ignore. It is far too easy to get baited into conversations that are a lost cause from the moment they begin.