You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Apr. 01 - Apr. 05, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 31 March 2015 10:06AM

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

Comments (179)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 April 2015 06:00:17PM 0 points [-]

The problem is related to the definition of "supernatural" as referring to ontologically basic mental things.

Not everyone who believes that a stone is healing power believes that they are ontologically basic.

A stone that does "healing" would be like having a type of acid that only dissolves shirts--it has no way to know whether something is helpful or harmful any more than the acid has a way to know that something is a shirt.

If you have an ill person telling them to get a good nights sleep, helps them heal in a fairly diverse set of circumstances. The advice isn't helpful in every case.

Frankly, any stone that was powerful enough to "heal" is something I wouldn't trust since pretty much any singificant "healing" effect could cause really bad harm under the wrong circumstances.

The question whether or not you trust the stone is irrelevant to the question of what's a useful way to check to CronoDAS girlfriend.

In practice she might tell you: "Duh, of course I check with a trustworthy spirit whether the stone is right for the particular occasion."

A quick googling for hematite suggests that it's supposed to grounding and balancing energy. Given that the girl is ungrounded to the extend that she sees spirits, from her perspective getting a stone to ground herself makes a lot of sense.

Comment author: Jiro 01 April 2015 06:46:27PM 1 point [-]

Not everyone who believes that a stone is healing power believes that they are ontologically basic.

But she is actually treating healing as an ontologically basic concept, even if she doesn't understand that she is doing so. That's enough.

She thinks it's possible for a stone to heal and do nothing else. It's not possible, unless the stone contains an intelligence that can determine whether a physical change made by the stone is "healing". It's every bit as absurd as having an acid that only dissolves shirts.

In practice she might tell you: "Duh, of course I check with a trustworthy spirit whether the stone is right for the particular occasion."

Does she believe that the stone causes harm if used in a way that doesn't match the judgment of the spirit?

Comment author: ChristianKl 01 April 2015 07:19:57PM 1 point [-]

She thinks it's possible for a stone to heal and do nothing else.

She likely doesn't. It's something you project into her without good reason.