This is weird. It is hard for me to hear the difference in the cadence, but crystal clear otherwise. In the cadence, the problem for me is that the notes are dragging on, like when you press pedal on piano a bit, that makes it hard to discern the difference.

Maybe they lost something in retelling here? Made up new stimuli for which it doesn't work because of harmonics or something?

Or maybe its just me and everyone on this thread? I have a lot of trouble hearing speech through noise (like that of flowing water), i always have to tell others, i am not hearing what you're saying i am washing the dishes. Though i've no idea how well other people can hear something when they are washing the dishes; maybe i care too much not to pretend to listen when i don't hear.

This needs proper study.

Did anything come of this? I for one would love to play an RPG with a group of rationalists and make cool new friends in the LW community, although I've never been able to keep interest in play-by-post games -- I prefer real-time chat using a MU* or Maptools.

the CEV of all humans would be the same...my own CEV

Please excuse me for nitpicking. But I don't think that's how "coherent" is intended.

The one missing piece here seems to be how each individual human's morality blob corresponds to any other's morality blob. I suppose we could argue that the CEV of all humans would be the same (certainly my own CEV would want happiness etc for people I will never meet or have knowledge of), but you didn't actually say that and if you meant it you should say it. Is this covered in an interpersonal morality post elsewhere?

I spent much time searching for the morality outside myself once I lost faith, although I assumed it would hold true to most of my assumptions rather than be something scarily different. the best I could find was Kant's categorical imperative since it claimed to make good logical, though I found it to be flawed as conventionally interpreted (although I suppose it may be as good a source as any of rules to follow in general).

That morality is extremely complicated and not reducible to a few simple rules does make sense to me upon reflection, however difficult it makes it to argue with religious people to whom 'The bible has guidelines, but the real specific answer is complicated' is not an acceptable answer -- but that's their problem, not a problem with the truth.

Back when I was a Muslim, in my final stage right before stumbling on this place, which was the final catalyst for me turning Atheist, I had decided to disregard Sharia and even direct Qranic law in every point in which it conflicted with my consciousness. My reasoning was that either God would understand that due to the social and intellectual progress since the times of Muhammad and would accept my behaviour as obeying the spirit of the Law rather than the dead letter, OR that he was more similar to that Jehovah prick than I thought, which meant I didn't care if such a despicable being would want to punish me eternally for this.

Of course, there isn't anything heroic about that. It would just have meant disobeying Him in fairly standard ways that are already practiced by most alledged Muslims, such as not flaying adulterers, not cutting thieves' hands, not forcing your wife to be an eternal minor under male tutelage, and so on. Except I had though about it and deliberately decided to violate God and the Prophet's commands, unlike what other people did, which was merely Not Thinking About It.

Then I read Religion's Claim To Be Non Disprovable among other things and thought: "If I'm going to favour my own principles AND empirical evidence OVER Word Of God, I might as well give up on religion entirely and save myslef much guilt and fear."