VCavallo

Does anyone else see the (now obvious) clown face in the image on the Not Built To Think About AI page? It's this image here.

Was that simply not noticed by lukeprog in selecting imagery (from stock photography or wherever) or is it some weird subtle joke that somehow hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread?

That is beautiful.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I ask because I don't know what this means and would like to. Others here clearly seem to get what you're getting at. Some Google searching was mostly fruitless and since we're here in this direct communication forum I'd be interested in hearing it directly.

Thanks!

I would pay one of these prices for my own set. I'm a little unsatisfied with note-taking and highlighting on ebooks and would love a physical copy to annotate and wear out.

that takes math, programming, and lots of work

But sounds totally awesome. Especially if it can be created once and used over and over for different applications.

I don't have time at the moment so I'll have to check those out later.

At a very quick skim I saw:

"Tradition is – apart from inborn knowledge – by far the most important source of our knowledge."

Which I must say irks me real badly, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

At the risk of inviting bias, may I ask what the justification for the finger-wagging was? I am unfamiliar with Popper (which is sort of nice, actually. blank slate)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The "source or origin" meaning the group doing the donating does matter, but the physical creation of the thing is irrelevant. A Dollar isn't a "secular thing" or a "religious thing" - it's just a thing.

Things-which-can-be-donated cannot be secular or religious, but people and organizations can, the way I see it.

I'm not sure that I am the right authority to be correcting anyone's argument - the above comments are just my, an amateur rationalist's, personal response to your argument.

Sorry - personally.

And it's a shame that as a general rule it does.

My reasoning for adding the caveat in this particular instance was to fully disclose my stance. I'm inviting questions, and discussion is only aided when people have a better understanding of each other. If I had said that I am completely miserable and the negatives of being alive once already alive don't outweigh the positives, I'd be of a completely different stance and I'd be understood completely differently.

I don't think it lowers someone's status to say they are not ok and I'm sorry that adding the above caveat bothered you. Clearly my comment was innocent and by more fully explaining my feelings I am I'm no way intentionally reinforcing anyone else's lack of confidence.

Did you have a stroke mid-post?

.. I see the "40" in there, which is relevant to lent, along with letter patterns that sort of like like encoded words. Maybe this is a puzzle?

Sure, if humans exist then rationality should exist.

But my question stands, why should humans exist? If I'm reading correctly your post assumes that a rapid cessation of humans would be somehow a bad thing.

Stop me if you feel this is entering into uselessly nihilistic territory and we can call it quits here.

This is a sort of terrible analogy, but I'm going for it anyway: I recently adopted a cat and feel extremely powerful positive emotional feelings for him just by virtue of being around him and caring for him all the time, not to mention that he is incredibly cute and loving. But I don't feel for him the way I would expect to feel for a biological child of mine. I imagine one's feelings about an adopted child might be similar at first.

more: I'm not sure if you are saying parental love is a good thing or not, or merely factually stating that it could potent... (read more)

there will rapidly cease to be humans

What is the problem with that?

I agree with you that rationality can be spread independent of genetics. In that sense, rationalists don't have to fear their "kind" being wiped out by anti-natalism.

And: I'm not sure, but I think maybe the implied idea in OrphanWilde's comment is that rationality is not dependent on genetics. If I am right though, then I don't see the point he/she is making. Maybe OrphanWilde can clarify.

Should Podcasts be its own thread every month?

[pollid:423]

So it's not just a long babysitting mission? I was afraid of that.

I've recently started listening to Q2 (Click "Q2 Music" in the top player bar) streaming online. It is:

A New York-based online station devoted to the music of living composers

It's often described in different ways, sometimes called "contemporary classical". Give the station a few hours worth of listening - they play a variety of genres within the umbrella of contemporary music and you may like some more than others.

I appreciate the lack of a poppy "hook" in most of the music they play.

I'll kick it off:

I've begun to seriously consider the anti-natalist views of philosophers like David Benatar. My two sisters recently each had their first child and while I've given thought to the idea of having my own children in the past, closely seeing the process play out from beginning to end has somehow updated my thoughts on the topic. I haven't read much yet (I'm about a quarter through Better To Have Never Been and would relish some suggestions from LWers on the matter.

Currently my thinking is that as much as I would like the experience of raisin... (read more)

Lying lieutenants love Lovecraftian lightning.