= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I think it probably matters a lot what people are conforming about. If it's about perception (which line is the same, which color is different) and several people all say the same thing that's different from what I thought I saw, I can see myself starting to doubt my perception. If it's about memory (what is the capital of Rumania?) I'd start thinking I must have misremembered. But if 4 people all said that 2+2=5, I'd realise the experiment wasn't about what they said it was.
In response to
Open Thread March 7 - March 13, 2016
I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but... Less Wrongers, do you believe in falling in love after 20-25? For me it seems that I am no longer able to feel anything as intensely as I was able to feel when I was 18. I don't know what happened. I am not saying that people over 25 don't love, just that it is no longer the same thing. Maybe I'm just generalizing from one example, but although I am still young, I feel like I've lost something significant. Can you relate to any of that?
My husband and I fell in love when I was 40 and he was 36. I agree with Viliam: the obsession was definitely weaker, and the idea that the other will make life perfect forever was missing. But that's a good thing, IMO.
In response to
Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016
An interesting article I found a long time ago. Scroll down to the tables. I've found these tables extremely interesting. Way better than the descriptions of what the different personality traits are supposed to mean.
E.g. Openness seems to be your measure of liberal vs conservative/ red tribe vs blue tribe stuff.
Conscientiousness measures focus/akrasia/ADHD.
Introversion is obvious, but what it correlates to is interesting. Extroverts are interest in parties, but introversion correlates very strongly with "nerd" culture stuff.
Agreeableness is atheism vs religion. Might be more generally having contrarian opinions on things, I'm not certain.
Neuroticism is... well I don't really know what's going on there.
Looks like the more you like nature/the outdoors, the less neurotic you are.
In response to
Procrastination checklist
Shouldn't step 9 actually be the first?
The tip is implicit.
"Fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters: united with her, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of their marvels."
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleep_of_Reason_Produces_Monsters
That one makes the same or similar claim, but explicitly. Do you get it now?
Yeah, that one is better. :-)
That's not even true, though.
It's not true, epistemically, but is true instrumentally.
I explicitly wrote it was an instrumental rationality quote, not epistemically rational because of the kind of literalism you've so gratuitously supplied :)
I don't think it's true, period. It's true that "No one is in control of your happiness but you", but it does not follow that "therefore, you have the power to change anything about yourself or your life that you want to change". And for it to be true instrumentally, it should give us a tip about how to control your happiness.
You are one of the first to be revived. The technique is still experimental. Imagine all the things that could go wrong.
In response to
comment
by
on
Survey: What's the most negative*plausible cryonics-works story that you know?
The most likely scenario is that you'll just die anyway; this one is the second most likely. They probably made mistakes freezing you, and also when thawing you, and you'll end up with severe 'Alzheimer's'. After you've paid a lot of money that could've gone to your family/favorite charity.
Huh. I interpreted it as "not just women can't get sexual experience until marriage in a healthy patriarchy," but now that you mention it, your interpretation seems correct.
Your interpretation is possible too. It's just that I saw the other one first, and I didn't even think of yours till I saw your post.
Not just women.
My understanding is that in the patriarchies of the past there were a small number of prostitutes and bad girls which young men could use to gain some experience and confidence before settling down and marrying nice, virgin girls.
Um. I upvoted CellBioGuy because I assumed 'Not just women' meant 'Not just women freak out when advancedatheist says stuff like that'. Was my interpretation wrong?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
It makes a lot of sense that the nature of questions regarding the "beginning" of the universe is nonsensical and anthropocentric, but it still feels like a cheap response that misses the crux of the issue. It feels like "science will fill in that gap eventually" and we ought to trust that will be so.
Matter exists. And there are physical laws in the universe that exist. I accept, despite my lack of imagination and fancy scientific book learning, that this is basically enough to deterministically allow intelligent live beings like you and I to be corresponding via our internet-ed magical picture boxes. Given enough time, just gravity and matter gets us to here—to all the apparent complexity of the universe. I buy that.
But whether the universe is eternal, or time is circular, or we came from another universe, or we are in a simulation, or whatever other strange non-intuitive thing may be true in regard to the ultimate origins of everything, there is still this pesky fact that we are here. And everything else is here. There is existence where it certainly seems there just as easily could be non-existence.
Again, I really do recognize the silly anthropocentric nature of questions about matters like these. I think you are ultimately right that the questions are non-sensical.
But, to my original question, it seems a simple agnostic-ish deism is a fairly reasonable position given the infantile state of our current understanding of ultimate origins. I mean, if you're correct, we don't even know that we are asking questions that make sense about how things exist...then how can we rule out something like a powerful, intelligent creative entity (that has nothing to with any revealed religion)?
I'm not asking rhetorically. How do you rule it out?
I think that's one question that science probably won't be able to answer. But that's no reason to just make something up! Maybe we can't rule out a 'powerful, intelligent creative entity' – but why would you even think of that? And of course it just shifts the question to the next level, because where would that entity come from?