Comment author: botogol 04 April 2009 09:35:42AM 1 point [-]

good luck. I am out of town today, but perhaps the next one...

Comment author: botogol 01 April 2009 04:11:46PM 4 points [-]

It all goes to show that

what's grist to the mill is nose to the grindstone.

Comment author: botogol 01 April 2009 12:46:42PM 3 points [-]

Browne's description of his own symptoms reminds me of interviews I have read and seen of Terry Pratchett talking about his early-onset dementia - particuarly this

It's unusual because people deal with me and they refuse to believe I have Alzheimer's because at the moment I can speak very coherently, I can plot a novel

Here

Yvain, thanks for this - a fascinating case I hadn't read about before.

Comment author: botogol 30 March 2009 07:30:52AM 4 points [-]

I think OB has improved since LW started up. OB now feels calmer and it' better paced.

Comment author: bentarm 13 March 2009 04:09:26AM *  9 points [-]

"Many (most? all?) Christians believe the snake was really Satan,"

Without meaning to nitpick, what percentage of people who call themselves Christians do you think actually believe this? I'm pretty sure most of my Christian friends don't believe that any of Genesis is literally true. They probably also don't believe that a man can survive for 3 days in the belly of a whale, or that donkeys talk (Numbers 22: 26-30). I'm not really sure how this is relevant here, except that maybe I'm trying to say that a talking snake is just so damned absurd that even people who say they believe it don't actually believe it.

Comment author: botogol 13 March 2009 08:32:44AM 10 points [-]

"I'm pretty sure most of my Christian friends don't believe that any of Genesis is literally true"

Have you asked them? Probably not, it's considered rude to ask christians questions like that, isn't it? (which is no doubt one reason why religious beliefs are able persist)

But if you did ask them you might be surprised by the answer.

Actually I suspect you are probably somewhat right: they don't beleive genesis literally. However I suspect they don't disbelieve it, either.

I actually don't think religious belief has much to to with doctrine, and I don't thmink many western christians ever actually sit down to assess exactly 'what' they believe, and what they don't. Religion isn't about believing silly things, it's primarily about belonging. Belinging to a group that at a social everyday level is mostly harmless, and normally well intentioned.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 March 2009 06:51:57PM 1 point [-]

You currently get a karma point just for automatically upvoting your own comment. This is scheduled to be fixed, but it's low-priority.

Comment author: botogol 05 March 2009 10:39:18PM 0 points [-]

I also tried manually upvoting my own post - just t see what would happen.

Never never do that.

======== More seriously - shouldn't you get Karma from people REPLYING to your comments? Lots of Karma - I mean: someone upvotes me - that's nice - but someone actually REPLIES to me - wo hoo!

In response to Posting now enabled
Comment author: botogol 05 March 2009 06:01:45PM 1 point [-]

OK, so as an ardent game player and natural pedant, I need the rules and scoring sysem of this 'karma' thing explained to me - can I find it on the site somewhere?

To start with: I seem to get a karma point just for making a comment.. is that right?

(or is my mum on-line here upvoting my every post)

Comment author: botogol 05 March 2009 05:48:28PM 3 points [-]

I like this article (but then I liked Dennet's ideas of belief in belief right from the start) and I've been thinking about this off and on all day.

But I think perhaps Eliezer over-analyses: On the surface this person's beliefs and thoughts seem fuzzy, so Eliezer admiraly digs deeper - but perhaps it's just fuzz all the way down.

Perhaps she believes P and ~P, perhaps she believes P>Q and she believes P but she beleives ~Q.

Perhaps you just have to shrug, and move on.

My experience is that most religious people give very, very, very little thought to what they actually believe. (About 10,000th of the introspection that Eliezer performs, say :-) ) and analysing it terms of doctrine, beliefs (or indeed impressions) is simply using the wrong tools. Perhaps better to think about emotions invovled in 'being religious' and being 'part of' a religion.

Comment author: botogol 27 February 2009 04:38:38PM 9 points [-]

Eliezer asks "how did you come to rationality?" It surprises me how many people answer: "this is how I lost my religion"

Clearly you can't be rationalist, while also being religious, but there is a more to rationality than simply absence of religion..

Anyway... personally: there's no one moment, but I'm a natural born sceptic and persistently urious analyst. Perhaps rationality attracted because it seems like methodical, organised, analytical scepticism

Single biggest book: Hofstadter's G-E-B, right when it first came out. I just didn't know there could be a book like that....

View more: Prev