Realized I was in a slump regarding my band, due to one poor audience response at one show. Changed my focus to a few salient facts- we have turned a (albeit modest) profit for three years, we have three albums, and enough written music for a fourth, and contracts for 25 days of performance already in place. Changed focus into thoughts on how to grow our audience, and whether we would be better suited at comedy clubs instead of bars.

The world looks pretty scary when we try and look at it as it really is. As much as we try to account for it, at some level we are a function of that which we observe and take in- from that viewpoint, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the information you take in becomes skewed along lines that don't mach up with reality. Given enough skewed data, we all make choices that appear irrational from other eyes.

Sadly, none of us rank information told us once as highly as information we "discover" for ourselves. I don't know if the conversion process works like the de-conversion process at all, or if my de-conversion was typical, but the process of moving from an indoctrinated evangelical christian to an out atheist was the work of years, of countless internal dialogues, and of long periods of confusion. In some ways, becoming an atheist meant embracing my confusion- in understanding that clear answers are very rarely present, and even more rarely easy to find. Faced with that, I think I can imagine a process that would sway an atheist mind.

What to do about it? I don't know. Religion provides a certainty, a comfort that atheism seemingly cannot- we cannot right now promise you will live forever, or even longer than the average person with any confidence. We cannot tell you your place in the world, or give you an easy guide to how to live life well. We have half answers, and bits and pieces, and we ask you to take all this uncertainty, and do the best you can with it. That's not an easy way to live life, and I can see how easy it would be to want an escape, into the arms of something more concrete.

Edit: paragraph breaks ahoy!

Just for a moment, let us consider TDT as a property. By defining the rules around the TDT property, the question is not whether or not the agent should 1 box or 2 box, the question has become whether the agent can fool Omega in such a way to maximize its utility. As long as we grant that Omega can always simulate TDT correctly, then the choice becomes clear- if omega correctly recognizes the TDT trait, or we are unable to calculate, we one box B, otherwise we two box.

Idea- Using Contrary Opinions as a Group Rationality Exercise

Sometimes when I'm discussing issues one-on-one with someone of a different opinion, I will find myself treating arguments as soldiers (I am improving on catching myself in this, I think.). I can also have difficulties verbalizing what is wrong with an argument when put on the spot.

Maybe we can use "Devil's Advocating" posts as a group exercise in rationality. Someone can read or summarize a specific opposing viewpoint that they do not necessarily agree with (maybe subjectivism, or Kuhn's scientific revolutions). They could hopefully even get completely new material, in order to provide practice in a field we haven't discussed.

They will present the strongest summary they can in a post, writing as if they fully supported the idea. The tag [Devil's Advocating] can be used to show that this is what they are doing.

One comment thread can be devoted to finding arguments that the viewpoint covers strongly. (i.e. maybe subjectivism handles a specific question a little better than most other philosophies, or maybe Kuhn's revolutions provide a better explanation of the different types of science that scientists engage in than other science philosophies). This can help us fight our "Soldiers as Arguments" inclinations.

Another comment thread can be devoted to finding specific fallacies in the argument. NOT just "This is silly, <Idea X> is better", but actual "This doesn't work because of <Reason Y>".

Of course, for this to be interesting, it has to be an opposing idea that hasn't been discussed to death. For example, I know in history there are all sorts of competing theories, some of which work better than others. I bet other fields are the same.

So, who is going to sit on the interview committee to control access to a webforum? You're asking more of the community than it will ever give you, because what you advocate is an absurd waste of time for any actual person.

This sounds like a good idea, but I think it might be too difficult to implement in practice, as determined users will bend their efforts toward guessing the password in order to gain access to the coveted Inner Circle. This isn't a problem for that other phyg, because their access is gated by money, not understanding.

Reading the comments, it feels like the biggest concern is not chasing away the initiates to our phyg. Perhaps tiered sections, where demonstrable knowledge in the last section gains you access to higher levels of signal to noise ratio? Certainly would make our phyg resemble another well known phyg.

I didn't really notice anything wrong with that. it jumped around a lot, and it wasn't especially good, but it didn't much bother me.

p=?

Even without a lot of ear training, you can quite likely hear if a note is a quarter-tone out relative to its predecessors and successors.