Perfect, thanks :)
The word “aligned” is being used here in a way that seems subtly different than what I’ve heard before. A quick definition and/or link to the place(s) this usage comes from would be really useful.
I haven’t ever seen an academic article so direct and even sardonic, especially not one railing against such an established practice. I guess that’s what a Molotov cocktail looks like in print.
That wasn’t just clear and impactful, it was fun to read. Thanks for linking, lifelonglearner.
Welcome!
Also...I think it still may need a fix: paragraph 11 now reads
normative way; that you should wire it the way I say just because,
but I think you want to swap the comma with the semi-colon:
normative way, that you should wire it the way I say just because;
This is fantastic and absolutely the conversation I want to be having.
Ditto on everything Qiaochu_Yuan said. Huge thanks for writing this, Romeo.
Two typo fixes that would have saved me a headache:
Paragraph 11:
normative way. Like you should wire
I think you meant “normative way, like you should wire”
Second-to-last paragraph:
Though the Buddha taught one specific concentration technique and a series of simple insight techniques, but there are probably a dozen
I think you meant to omit either “Though” or “but”
When something is accepted as true, then observations to the contrary become surprising. So, if I’m surprised to find it raining out, then I’d assumed it was going to be sunny.
I think you’re exactly right that distinguishing between what people claim, and then what they turn out to actually expect, is the important thing here. My argument is that alief/belief (or belief in belief), as terms, make this harder. I just used the words “claim” and “expectation”, and I would be immensely surprised if anyone misunderstands me. (To be redundant to the point of silliness: I claim that’s my expectation.)
“Belief” has, I think, lost any coherent definition. It seems now, not to refer to expectations, but to mean “I want to expect X.”
Like u/gworley, I’m not a fan of the alief/belief distinction. I take a slightly different tack: I think that belief, and related terms, are just poorly defined. I find it easier to talk about expectations.
“Expectations” is, I think, a term best operationalized as “things that surprise a person if they don’t happen, while not surprising said person if they do happen.” (I started thinking of this due to the “invisible dragon” from the Sequences.)
It’s empirically testable whether a person is non-plussed—sometimes this might be hard to notice, but almost a
Hello! I'm Ryan; some of you may know me from the Boston or NYC meetups, or from my excursions to the Bay. I'm finally getting around to really using this account; anything that I posted more than a year or so ago can be safely ignored, or laughed at if you're in the mood for a chuckle. I'm hoping to primarily focus on longevity research and how people can work together well on things in general; currently collecting info to try and make a general post about the current state of the field. I'm thoroughly a layperson in most regards--I have a BA in psyc...
Thank you for your comment: you have shown me that I failed to make my intention plain. I have edited my original comment in the hopes of remedying this; please let me know if I have succeeded by up-voting, or if I have failed by down-voting and, if you are again willing to help me, offering me further critique :) My sincere thanks, again.
Here's a good one for any one who trusts the bible: Is the following true? If Mark 9:40 and Matthew 12:30 are both true, then God would not allow us to see, hear, think or feel anything that wasn't the best possible thing we could see, hear, think or feel at that moment. I know the philosophers at Notre Dame to be an exceedingly rational group, and so I believe they will respond by giving a wonderful explanation to you of the Christian belief that God is indeed with all people at all times, and that they need only open their hearts to love in order to receive all they desire.
Regarding the idea of "changing the future" invoked by the Majere quote:
The concept here relies upon some notion of causality. In order for it to be coherent, we have to think of the past and future as being determined--that if we knew both the state of the universe at a given time, and the laws of physics, we could calculate every other state the universe would ever have, or had ever had previously.
This conception doesn't really seem to jive with what very, very little I know about many worlds and quantum mechanics, so it could be utterly false...
What is the rational response to something like this? Because I still don't know what to think.
http://thedivinemercy.org/message/stfaustina/graces.php
I met Ms. Digan in person, and there's a bit more to the story than is told on the site; the two most important things are that 1) the doctors who examined her were not, as the site implies, Catholic stooges, just normal doctors, most of them atheist; and 2) her son, a very young child at the time, came with her to Poland and stayed behind in the room, and also experienced a healing--he had some sort of dege...
For me, thinking of the Dementors as death AND depression is a lot of fun--the idea that they're of the same essence is very cool to toss around. Which in turn makes the question of what patronuses are more tangled and intriguing...
Really, every attempt I make at reconciling the two worlds makes every facet of both more interesting! :)
When “Old One” and “the Blight” are mentioned: which characters are these?