Brute force and ignorance is my default setting.

I have a hard time understanding your initial point. What do you mean by “Did you even have a thought you were trying to string together in a paragraph?” I am assuming you are talking about how certain sentences seem unrelated and I can understand that but can you be more specific as it is too reductive to summarize my entire paper as just random collection of words. Unless you are Wittgenstein, I can’t accept it unless you have a certain part of the text you find questionable.

Also, your critique on my usage of something other than “said” seems a little too stringent. I think “according to” and “replies” do just as a good job as “said.” More importantly, I think the readers are capable of understanding that these are quotes.

Edit: I just saw your post history. You seem to make a lot of ad hominem comments like how a person can’t get laid to claim your point. It’s kinda funny I guess but it does very little to add to the discussion.

This guy was on the Epstein flight logs.

Everyone's too damn self-serving to admit they don't know something; Turning down the opportunity to learn to preserve their terribly built social persona that anyone who knows even the littlest bit of anything can see right through. "I don't know" is my favorite thing to hear from new people; We can adventure, learn, and discover the secrets of the universe together.

[deleted]

There's nothing in principle about machines that must forbid sentience and ethical value. Consider we are able to build a perfect mechanical reproduction of the brain utilising computer parts which are able to interact 3 dimensionally and in exactly the same manner as neurons. Also assume using this replica combined with necessary input sensors and output body movements we were able to create exactly to recreate the electrical activity that occurs within the brain. This artificial brain would therefore be doing exactly the same thing as a human brain, just using a substrate of silicone or another material rather than flesh. The use of flesh has nothing to do with sentience, so this artificial brain would exhibit exactly the same sentience and types of thoughts and feelings as ours. It seems obvious to me that it then should receive exactly the same ethical value as us.

The issue is that there are 86 billion neurons in the human brain, they interact 3 dimensionally, chemicals can flow throughout all of the brain via blood, and failing to give appropriate input sensors and output movements might cause insanity. So we may never be able to build this. Now in principle if we perfectly understood how everything worked and tied together, we could simulate the entire thing without building it using an incredibly powerful computer. But we are nowhere near that sort of understanding so again it's unclear if we ever can.

In sci-fi these real world concerns about feasibility of construction are pushed aside. But also we are often asked to deal with artificial intelligences which are conscious but different from our own, often radically. This is the same case as the inherently racist/speciesist term "sub-human". Here ethical comparison is now problematic, and may differ from case to case. I personally would value any intelligence considered sentient equally; other philosophers talk of "personhood". Importantly, just because a being is more or less intelligent shouldn't grant it more or less ethical value, just as humans with higher IQ are not of greater ethical value.

Or to borrow a quote: Nuts!

So your friends actually do like to talk about philosophy and even macroeconomics with you, they just find your point of view at times problematic, and you’ve never had to defend each other “to the death…” I gotta say this whole thing has been kind of anticlimactic.

> The obvious answer is no but I say those things because of how I feel, it makes me and my partner feel great and it provides assurance that I'm loyal to my partner.

Which is rational if you want stability and a partner in your life. And it's also evolutionary advantageous, as I said.

> I didn't realize articles are a limited resource we need to mindful of spending.

Not what I said. I will say, though, that I am mindful of how I spend my time and reading philosophical articles that are boring and too long for its message and don't provide me any interesting ideas are a waste of time.

> It's irrational because if you get called on your bluff in those examples you have to do something that is drastically costly to yourself beyond the point of doing it.

Risky doesn't mean irrational and you don't have to do only one thing if someone calls your bluff.

> If I tell you that I want your money or I'll blow you and I up, and then you say "You won't do it." I then have to blow myself up which isn't optimal as that means I'm dead and can't get money anymore.

Yeah, you won't. So why do you "have" to blow yourself up? It's your choice, no one is forcing you. If you blow yourself up then you won't have another chance to try again either.

I really like your summary of it. When I was writing this paper, I mostly wanted to capture this exact idea and analyze (mostly using the methodologies of Hegel and Deleuze) how the notion of freedom and security changed over time and especially put emphasis on how contingent it is to the general socio-politico-economic (I couldn’t find a better way to describe it lol) landscape in a way that has never been seen before.

Necessity is the Mother of invention. Laziness is the Father.

I don't view "lazy" as a pejorative when describing system 2. To me, it means that it's efficient... it won't be engaged unless is has to, because it's expensive (metabolically).

Mostly I was just making a joke about 'lazy' system 2.

In practice, all of us have goals, some of which conflict. This is no less true of oil executives than it is of everyone else. It might well be the case that a certain belief best contributes to a goal that I have but not to the full set of goals. For instance, the executive may want to leave (usable) property to their grandchildren or endow a museum or whatever.

But the answer to your last question is definitely yes. I have lots and lots and lots of false beliefs that simply aren't worth the trouble of rooting out: it would be actively irrational of me to invest the time it would take to find them. In fact, I'd have fewer true beliefs if I tried. That much is mathematically demonstrable. (Take a look at the literature on satisfisizing as a maximization strategy.)

More broadly, though, yeah. A parent believing that their child is particularly adorable or talented might lead to a better relationship than would a more clinical belief set. If you belief a closer relationship to be a valuable thing, then you probably should hold the beliefs you need to form it.

Of course none of this is all-or-nothing. ("Belief the very best thing about your children or you'll die alone.") The point is just that evidence captures only one very narrow dimension of the the things we are doing when we believe.

Bergson - I am interessted in developing Bergson’s thoughts that appear in his Introduction. However, what he says sounds very smart and correct, but did he develop some sort of methods for attaining this sort of intuitive grasp of the inner object. I feel like it sounds well, but can it be done? Could we really know things like that? Not by symbolical science but by grasping it from within in one strike?

>I wouldn't consider falling in love irrational. I think he's conflating rationality with being stoic or having no emotions?

My interpretation is it's more to do with monogamy and the things we do and say to prove we're loyal to our partners and won't abandon them as soon as anyone even slightly more appealing appears in our lives. Things like "There's no one in the world I could ever love more than you". How would I know that? Have I met everyone?
The obvious answer is no but I say those things because of how I feel, it makes me and my partner feel great and it provides assurance that I'm loyal to my partner.

>Either way, yes being silly or watching an exciting sports match can be "irrational" and fun but is that worthy of an article?

I didn't realize articles are a limited resource we need to mindful of spending.

>What is paradoxical about it? That's how threats work. It's rational to take a hijacker seriously.

It's irrational because if you get called on your bluff in those examples you have to do something that is drastically costly to yourself beyond the point of doing it.

If I tell you that I want your money or I'll blow you and I up, and then you say "You won't do it." I then have to blow myself up which isn't optimal as that means I'm dead and can't get money anymore. If I'm very serious about that threat then generally that makes me irrational, and that's what makes the threat actually work in the first place.

Never in "potentially lethal standoffs." We argue vehemently about topics we are.passionate about but when all is said and done we realize we are not going to solve world hunger and recognize we are all in this together. We are striving for the same.goals and have different paths in mind to achieve thise goals.

We joke about the "philosophical bullshit" that seems to control our lives. We realized long ago it's just that, bullshit. And unless one of becomes POTUS there is nothing are arguments will change. We.chose different ways to address problems beyond our control. Rather than argue and hate we chose to empathize and understand each other. We have been a tight knit group for more than 45 years. Even though we have different philosophies on life and how to live it.

As someone who has been in the academic world for quite some time, I can assure you that reason is not always the be-all and end-all of decision-making. There are certainly instances in which it may be beneficial to act irrationally, such as in the examples provided in the article you referenced. However, it is important to note that this is a higher-order rationality, and one must possess a certain level of knowledge and understanding in order to make the decision to act irrationally. It is not simply a matter of "going crazy" or "being silly." One must also take into consideration the potential consequences of one's actions and weigh them against the potential benefits. So, do not be fooled by the idea that irrationality is a free pass to act without thought or consequence.

One could reasonably argue that "falling" in love is a non-cognitive way to address loneliness. Sustaining a relationship takes more cognitive load, I'd suggest, after all. Many aren't prepared for this irony upon falling in love.

Violence goes the same way. Rather than find an agreement which includes complex tradeoffs and emotional intelligence, many choose physical manifestation of grappling with confusion.

Do you often find yourselves in potentially lethal standoffs? Tell me about this iris pigment based defence pact you have going there.

Is his book “Predictably Irrational” a good exploration of his ideas?

I generally avoid NYT Bestsellers as I’ve found them to be excessively simplifying (and often with misleading representations of studies and/or statistics).

Simple, because though we don't see the world through the same color eyes, they will defend me to the death if necessary, as I woukd them.

Or were you being sarcastic?

Pinker is a gamergater apologist. Anything he has to say is obsolete at this point

>Not that I think we're that far off of reality, just an idea for a novel maybe.

I think we're pretty far off.

Why do humans deserve higher consideration than a rock? Than a single celled organism? Than a plant? Than a cow?

Because the reality we live in is that we do deserve it. All our structures of law, morality, ethics, etc reinforce this.

We can exclude a lot of those by creating a concept of "sentience/sapience/consciousness" which no one can actually properly define. But we're still left with the cow, dolphin, octopus, crow and many other species who we can't rationally justify not having rights.

We may have inadvertently just created ai that now fit those categories and made the problem worse. When the ai tells us it's sapient and deserves the same considerations we do, will we believe it or reject it?

https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/13/23165535/google-suspends-ai-artificial-intelligence-engineer-sentient

(I'm not claiming Google's ai is actually sentient, but one day an ai might be and what happens if they engineers are fired who point that out?)

The only answer is that we are humans so we care about what happens to humans. We aren't cows and we never will be, so we don't care about rationally answering the question for cows nor ai.

An AI can either cut through this bullshit, or perhaps scarier, learn it and encourage us.

When I read I thought it was trying to argue, cultivate self-awareness so you can make a rational decision about when to choose irrationality.

I find that most of his first examples are just stating situations in which we may rationally decide to withhold information from ourselves or others in order to procure a better outcome in the particular situation. Not necessarily choosing a sort of irrational school of thought over a rational one. Similar to the whole difference of semantics between wisdom and intelligence. Wisely choosing to have less intelligence on a certain subject.

After that he gives examples of different real world examples of the chicken game, in which the person who irrationally gives up control is the winner. But every example he gives of this is slightly different in some aspect and would almost all benefit from rational decision making. The Chicken game, sure you'll win the game by putting a brick on the gas pedal, but you're likely to also loose your life, it's rational to keep control in order to minimize your chance of dying.

In the case of threats and bluffs, it's never a case of "be irrational and people will know you mean business", it's always a rational consideration between how advantageous you are, how advantageous the opposition is, and how likely it is they will call your bluff. It's better to threaten a much smaller person than it is to threaten a much bigger one, because it's more likely you will win the confrontation, if that confrontation makes sense to participate in at any rate.

>Professional philosophers devote long books to this debate.

Which may be why philosophy lacks the cachet of the hard sciences. The willingness to debate something clearly foolish is itself foolish, as is using an appeal to authority in a debate, especially when you engage in the fallacy so vaguely.