I’m pretty sure I had that exact same thought once. Humans might build a super computer one day they can actually determine the true nature of existence. But because it involves concepts that the human brain can’t grasp it wouldn’t make any sense to us and people just assume that the computer is broken and turn it off.

I like the analogy of trying to explain to a dog how a car engine works. You could sit there all day for years explaining it to the dog and you’ll never get through to them because the dog brain simply isn’t built to understand something like that since it involves concepts and processes that are beyond a dog’s reach cognitively.

For some reason many people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding almost anything, but this doesn’t really make much sense. We are just a more sophisticated version of dogs when it comes to cognition, but it is downright illogical to think that the human brain doesn’t have a ceiling when every other animal brain on earth has a ceiling. I mean, just ask anyone what physical reality actually is or where everything came from and you’ll never get a logical answer from anyone. I don’t necessarily think it’s even due to a lack of information and scientific data, I think the answer to the big question most likely involves certain concepts which the human brain had no evolutionary reason for being able to comprehend. Maybe we could build a computer that could do it, but like I said, the answer may not make any sense to us. I guess that is basically H.P. Lovecraft’s theory as well.

Then why is it problematic if it’s rewarded?

>One could argue that falling in love is actually very rational because it helps promote survival of the human species.

Anything is rational or irrational depending on your assumptions of the goals. I think what's relevant is to explain why some specific goals should be assumed. You jumped to goals of a "selfish gene", while the example of falling in love is about immediate personal goals.

Do you think somebody stealing food to feed their family should receive the same sentence as somebody stealing food to put a store out of business?

Are you fucking serious this guy is a fascist. Let’s go back to 1944 shall we wtf.

Read it. And I do know pinker.

Do you think it's possible, then, that the things that aren't verifiable like the other dimensions or universes, or a God/higher intelligence/consciousness have been deliberately designed for us not to be able to analyse? If the universe shows sense of creative and intelligent design, then perhaps the designer made certain things off-limits?

The 1998 film Pi depicts a mathematician who starts seeing patterns (as well as synchronicities) in the cosmos, and evidence of very fine-tuned mathematics. Synchronicity itself is a mystery that science will probably never really be able to grasp.

This also reminds me of the use of deception and disinformation strategies during World War II comes to mind. These strategies were used by both the Axis and the Allied powers to confuse and trick their enemies.

For instance, the Germans employed a strategy known as "Operation Bodyguard," which was a concerted attempt to spread misleading information about their plans for the Normandy assault. To give the impression that the invasion would occur in Calais rather than Normandy, they went to great lengths to fabricate fake army units and equipment. They even went so far as to stage fake radio transmissions. This deception was successful in keeping the Allies in the dark about the invasion's true location and kept them from properly preparing.

Exactly what I expected to hear from one of Epstein’s closest friends tbh

I have concluded that the “self” starts from a prenatal stage (genetically determined) and grown through life experiences. And the idea of “me” is an illusion that the prenatal “I” attaches to over time. The ideas of Buddhism are the only thing ive found that comes close to explaining “will”. But If there is no “self” and thus no separate will, is the prospect of obtaining liberation predetermined in itself? (understanding that any “will” you have is the will of the universe as a whole)? How can buddhism have any “methods” while simultaneously believing in a concept of “no self” or “separate will” ?

What can “i” do, if there is no “i”.

I should just watch life go by until one day it hits me?

[deleted]

I mean none of what you said about Reddit allowing this or that is true. Reddit allows what the moderator allows. Period, end of sentence. Reddit the corporation doesn’t provide any kind of check or oversight on the censorship exercised by moderators.

Most of all Reddit emphatically does not create an open environment. Every subreddit quickly becomes a circle jerk as moderators ban and filter dissenting voices.

Being illogical doesn't always mean being shitty. Many very logical people are very selfish.

I don’t think we’re rewarding behavior as much as there’s a lack of consequences and consistency for shitty behavior. It takes a lot of patience and self discipline from individuals in order to do so.

I’m fascinated by the sports analogy and the concept of unknowing.

I’ve befriended an elite level athlete. (I’m forced to take as a premise that my life is absurd as a first principle after rationally reflecting on all the improbable i’ve survived.)

I asked them, “If you knew the outcome, would the game still be worth playing?”

They said it would, actually. The end isn’t what matters. It’s how you get there.

Similarly, i disagree that it is not rationally possible to unknow information one has been exposed to. Dissociation, in my understanding, is a rational protective measure of a mind to an irrationally dangerous scenario such as extended and/or extreme trauma.

Dissociation is closely related to the well documented phenomenon that trauma survivors are the most suggestible cohort regarding hypnosis.

Absent these two premises it would make no sense how a person can rationally unknow information.

But, well, what do i know. I’m just a hacker.

In that vein there are multiple persons in the hacker community that go by nyms rather than their actual name. Adjacent to the hacker community are several other communities where nyms are de rigour. I know the legal names of certain individuals that prefer that information not be disclosed, for example. And thanks to the ability to dissociate, that information is deliberately inaccessible to me unless the very rare occasion pops up where I need it, such as a call for bail.

In other words, compartmentalization, which is merely another form dissociation takes. In my case, it is a conscious and conscientious effort to not know what i allegedly know, like i even know anything.

In the vein of the article, knowing someone by a preferred name except when a legal name needs to be known is a highly rational form of seeming irrationality.

It’s a kosher bacon cheeseburger because the bacon is tempeh, the burger is soya, the cheese is made cashews. (I’m just a hacker, as i mentioned before, not a Talmudic scholar, and every analogy breaks down at a certain point.)

[deleted]

[deleted]

I strongly believe in the fact that someone’s reasoning for a crime, does not change the crime of that in itself.

It is often said, “Is stealing bad? What if someone stole to feed their family?”

I am not saying that stealing is objectively bad, just that the reason for any crime does not change the crime committed and what should be punished for it. The factor in crime is malicious intent over self preservation. There could be thousands of reasons for someone committing murder although none make that person have committed less of a wrongdoing or more of one. Lightening someone’s punishment or worsening it is acting on personal feelings over facts.

I can certainly see what you mean when you say I’m using your usage as ad hominem as ad hominem myself. That wasn’t my intent. I only did this to point out that your argument was difficult to understand (at least for me) because it didn’t have sufficient content.

Also, in the line you point out from my essay, I don’t really see the over-usage of synonyms? (unless I’m wrong) Certain terms like the “State” has different connotations compared to the “governance” (as the former is speaking directly about the role of national governments while the latter has more so to do with the industrial big Other that exists only due to the fact that the operating firm’s interests line up). If I do use terms that seem similar, it’s mostly because I thought it was the better term to use. If you think it can be improved, feel free to let me know.

Also, the introduction of the paper is pretty ambiguous because most of the content is in the later pages. If you read the paper, you will see most of the terms and concepts are explored again in greater detail.

I have a class that focuses on sociology, health, and the environment, I took a similar class with the same prof last semester. She always opens the class with excerpts from Pinkers 2018 book (preface, chapter 1, chapter 10). I felt far more viscerally opposed to his POV last semester. This semester I kinda see things from his POV more. it still feels really couched in enlightenment/capitalistic optimism while also dismissing what feels like justified alarmism regarding the environment.

I think the worst thing is it's such a cut and dry position built on an assumption that everyone IS rational and WANTS TO BE rational that misses the steps needed to bring people with you. It misses that change requires facts and emotions to settle into the zeitgeist. For example, one cannot say "we fixed the ozone layer, why were you so angry about it" when one of the steps to fixing the ozone layer is making people understand why there are changes in refrigerants and aerosolizers. We can't get "here" from "there" without taking the journey together.

Similarly, with the environment, there are people who are bad faith actors (i.e. ExxonMobil and their highly accurate climate change science they refused to acknowledge or change under) or people who have been convinced that the bad faith position is tenable. No amount of rational argument is going to change their position. The ecopessimists, as Pinker calls them, have to be able to make the case or join forces with optimists, or ecomodernists (as Pinker calls them) to be able to effect change.

It's really easy to adopt a stance of "some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" if it's not your people on the sacrificial community.

[deleted]

Ignorance, incapacity and irrationality are three distinct things that have very little in common.

And has a script that auto blocks anyone posting a tweet with both his and Epsteins name in it.

Had to test the theory when I first heard, posted such a tweet and checked back a few days later, sure enough, blocked.

> also loose your life,

Did you mean to say "lose"?
Explanation: Loose is an adjective meaning the opposite of tight, while lose is a verb.
Total mistakes found: 693
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon

Proust thought that literature was a viable option - a lot of Remembrances could be considered as a literary experiment in Bergsonian intuition.

"Technological fixes are not always undesirable or inadequate, but there is a danger that what is addressed is not the real problem but the problem in as far as it is amendable to technical solutions."

Engineering and the Problem of Moral Overload

"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

Stephen Hawking, 2015 Reddit AMA

Lost Einsteins: The US may have missed out on millions of inventors

You've Got Luddites All Wrong