@CrashedPsychonaut's banner p

CrashedPsychonaut

squarecircle.substack.com

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 17 22:26:19 UTC

Spirituality is entirely fake until you make it real


				

User ID: 1884

CrashedPsychonaut

squarecircle.substack.com

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 17 22:26:19 UTC

					

Spirituality is entirely fake until you make it real


					

User ID: 1884

I think some truths are value neutral, but not all of them, and this particular one has nasty implications under common sense reasoning. Yes, you can't derive an ought from an is, but that's only true at max rigor, which isn't how most people operate most of the time. With good reason: with enough rigor, the world dissolves into a fine mist.

But that guy doesn't need to tell anyone he's a Republican. I'm not American, but I talked to an American colleague about this recently, and he says no one will ever know who he votes for. My dad takes that attitude as well.

But did anyone understand those is the real question? Because there were quite a few people who understood what I wrote.

Order and Progress is, if you think about it, the central conflict of the Culture War, so it's really very funny that the Brasilians put it on their flag. I explore this conflict for a bit and speculate on a possible resolution.

Well yeah, Israel is pretty much Fitzcarraldo. It should never have existed.

I heard keto can screw up your kidneys or have other side effects. You ever heard of that?

Well, I used to shill my substack with no issue back on /r/themotte. I went by AntiDyatlov, and previously mooseburger42 over there. We have spoken before, though sadly mostly when I was in a psychotic or semi-psychotic state.

As to speak plainly, I don't know, people understood me in /r/sorceryofthespectacle and /r/RationalPsychonaut. But yeah, maybe The Motte is not really in the target demo for this, it's just that I always viewed the main page of this place as a free for all.

Though I think there is definitely something to be said about rationalists, about how there is no fire to their equations. But that is not this article, even if it is related.

When I do come up with a version of this article but for rationalists, think you will let it through?

One can respect people who are not one's equals yes, but I think this is conditional on one not thinking very often, or at all, of the ways in which one is superior, particularly if intellect is the disparity. Which suggests a way forward here, since it doesn't seem like individualism will be making a comeback: the truth about black IQ can't be in the water supply. It probably can only be safely handled in the ivory tower, though even there there's a vigorous effort to squelch it. But no, it would probably be healthier to come up with a way to process it.

If this is the case, why did Scott come up with that "at least two of true, kind and necessary" posting rule? It only makes sense if some truths are unkind, which is one way a truth can have moral valence.

Cool username BTW, have you tried lucid dreaming with cholinergics?

Thanks, and nope, never heard of that.

Btw, in that article, the source listed for the claim of peptides being miracle cancer drugs was written by an undergrad. Do you have a better source? I found that particular bit very interesting.

But that's the thing, it isn't capable of accomplishing all sorts of goals as seen in this thread, because it lacks understanding. It will need that understanding to ever get to a point where it becomes an X-risk.

I seem to recall Thomas Kuhn claimed evolution was not science but "a metaphysical research program", but I can't find the quote or his thoughts on evolution for that matter. Does anyone what I'm talking about, and if so, point me to what Kuhn thought about evolution?

Was that essay on metaculus written by you, and do you have a blog?

Personally, I really do feel that the Arab nations are not civilized, so they play by different rules. It ticks me off more when a nation pretends to be of a superior sort, but then not actually live up to the supposed superiority.

They should have handled the situation differently back then, do anything other than the Nakba, but the way they acted shows they don't respect anything but their own power. Reading up more about the history, I'm just against Zionism as it was practiced, the people actually living there weren't liking it, and I really dislike that a displaced people could just decide to pass the buck on and displace other people, particularly when the ones doing the displacing are supposed to be civilized.

Either pack up and leave, or adopt a semi-pacifist policy towards Gaza: beef up the defenses around it, but there is to be no retaliation.

Are you sure about that? They may be the most pragmatic solution after all. Why do you think they're doing it if they're not necessary?

As far as I'm concerned, treating other people politely, refraining from insulting them, and such is perfectly adequate

The problem is, people are asking for more than that. But yes, it is true respect is a spectrum and not a binary. It would be interesting if the case of the janitor could generalize to race relations, but it doesn't seem like it can because of the commitment to equality. It still seems impossible to attempt to use an analogy like that to handle a genetic explanation for the black IQ gap.

Good comment, but then, this makes it sound like he should have said "The truth cannot be racist*", with the asterisk expanding out into the kind of impossibly nuanced argument that would allow one to claim "yes, they are generally dumber than you, but you should still respect them!".

I mean, can one respect someone while simultaneously claiming they're duller? Seems like it would take some real contortions, common-sensically, once you feel someone is not at least your equal, you don't respect them. Sure, you can still feel compassion for them, but it sounds very disempowering to say "whites should be compassionate towards blacks". Arguably, that's the attitude wokes take, but I think that's the reason they often say things that sound awfully racist.

Why would academia cancel the researchers? Is believing in X-risk from AI cancellable?

No, I don't think so, there are likely way too many edge cases that all require genuine understanding to solve.

Does it have to be actual far-right? To the woke, non-woke is far-right, and there's ample firepower and facts there.

Do you have principles? I mean, you are letting lust get in the way of love here, and if your principles cannot override your emotions, well, you don't really have principles then!

I mean, it's not like you can affirm this lust as some kind of important value. It's just a strong emotion. It can't even be that strong: 2 or 3 new partners a year? How long were the dry spells then? Were they so unbearable? This time, it's not like you won't be having sex, so it's not like you're signing up for one long dry spell either.

So how does one fix this mass of suffering?

"we want to make vague and incoherent demands so that we have an excuse to exercise power over you".

That's what alignment looks like, no? I don't think AI researchers or AI itself should have power over AI.

There is a possibility for something truly great that would shock the world here: do nothing. Just beef up defenses around Gaza so they don't catch them with their pants down again, but actually demonstrate what the high road looks like. Perhaps some will claim they have taken the high road many times, but I'm not so convinced.