This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I recently learned about Sir Roger Penrose's research about Qualia. Then I formed my own conclusion of one of the universal truths;
That the "0th Dimension (The Nothing) Emerges/Balance All Infinite Possibility Across The Conceivable & The Inconceivable Reality"
I wrote an essay on it, as well as a wrap-up of our future. What do you think?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lqBvh5xohGid4U685aJBCp1h1a2RET7Wl6gBn3GhELk/edit?tab=t.0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1loPX-ESVGv-0EevZxYkZ9bZgRzTVxbUNlVRq05HNPh8/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Not enough em-dashes to be standard LLM psychosis. Perhaps standard homegrown schizophrenia?
nah, your typical neurodivergent person into existentialhope.com & effectivealtruism.com website fam
https://teatonglu.substack.com/ - here's my existential blog
utopia links - https://teatonglu.substack.com/p/anti-doomer-reading-list-50-existential
;p
& you also into tranhumanist stuff soooooo let's live long yo!
Thanks. Transhumanism is sick.
But I still have to stand by what I said. I am a transhumanist doctor, and to put not too fine a point on it, (half) a psychiatrist. It pains me to feel that duty asks me to dampen your enthusiasm.
When Sir Penrose talks about consciousness and qualia arising from strictly quantum mechanical interactions within the wetware of the human brain, he has enough street cred (courtesy of a Nobel Prize) that people listen seriously. He made testable predictions, and made world-models with a semblance of rigor. Unfortunately, he still didn't convince the wider scientific community. You are facing a far more uphill battle on the best of days, and you're not trying as hard.
As far as I can eyeball, your general thrust is:
1.It is impossible that something exists instead of nothing.
But we do exist.
Therefore, the impossible exists.
Therefore, every impossibility exists, to "balance" the nothingness of the "0th Dimension."
This is where the philosophical alarm bells start ringing. It’s a clever-sounding syllogism, but it hinges on a category error. The "impossibility" of our existence is a statement of incredulity or low probability, not of logical contradiction. A royal flush is incredibly improbable, but it's not "impossible" in the same way a four-sided triangle is. You're conflating "that which is statistically miraculous" with "that which violates logic." By treating them as the same, you're granting yourself a license to declare that anything and everything, including logical contradictions ("Infinite Paradoxes Exist Everywhere"), must be real.
That makes no damn sense. Even for something as plausible (or at least not ruled out by known and speculative physics) like a Boltzmann Brain popping up out of the quantum foam post Heat Death, there is no room for triangles with two sides.
"I imagined/conceived the above. So it has to exist." This is a souped-up, personalized version of the Modal Ontological Argument or David Lewis's Modal Realism, but without any of the logical rigor. Lewis argued for the existence of all possible worlds, not all conceivable worlds. We can conceive of Escher drawings and contradictions, but that doesn't make them physically possible.
It is slightly rude of me to pattern match your words to crankery or a slightly loosened grasp on consensus reality, but that is still my genuine personal and professional opinion. I expect you have done high doses of recreational psychedelics, and laxened your priors. It would be remiss of me to not at least politely ask that you seek help. Others are likely to be less polite, but trust me, I know where this road tends to lead.
That's not slightly rude of you, it's unprofessional as fuck. You are leveraging your medical credentials to insult a guy on the internet. What is fucking remiss of you is to diagnose someone based on a collection of posts, and then to broadcast that pseudo-diagnosis in a public forum.
You get to shitpost or enjoy the prestige and respect of a doctor. Pick one.
In what way is he being insulting? The guy is posting crazy physics word salad, strongly indicative of some sort of mental issues (which does NOT take a doctor to Notice). @self_made_human is very very gently pointing this out. If I felt like engaging (which I don't), I would be much less polite about my disdain.
You might not find it insulting to have someone casually dismiss a post that is sloppily written stream of consciousness, but expressing coherent thoughts with philosophical precedent with two fucking sentences: "Not enough em-dashes to be standard LLM psychosis. Perhaps standard homegrown schizophrenia?" but I assume you aren't fucking schizophrenic. I have said before that I have learned to tolerate that kind of casual prejudice, and you will note I didn't object to anyone else saying anything like that. It doesn't particularly bother me when members of the public talk like that. But a fucking doctor casually lobbing a term that instantly makes people lose respect for you (and any psychiatrist who doesn't know that needs to prove to me they still have a license) out like that IS insulting. It is insulting to schizophrenics, it is insulting to doctors and it is insulting to the concept of the motte as a place where fucking smart people who think things through go to talk about shit they can't talk about elsewhere.
I only objected after the pivot from that to 'well hold on I know I flippantly dismissed you with the barest thought moments ago, but I am a doctor so you should listen to me'. Like I said, you can shitpost, or claim the mantle of medical professional. One or the other. Pivoting like that, assuming the freedom of shitposting and then pivoting to demand the respect of your profession is point blank unprofessional behaviour for a doctor and just outright fucking stupid for a fucking psychiatrist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do I look like I'm on the clock here?
An "insult" implies, at least slightly, that there's no merit to my claims. I am intimately familiar with crankery, and I know the symptoms of someone at very high risk of psychosis. Someone offering legal, programming or engineering advice would not be held to the same acuritny. In this case, I invite you to examine his arguments and see if your claims that I'm being irresponsible stand.
Off the clock doesn't mean ethics are optional does it? Are you allowed to fuck your patients after work?
As they used to teach journalists, the primary metrics of an insult are delivery, intent and impact. Even a merited comment can be insulting if it's used to demean someone publicly. And legally we're talking ethics, not lawsuits. Your delivery started with labeling it as 'LLM psychosis' or 'homegrown schizophrenia,' then backpedaled to psychedelics and 'high risk'. That's not constructive critique, it's pathologizing a philosophical post.
You should try focusing on ethics for a bit. Or diagnostics. I don't care how 'intimate' you are with crankery, you can't fucking diagnose it off an internet post. That's what is supposed to set psychiatrists apart from armchair psychiatrists, part of what you are supposed to learn at medical school isn't how to spot crankery it's how to distinguish between spotting crankery and being a dick and why diagnosing over one internet post is always the second one.
IANAL is an age old internet acronym because lawyers are held up to a similar level of scrutiny. You are correct that it is not the same however. NAD didn't take off the same way, because most of your profession know not to give medical advice over the internet. Most of them understand that they have traded shitposting for a higher level of respect, for the opportunity to be listened to when they do leverage their medical credentials. I can see a scenario where you notice a regular poster change over time, or fixate and spiral, and warily offering them advice. You called this guy a schizophrenic who fried his brains on drugs after ONE OP.
My claims stand. I didn't read the op again, it wouldn't change anything. My claims would stand even if he'd smeared shit and blood on a picture of the Pope, scanned it and attached it as an op. My claims are not about his behaviour, they are about yours.
If you are really determined to maintain your right to shitpost with your credentials, show me what in the op you decided met the diagnostic criteria for either schizophrenia or drug-induced psychosis.
More options
Context Copy link
Legal advice is notoriously something you are not supposed to give.
But someone offering programming or engineering advice can't personally attack someone in an argument by making engineering claims. They don't have the kind of bad motivations and incentives they would for mental health.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link