5 ms·

Sadly because our ancestors missed the opportunity to see such an event, as rare as we think it to be.

d33 9y ago
Actually perhaps it's better that way. Otherwise they could base some superstitious thinking on it that would stick if we were unlucky enough and there'd be yet another case of irrational thinking to be undone.
- alex_duf 9y ago
  I would chose a belief about a moving star in a heart beat compared to a talking bush and a dude walking on water. Edit: my point being, humans are superstitious in unpredictable way; A moving star wouldn't be more surprising than an eclipse. I'm sure our cultures and religions would have been roughly the same
- vanattab 9y ago
  I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. These ideas are people's attempts to explain and understand how the world works. I am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    > am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years. Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people. It's basically Creationism in modern form.
    - tskaiser 9y ago
      It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
      - rhapsodic 9y ago
        >It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel. Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory. I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
        tskaiser 9y ago
        Okay.
        torstenvl 9y ago
        A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment. In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment? (* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - UrukParthian 9y ago
      I wouldn't think of it as a theory. More like an off-the-cuff hypothesis, based on seeing and creating simulations of systems, that we ourselves are creations of a simulation. A single universe could be host to innumerable amounts of capsuled simulations. The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail. It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.
  - pstuart 9y ago
    I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.
    - UrukParthian 9y ago
      People work with the best hardware and software they can. And for a lot of people, both components are shit beyond coexisting with other members of a "tribe". A lot of people absolutely suck at abstract thought, although "suck" is a relative term. If AI flourishes, it'll consider even the smartest human as a hillbilly swamp creature, a mockery of the possibilities of intelligence.
  - d33 9y ago
    > I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. First of all, pstuart nailed it: "I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.". Also, one could argue that not all modes of thinking eventually lead to rationalist mindset, at least not directly - one problem with superstitions is that people don't have or need proofs for them and that they as memes fight the same space truth does. True concept of, for example, evolution still is fighting with creationism because they solve the same problem, but one of them was made completely made up and people still believe in it because it was here earlier. I think it would be better if we had no answers rather than ones that are utterly wrong. Especially since people who make them up and believe based on "faith" alone are so convinced that their concept is true that they actually harm the actual, proven truth.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

d33 9y ago

Actually perhaps it's better that way. Otherwise they could base some superstitious thinking on it that would stick if we were unlucky enough and there'd be yet another case of irrational thinking to be undone.

alex_duf 9y ago
I would chose a belief about a moving star in a heart beat compared to a talking bush and a dude walking on water. Edit: my point being, humans are superstitious in unpredictable way; A moving star wouldn't be more surprising than an eclipse. I'm sure our cultures and religions would have been roughly the same
vanattab 9y ago
I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. These ideas are people's attempts to explain and understand how the world works. I am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years. Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people. It's basically Creationism in modern form.
  - tskaiser 9y ago
    It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      >It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel. Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory. I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
      - tskaiser 9y ago
        Okay.
      - torstenvl 9y ago
        A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment. In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment? (* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - UrukParthian 9y ago
    I wouldn't think of it as a theory. More like an off-the-cuff hypothesis, based on seeing and creating simulations of systems, that we ourselves are creations of a simulation. A single universe could be host to innumerable amounts of capsuled simulations. The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail. It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.
- pstuart 9y ago
  I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.
  - UrukParthian 9y ago
    People work with the best hardware and software they can. And for a lot of people, both components are shit beyond coexisting with other members of a "tribe". A lot of people absolutely suck at abstract thought, although "suck" is a relative term. If AI flourishes, it'll consider even the smartest human as a hillbilly swamp creature, a mockery of the possibilities of intelligence.
- d33 9y ago
  > I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. First of all, pstuart nailed it: "I would suggest that any contempt of early superstitious ideas has to do with the fact that many live on today.". Also, one could argue that not all modes of thinking eventually lead to rationalist mindset, at least not directly - one problem with superstitions is that people don't have or need proofs for them and that they as memes fight the same space truth does. True concept of, for example, evolution still is fighting with creationism because they solve the same problem, but one of them was made completely made up and people still believe in it because it was here earlier. I think it would be better if we had no answers rather than ones that are utterly wrong. Especially since people who make them up and believe based on "faith" alone are so convinced that their concept is true that they actually harm the actual, proven truth.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]