8 ms·

I think at last we can agree on your more accurate description of your beliefs, just with the sole exception that we could simplify it by the removal of the fir

by xamuel 7y ago

I think at last we can agree on your more accurate description of your beliefs, just with the sole exception that we could simplify it by the removal of the first sentence. That is, I fully agree with the following: Everyone perceives that their opinion/knowledge is based on facts, but very few are even slightly aware that their knowledge is actually based on a hodge podge of memes, each with varying levels of truthiness. If we could somehow manage to get a significant portion of the population to truly realize that much of what they believe, what they consider to be fact, their mental model of reality, is largely made up of meaningfully incorrect approximations, the impact on the world could be substantial.

mistermann 7y ago
Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful". Except removing the first sentence strips the magnitude of importance component from my statement, which is one of the most important aspects of my interest. I wonder if I can make my meaning even clearer (more difficult to find a way to misunderstand)....how about if I phrase it this way: "If global polarization of opinions on a wide variety of topics (some of which can be argued to be an existential threat to human existence on earth) starts to suddenly increase, and it is learned that opinions on both sides of most disagreements are based on objectively incorrect beliefs, it would be extremely valuable (possibly up to restoring the previous likelihood of long-term sustainability of human life on the planet) to find a way to get people to fully realize their beliefs are false, so that reasonable, collaborative negotiations can be established to begin solving our various problems." In the spirit of conversational efficiency, perhaps it is helpful to note explicitly that my intent is to learn your opinion on how important/valuable you personally believe reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals in society might be, and that I am happy to continue redirecting the conversation back to that specific topic as many times as is necessary.
- xamuel 7y ago
  I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important. As for this pedantic discussion, maybe this parable will help. A man goes to Huffington Post and reads an article about the dangers of global warming. Fully convinced, he goes shouting from the rooftops: "Huffington Post has the potential to be one of the most important publications in all of history! It is urgently important that we stop global warming!" You see, that first sentence which the man shouted is distracting and confused. He should have just jumped straight to the second one. Just to be clear, in this parable, the man represents you, "global warming" represents "everyone is operating under delusional beliefs", and "Huffington Post" represents Memetics.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    I'm quite sure I see what you're saying, but I'm quite certain you don't see what I'm saying. It seems like you're trying to not understand, rather than trying to understand. This is part of the point I am trying to get at. Your analogy seems flawed to me. The Huffington Post is a fairly trashy rag that prints vague, half-informed articles on a wide variety of subjects, mostly in a click-baity form. Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept. Could widespread public understanding and acceptance of what the Huffington Post writes change the world? Not in any plausible way I can see. Could widespread public understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration) of the concepts (delusional beliefs, reality vs perception, epistemology, etc) that fall under the Memetics label change the world? I think....maybe. If, that is, some way could be found to accomplish the "understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration)" part. Unfortunately, this seems much less likely, as conversations like this well demonstrate, imho. It's kind of a self-referential problem if you think about it, which is why it's so difficult I guess. > As for this pedantic discussion Oh there's no doubt it's pedantic, but pedantry is sometimes useful in non-cooperative/evasive conversations. But even more importantly, I find it personally useful to take these conversations as far as possible before my "adversary's" sense of amusement runs out. I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail. If you and I, who seem to be in full agreement (discovered only through pedantic dedication to keeping this conversation on topic) on what is important, can't seem to reach a point of mutually respectful and reasonable conversation, whom may I ask do you think is going to fix this problem in democratic societies? The media? The politicians? On even semi-complicated topics, people don't really know what the fuck they're talking about at least half the time. At best they're "kinda" right. You might expect this from the general public, but when it starts infecting the culture of sites like HN, that seems like a very bad sign to me.
    - xamuel 7y ago
      What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept. My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone. Memetics (the study of memes) is a useful path which has apparently led you to enlightenment and made you realize we're all laboring under illusions. It's not the only path, and now that you've reached enlightenment, you should realize that Memetics itself is just one more of those illusions you're opposed to. (In the same way, Buddhists say, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.") Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.

by xamuel 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful". Except removing the first sentence strips the magnitude of importance component from my statement, which is one of the most important aspects of my interest. I wonder if I can make my meaning even clearer (more difficult to find a way to misunderstand)....how about if I phrase it this way: "If global polarization of opinions on a wide variety of topics (some of which can be argued to be an existential threat to human existence on earth) starts to suddenly increase, and it is learned that opinions on both sides of most disagreements are based on objectively incorrect beliefs, it would be extremely valuable (possibly up to restoring the previous likelihood of long-term sustainability of human life on the planet) to find a way to get people to fully realize their beliefs are false, so that reasonable, collaborative negotiations can be established to begin solving our various problems." In the spirit of conversational efficiency, perhaps it is helpful to note explicitly that my intent is to learn your opinion on how important/valuable you personally believe reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals in society might be, and that I am happy to continue redirecting the conversation back to that specific topic as many times as is necessary.

xamuel 7y ago
I'm in full agreement with the quoted paragraph. And I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important. As for this pedantic discussion, maybe this parable will help. A man goes to Huffington Post and reads an article about the dangers of global warming. Fully convinced, he goes shouting from the rooftops: "Huffington Post has the potential to be one of the most important publications in all of history! It is urgently important that we stop global warming!" You see, that first sentence which the man shouted is distracting and confused. He should have just jumped straight to the second one. Just to be clear, in this parable, the man represents you, "global warming" represents "everyone is operating under delusional beliefs", and "Huffington Post" represents Memetics.
- mistermann 7y ago
  I'm quite sure I see what you're saying, but I'm quite certain you don't see what I'm saying. It seems like you're trying to not understand, rather than trying to understand. This is part of the point I am trying to get at. Your analogy seems flawed to me. The Huffington Post is a fairly trashy rag that prints vague, half-informed articles on a wide variety of subjects, mostly in a click-baity form. Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept. Could widespread public understanding and acceptance of what the Huffington Post writes change the world? Not in any plausible way I can see. Could widespread public understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration) of the concepts (delusional beliefs, reality vs perception, epistemology, etc) that fall under the Memetics label change the world? I think....maybe. If, that is, some way could be found to accomplish the "understanding and acceptance (or at least open-minded consideration)" part. Unfortunately, this seems much less likely, as conversations like this well demonstrate, imho. It's kind of a self-referential problem if you think about it, which is why it's so difficult I guess. > As for this pedantic discussion Oh there's no doubt it's pedantic, but pedantry is sometimes useful in non-cooperative/evasive conversations. But even more importantly, I find it personally useful to take these conversations as far as possible before my "adversary's" sense of amusement runs out. I think it is useful (or at least interesting) to learn more about the nature/behaviors of intelligent people who do not have conflicting values or goals with me, or even conflicting abstract beliefs ("I would say reducing the amount of delusional beliefs held by individuals is extremely, urgently important"), yet who seem determined to seek ways to fail. If you and I, who seem to be in full agreement (discovered only through pedantic dedication to keeping this conversation on topic) on what is important, can't seem to reach a point of mutually respectful and reasonable conversation, whom may I ask do you think is going to fix this problem in democratic societies? The media? The politicians? On even semi-complicated topics, people don't really know what the fuck they're talking about at least half the time. At best they're "kinda" right. You might expect this from the general public, but when it starts infecting the culture of sites like HN, that seems like a very bad sign to me.
  - xamuel 7y ago
    What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept. My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone. Memetics (the study of memes) is a useful path which has apparently led you to enlightenment and made you realize we're all laboring under illusions. It's not the only path, and now that you've reached enlightenment, you should realize that Memetics itself is just one more of those illusions you're opposed to. (In the same way, Buddhists say, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.") Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.