2 ms·

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.

by 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.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > What's your objective with this continuing discussion? As I stated: "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." Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail". (When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms. See also: https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742 https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 "I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..." ) > Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to (rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent). > 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. Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?" I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the potential utility of a widespread, true understanding of the ideas discussed within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world. > My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement, at least twice: - "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", or that there has so far been little noteworthy impact. My interest is about the potential of this knowledge." - "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful"." The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "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" ....and yet, you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics is high impact, after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important". > 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. I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in conversations). > 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. This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)

by xamuel 7y ago

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.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > What's your objective with this continuing discussion? As I stated: "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." Perhaps "find ways to misunderstand the question being asked or shift the subject" would have been more appropriate than "fail". (When reading this, please keep in mind I fully acknowledge your above words regarding the validity of the term "abstract beliefs" in this sentence. I hope you can overlook this and accept that I am simply restating this prior statement exactly as initially written, with full admission that it may fall short of absolutely perfect accuracy in choice of terms. See also: https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742 https://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19901735 "I'm curious why you think a transition to a more enlightened..." ) > Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something? Yes, answer the questions as written, or acknowledge that you choose not to (rather than leading the conversation off onto a tangent). > 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. Speaking of pedantry....do you think the core idea or intent of this discussion from my perspective is the precise definition of the word "memetics"? Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?" I have clearly said multiple times that my interest is related to the potential utility of a widespread, true understanding of the ideas discussed within memetics - whether it could make a difference in the world. > My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. And I have clearly addressed the poor choice of words in my initial statement, at least twice: - "I don't disagree with your assertion that ~"multiple people have recognized and described this phenomenon within human psychology and assigned it a variety of labels", or that there has so far been little noteworthy impact. My interest is about the potential of this knowledge." - "Hmmmm....on one hand this seems like all a silly misunderstanding, basically a pedantic difference of "impactful" vs "potentially impactful"." The conversation clearly moved on beyond that: "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" ....and yet, you have once again pivoted back to whether Memetics is high impact, after already acknowledging you believe the ideas contained within are "extremely, urgently important". > 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. I'm not here to win points, I'm here to have a conversation and gain a deeper understanding of human nature (in this case, why people behave evasively in conversations). > 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. This all sounds a bit like those vague but persuasive/useful memes we were talking about earlier. A tangential one at that! ;)