5 ms·

Every action, activity, hobby, or ritual is nothing more than the pursuit of a certain mental state. I would much rather change that to "Every action, act

Every action, activity, hobby, or ritual is nothing more than the pursuit of a certain mental state. I would much rather change that to "Every action, activity, hobby, or ritual can be accurately described as the pursuit of a certain mental state." Saying that something is nothing more than one thing is never ever true.

krick 7y ago
I guess that's pretty much the core point the author is trying to make, and your interpretation loses it. Like, it points out, that while I'm typing this comment it is going to change the state of the HN DB and maybe transfer some information to you and etcetera, but also I may feel differently after it's done. The author rather suggests the point of view that all these things don't really matter and the only thing that this comment is (from the personal standpoint) is an attempt to make me feel like I'm socializing...
- barrkel 7y ago
  It's overly reductive. Why not take drugs and cut out the middleman - the action? Why not become a brain in a vat and be fed sensations by some stimulation device? There's a lot of existing philosophy in this area, worth reading if one is so inclined.
  - krick 7y ago
    Well, I'm not the author, so it isn't me who you should ask, but I guess, again, that that's entirely the point: there is no such a "why not". Except that you are saying that as if it's something you can actually do. But in reality you have neither the supply of all the necessary drugs to make you feel what you are trying to feel, much less the "some stimulation device" to make this all happen. Otherwise, that's precisely what you'd do, despite you saying the contrary.
    - barrkel 7y ago
      > But in reality you have neither the supply of all the necessary drugs to make you feel what you are trying to feel Plenty of people find and use drugs to improve what they're feeling, and they're reasonably successful at it, from the inside, from their own perspective. > Otherwise, that's precisely what you'd do, despite you saying the contrary. No, it's not, and it's not what most people would do, for reasons too long to get into here. Like I said, there's a lot of literature here. Most people have pretty strong beliefs that they would rather suffer in a real world than have a satisfied fake life with managed feelings. It's only when the pain is too much that they fall back to alternatives.
      - viklove 7y ago
        > Most people have pretty strong beliefs that they would rather suffer in a real world than have a satisfied fake life with managed feelings. It's only when the pain is too much that they fall back to alternatives. Right, but you're still just trying to achieve some mental state. It's just that that mental state is impossible to reach through drugs/simulation alone.
        callesgg 7y ago
        One point here beeing that to reach a mental state you might have to not trying to be reaching that mental state but trying for the actual activity.
- callesgg 7y ago
  But we are more than that i.e. from a atomic perspective we are an ever changing interaction between atoms. Things are not the models that describe them; things are them selfs. Applying a model and saying: "that is the only model" is incorrect. While his model is an accurate representation of something in reality it is only accurate in its own context. I write comments to expand my and others mind not only to socialize whatever that really means. Pushing complex things trough simple language makes them seam simple, but they are not.
  - krick 7y ago
    > from a atomic perspective Sure, and that's the perspective you would take when you are trying to construct a nuclear reactor. But what you are expected by the author to notice is that you are a human, not some detached from flesh abstract entity that can actually do anything... "real", for the lack of a better word. You only act as a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses and what really makes you do things isn't something you acknowledge, and all your "thinking" and "models" and comments and nuclear reactors are just a byproduct of that. That is, you can avoid the "atomic perspective" and all the other perspectives, but you cannot avoid being you, that is a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses that you perceive as feelings. > I write comments to expand my and others mind Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you.
    - callesgg 7y ago
      I was not arguing that the atomic perspective is the correct one. I was giving an example that shows that there are other perspectives that are just as true. If you don't like the atomic one but what about me as a musician or an actor or a friend, an employee. > Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you. I am not sure that the author is arguing for that but it is a byproduct of the way he writes.

krick 7y ago

I guess that's pretty much the core point the author is trying to make, and your interpretation loses it. Like, it points out, that while I'm typing this comment it is going to change the state of the HN DB and maybe transfer some information to you and etcetera, but also I may feel differently after it's done. The author rather suggests the point of view that all these things don't really matter and the only thing that this comment is (from the personal standpoint) is an attempt to make me feel like I'm socializing...

barrkel 7y ago
It's overly reductive. Why not take drugs and cut out the middleman - the action? Why not become a brain in a vat and be fed sensations by some stimulation device? There's a lot of existing philosophy in this area, worth reading if one is so inclined.
- krick 7y ago
  Well, I'm not the author, so it isn't me who you should ask, but I guess, again, that that's entirely the point: there is no such a "why not". Except that you are saying that as if it's something you can actually do. But in reality you have neither the supply of all the necessary drugs to make you feel what you are trying to feel, much less the "some stimulation device" to make this all happen. Otherwise, that's precisely what you'd do, despite you saying the contrary.
  - barrkel 7y ago
    > But in reality you have neither the supply of all the necessary drugs to make you feel what you are trying to feel Plenty of people find and use drugs to improve what they're feeling, and they're reasonably successful at it, from the inside, from their own perspective. > Otherwise, that's precisely what you'd do, despite you saying the contrary. No, it's not, and it's not what most people would do, for reasons too long to get into here. Like I said, there's a lot of literature here. Most people have pretty strong beliefs that they would rather suffer in a real world than have a satisfied fake life with managed feelings. It's only when the pain is too much that they fall back to alternatives.
    - viklove 7y ago
      > Most people have pretty strong beliefs that they would rather suffer in a real world than have a satisfied fake life with managed feelings. It's only when the pain is too much that they fall back to alternatives. Right, but you're still just trying to achieve some mental state. It's just that that mental state is impossible to reach through drugs/simulation alone.
      - callesgg 7y ago
        One point here beeing that to reach a mental state you might have to not trying to be reaching that mental state but trying for the actual activity.
callesgg 7y ago
But we are more than that i.e. from a atomic perspective we are an ever changing interaction between atoms. Things are not the models that describe them; things are them selfs. Applying a model and saying: "that is the only model" is incorrect. While his model is an accurate representation of something in reality it is only accurate in its own context. I write comments to expand my and others mind not only to socialize whatever that really means. Pushing complex things trough simple language makes them seam simple, but they are not.
- krick 7y ago
  > from a atomic perspective Sure, and that's the perspective you would take when you are trying to construct a nuclear reactor. But what you are expected by the author to notice is that you are a human, not some detached from flesh abstract entity that can actually do anything... "real", for the lack of a better word. You only act as a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses and what really makes you do things isn't something you acknowledge, and all your "thinking" and "models" and comments and nuclear reactors are just a byproduct of that. That is, you can avoid the "atomic perspective" and all the other perspectives, but you cannot avoid being you, that is a bunch of tissues guided by hormonal responses that you perceive as feelings. > I write comments to expand my and others mind Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you.
  - callesgg 7y ago
    I was not arguing that the atomic perspective is the correct one. I was giving an example that shows that there are other perspectives that are just as true. If you don't like the atomic one but what about me as a musician or an actor or a friend, an employee. > Yeah, that's what I'm thinking when I'm typing this, previous and all the other comments. What the author is saying (I guess) is that I am mistaken. So are you. I am not sure that the author is arguing for that but it is a byproduct of the way he writes.