3 ms·

I am reminded of this brilliant solution from the Simpsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiK7jcC1fY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiK7jcC1fY

EdwardDiego 4y ago
At one point, after having introduced the brushtail possum from Australia, which is now a massive pest that kills forests and spreads bovine tuberculosis, someone suggested introducing dingos and/or tree snakes to control the possums. Luckily, that didn't get much traction.
- simondotau 4y ago
  She swallowed the snake to catch the possum. She swallowed the possum to catch the spider. She swallowed the spider to catch the fly. I don’t know why she swallowed the fly. Perhaps she’ll die.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Row row row your boat gently down the stream... The closer attention you pay, the more this place seems like a simulation, of some kind.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      Or, more likely, life inspires art. Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > Or, more likely, life inspires art. Or maybe: both are true (to some degree) simultaneously! > Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. Exactly - this, and also all the other things. > This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them. I am suspicious of the word "just" in this sentence, it makes an otherwise fine sentence seem necessarily incorrect. What did you mean by it?
        simondotau 4y ago
        It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned. If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned. So it may seem...but can you know for certain that it doesn't reflect underlying cognition, at least to some degree? For example, let's reconsider your statement: "Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them." We now know that "paying close attention means you notice more of them [only coincidences, which has also been ruled out]" is not necessarily a comprehensive set of the consequences/benefits of paying very close attention - so then: what might some other plausible benefits be, for various degrees of the exercise of "paying close attention"? (And as an aside: have you ever noticed how programmers and scientists, and their fans, regularly extol the superiority of the virtues of strict logic and epistemology, but when they are asked to practice it they often claim that it is ~stupid/dumb/meaningless/a waste of time?) > If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will. This makes several assumptions - for example, if we are in a simulation, you seem to be assuming a particular kind of simulation (one that people or an entity of some kind made) - what about the Plato's Allegory of the Cave style of simulation, that has substantial scientific support? For example: "they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic" is your experience, but not mine - materialists (not making an accusation, just saying "in general") tend to only "see" the physical realm of reality, but others also see the metaphysical realm (although ~everyone complains about the metaphysical realm, despite thinking it doesn't exist).

EdwardDiego 4y ago

At one point, after having introduced the brushtail possum from Australia, which is now a massive pest that kills forests and spreads bovine tuberculosis, someone suggested introducing dingos and/or tree snakes to control the possums. Luckily, that didn't get much traction.

simondotau 4y ago
She swallowed the snake to catch the possum. She swallowed the possum to catch the spider. She swallowed the spider to catch the fly. I don’t know why she swallowed the fly. Perhaps she’ll die.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Row row row your boat gently down the stream... The closer attention you pay, the more this place seems like a simulation, of some kind.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    Or, more likely, life inspires art. Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Or, more likely, life inspires art. Or maybe: both are true (to some degree) simultaneously! > Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. Exactly - this, and also all the other things. > This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them. I am suspicious of the word "just" in this sentence, it makes an otherwise fine sentence seem necessarily incorrect. What did you mean by it?
      - simondotau 4y ago
        It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned. If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > It’s just a verbal tick (ha, I did it again) and means nothing. Eliminate that word and the sentence meaning is unchanged as far as my intent is concerned. So it may seem...but can you know for certain that it doesn't reflect underlying cognition, at least to some degree? For example, let's reconsider your statement: "Remember that "paying close attention" should not mean focusing on the interesting coincidences. A million things happen to you every day; most of it is noise unless you assign meaning to it. This sheer quantity of events means that coincidences are pretty much guaranteed to happen on a regular basis — paying close attention just means you notice more of them." We now know that "paying close attention means you notice more of them [only coincidences, which has also been ruled out]" is not necessarily a comprehensive set of the consequences/benefits of paying very close attention - so then: what might some other plausible benefits be, for various degrees of the exercise of "paying close attention"? (And as an aside: have you ever noticed how programmers and scientists, and their fans, regularly extol the superiority of the virtues of strict logic and epistemology, but when they are asked to practice it they often claim that it is ~stupid/dumb/meaningless/a waste of time?) > If we’re living in a simulation, it would be strange indeed that they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic but with an extra sprinkling of coincidence pixie dust as experienced by Darwinistic entities which experience a self-bootstrapped illusion of free will. This makes several assumptions - for example, if we are in a simulation, you seem to be assuming a particular kind of simulation (one that people or an entity of some kind made) - what about the Plato's Allegory of the Cave style of simulation, that has substantial scientific support? For example: "they’ve made it appear to be completely deterministic" is your experience, but not mine - materialists (not making an accusation, just saying "in general") tend to only "see" the physical realm of reality, but others also see the metaphysical realm (although ~everyone complains about the metaphysical realm, despite thinking it doesn't exist).