3 ms·

Mummification. On a bet. With the motivation being to demonstrate utility. That is seriously enough to recheck everything because it seems to have blown up the

Mummification. On a bet. With the motivation being to demonstrate utility. That is seriously enough to recheck everything because it seems to have blown up the founder. And if it does this to him, what's it gonna do to us? It does not need to be more complicated than this.

gqcwwjtg 3y ago
Seems like the main negative utility it created is people like you deciding it’s more important than the concept of comparing potential outcomes for how good they are. > And if it does this to him, what’s it going to do to us? Is this serious? It did him no harm.
- leashless 3y ago
  If you can't see the problem, you've already thrown away something that you needed. I mean that most sincerely.
ben_w 3y ago
> Mummification. On a bet. With the motivation being to demonstrate utility. Without any variant of the phrases "it's weird" or "just because", why exactly do you feel so strongly about mummification after death, regardless of what motived him? I don't care what happens to my body after death, because I won't be using any more. Do you expect to keep using yours after you die, or something? Also, rereading your earlier comments: what exactly is your belief about the brown M&Ms story? Why do you think Van Halen asked for M&Ms with the brown ones removed in the first place? > That is seriously enough to recheck everything because it seems to have blown up the founder. It was rechecked, and popularised, by John Stuart Mill. My issues with utilitarianism survive this new person, because they aren't ad hominem attacks on eccentric personalities.
- leashless 3y ago
  Fuck no. This is the rationalist error. Nope. Not doing it. Pointing and laughing is the right response, not trying to figure out why mummification in the Victorian era is a bad code smell for the mindset that produces it.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    So your gut reaction is overriding any capacity for actual thought? I guess I can empathise — when I don't get enough sleep or if I drink too much caffeine my emotions can overwhelm my ability to reason. And that one time a heart transplant was shown explicitly on a TV documentary. As a mere memory that's fine, but at the moment the heart came out of the chest on TV? Nopenopenope. Likewise the existence of horror as a genre. The mere adverts for the Saw franchise left me disgusted at humanity, so obviously I never watched the films. Irony, you write as if rationality throws away something that we need, but I think you've lost something…
    - leashless 3y ago
      "actual thought" "gut reaction" etc are artificial categories and are nothing like the real processes of human cognition. these are myths you are using to reason about reason. It's nonsense.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        How do you reason about reason? Would you rather I'd called those "system 2 and 1" or something? Or do you just find that none of the existing literature about human cognition matches your experience of yourself?
        leashless 3y ago
        Noooooo this is all very very much messier and more complicated than it seems. The heart pumps. The heart is not a pump. There is neural tissue all over the place, hormones by glands which affect decision making and so on. You will not easily categorise kinds of thinking in any objectively measurable way. Type One thinking may have 72 subtypes once we get good brain imaging technology. They may decide the original category was wrong And So On. You cannot use those concepts, like type one thinking, except as heuristics. They are not true like “the sun is mostly hydrogen” is true.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      GP's comments are interesting indeed. And while I think they're a bit extreme, I sympathize a lot. I've observed people who believe themselves rational use "reason" to lead themselves astray. Because "reason" is supposedly more reliable than "emotion", they tend to think whatever "reason" leads them to must be true, despite it disagreeing with "emotion". Kind of like giving oneself enough rope to hang oneself with. Personally I'd be quite suspect of any conclusion where "reason" and "emotion" does not converge. The former is more useful in convincing other people to agree with your views, but to be really honest, the scant few things I already know about utilitarianism smells enough that when GP brings up the mummy story, I'm not going to read a dozen books and academic papers on utilitarianism before I decide to agree with him...

gqcwwjtg 3y ago

Seems like the main negative utility it created is people like you deciding it’s more important than the concept of comparing potential outcomes for how good they are. > And if it does this to him, what’s it going to do to us? Is this serious? It did him no harm.

leashless 3y ago
If you can't see the problem, you've already thrown away something that you needed. I mean that most sincerely.

ben_w 3y ago

> Mummification. On a bet. With the motivation being to demonstrate utility. Without any variant of the phrases "it's weird" or "just because", why exactly do you feel so strongly about mummification after death, regardless of what motived him? I don't care what happens to my body after death, because I won't be using any more. Do you expect to keep using yours after you die, or something? Also, rereading your earlier comments: what exactly is your belief about the brown M&Ms story? Why do you think Van Halen asked for M&Ms with the brown ones removed in the first place? > That is seriously enough to recheck everything because it seems to have blown up the founder. It was rechecked, and popularised, by John Stuart Mill. My issues with utilitarianism survive this new person, because they aren't ad hominem attacks on eccentric personalities.

leashless 3y ago
Fuck no. This is the rationalist error. Nope. Not doing it. Pointing and laughing is the right response, not trying to figure out why mummification in the Victorian era is a bad code smell for the mindset that produces it.
- ben_w 3y ago
  So your gut reaction is overriding any capacity for actual thought? I guess I can empathise — when I don't get enough sleep or if I drink too much caffeine my emotions can overwhelm my ability to reason. And that one time a heart transplant was shown explicitly on a TV documentary. As a mere memory that's fine, but at the moment the heart came out of the chest on TV? Nopenopenope. Likewise the existence of horror as a genre. The mere adverts for the Saw franchise left me disgusted at humanity, so obviously I never watched the films. Irony, you write as if rationality throws away something that we need, but I think you've lost something…
  - leashless 3y ago
    "actual thought" "gut reaction" etc are artificial categories and are nothing like the real processes of human cognition. these are myths you are using to reason about reason. It's nonsense.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      How do you reason about reason? Would you rather I'd called those "system 2 and 1" or something? Or do you just find that none of the existing literature about human cognition matches your experience of yourself?
      - leashless 3y ago
        Noooooo this is all very very much messier and more complicated than it seems. The heart pumps. The heart is not a pump. There is neural tissue all over the place, hormones by glands which affect decision making and so on. You will not easily categorise kinds of thinking in any objectively measurable way. Type One thinking may have 72 subtypes once we get good brain imaging technology. They may decide the original category was wrong And So On. You cannot use those concepts, like type one thinking, except as heuristics. They are not true like “the sun is mostly hydrogen” is true.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    GP's comments are interesting indeed. And while I think they're a bit extreme, I sympathize a lot. I've observed people who believe themselves rational use "reason" to lead themselves astray. Because "reason" is supposedly more reliable than "emotion", they tend to think whatever "reason" leads them to must be true, despite it disagreeing with "emotion". Kind of like giving oneself enough rope to hang oneself with. Personally I'd be quite suspect of any conclusion where "reason" and "emotion" does not converge. The former is more useful in convincing other people to agree with your views, but to be really honest, the scant few things I already know about utilitarianism smells enough that when GP brings up the mummy story, I'm not going to read a dozen books and academic papers on utilitarianism before I decide to agree with him...