3 ms·

Oh, that's no bother at all: I try to keep an open mind, while expecting putative explanations of any sort to actually make some progress on explaining somethin

Oh, that's no bother at all: I try to keep an open mind, while expecting putative explanations of any sort to actually make some progress on explaining something. As far as I know, it's not a named ~ideology of any sort, just a reasonable response to incomplete knowledge. As it would be neither informative nor fair to speculate about what's on your mind, this isn't giving me any hint as to what's bothering you, so would you now care to answer my question?

mistermann 2y ago
Thank you. And to be clear: your question is a fine one, and perfectly reasonable. > I try to keep an open mind... Not to be rude, but I consider this to be an (unrealized) "no" - to me, ~passivity cannot implement skepticism; true skepticism is extremely intellectually demanding. It's not possible to give you an object level description of my issues that would do them any sort of justice, but I think this points in the direction quite well: consider when religion ruled the world (controlled the memetic functioning of the majority of human minds) - this, for what are now obvious reasons, had many issues, and caused substantial harm to humans. Science was the way out of that delusion, and it has rewarded us well. But it too is yet another delusion/faith based ideology (to a lesser degree in volume, though not necessarily consequence[1]), there is another level of enlightenment available to humans, but the ideology of science/scientism is now behaving as religion did in the past, rather than adhering to its scriptures (a recurring problem with ideologies of any kind). [1] climate change is an existential threat in my books, and it was brought to our doorstep by science
- mannykannot 2y ago
  And thank you for your reply - I think we can agree to differ over where the optimal level of skepticism lies. Global warming is indeed a serious matter involving not only the use, abuse, and unintended consequences of applied knowledge, but also the abuse (for intended consequences) of skepticism. The same could be said for the lab-leak hypothesis of the origin of covid-19, at least for those of us (such as myself) who think there's a plausible case for it. As someone who thinks AI "doomerism" is similarly a justified concern, I suppose I should be concerned that if Philip Goff et. al. ever get around to explaining mental phenomena as being a consequence of consciousness being fundamental, then that could help bring about the doomer scenarios, but frankly, I am not so open-minded as to think there's any real prospect that they will (mainly because they don't seem at all interested in finding such explanations.) I feel there is a real possibility of humanity suffering a serious and possibly terminal setback in the relatively near future, either as a consequence of abusing something we know or not making use of something we know, but I have no opinion as to which way it will go, if indeed it does.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > And thank you for your reply - I think we can agree to differ over where the optimal level of skepticism lies. It depends what you mean precisely - if you mean the optimal level for going about one's life in a general sense (maximizing personal pleasure, the prime directive), sure. But when it comes to optimal with respect to achievement of the best judgment with respect to the epistemological limitations of reality itself, that is a very different thing. I predict I would be better at it, because you would not be able to try: your mind would not allow itself to be applied to that analysis (it would make up some stories to get out of it, or simply refuse to continue the conversation). > Global warming is indeed a serious matter involving not only the use, abuse, and unintended consequences of applied knowledge, but also the abuse (for intended consequences) of skepticism. Notice that I was talking about causality (science is the primary cause of climate change), but you have smoothly slid the conversation to involving. > The same could be said for the lab-leak hypothesis of the origin of covid-19, at least for those of us (such as myself) who think there's a plausible case for it. You could indeed say that lab leak involves many things...but if you constrain the scope of the discussion to causality, it also greatly constrains what can be said. I suspect this is why humans have such a strong and predictable negative reaction to precise use of language, they intuitively sense danger. > As someone who thinks AI "doomerism" is similarly a justified concern, I suppose I should be concerned that if Philip Goff et. al. ever get around to explaining mental phenomena as being a consequence of consciousness being fundamental, then that could help bring about the doomer scenarios, but frankly, I am not so open-minded as to think there's any real prospect that they will (mainly because they don't seem at all interested in finding such explanations.) Agree. If you're looking for someone serious and that can be taken seriously, I recommend folks from "eastern religions"....Buddhists, mystics, etc. This is a good video that well demonstrates how incompetent and unaware of it scientists (in this case Sean Carroll) are in this domain (keep in mind that the gloves do not come off in such exhibition matches, so you never really get to see the true extent of the differential): The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=S-SiOf8nhwb3qddT https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=S-SiOf8nhwb3qddT > I feel there is a real possibility of humanity suffering a serious and possibly terminal setback in the relatively near future, either as a consequence of abusing something we know or not making use of something we know, but I have no opinion as to which way it will go, if indeed it does. I do too, and I will make a bold prediction: two of the most important things that we will not make use of but should have are epistemology, and non-binary forms of logic. EDIT: "apologies" (not really) for my excessively, "unnecessarily" antagonistic tone. I am simultaneously enjoying this conversation, you seem unusual.

mistermann 2y ago

Thank you. And to be clear: your question is a fine one, and perfectly reasonable. > I try to keep an open mind... Not to be rude, but I consider this to be an (unrealized) "no" - to me, ~passivity cannot implement skepticism; true skepticism is extremely intellectually demanding. It's not possible to give you an object level description of my issues that would do them any sort of justice, but I think this points in the direction quite well: consider when religion ruled the world (controlled the memetic functioning of the majority of human minds) - this, for what are now obvious reasons, had many issues, and caused substantial harm to humans. Science was the way out of that delusion, and it has rewarded us well. But it too is yet another delusion/faith based ideology (to a lesser degree in volume, though not necessarily consequence[1]), there is another level of enlightenment available to humans, but the ideology of science/scientism is now behaving as religion did in the past, rather than adhering to its scriptures (a recurring problem with ideologies of any kind). [1] climate change is an existential threat in my books, and it was brought to our doorstep by science

mannykannot 2y ago
And thank you for your reply - I think we can agree to differ over where the optimal level of skepticism lies. Global warming is indeed a serious matter involving not only the use, abuse, and unintended consequences of applied knowledge, but also the abuse (for intended consequences) of skepticism. The same could be said for the lab-leak hypothesis of the origin of covid-19, at least for those of us (such as myself) who think there's a plausible case for it. As someone who thinks AI "doomerism" is similarly a justified concern, I suppose I should be concerned that if Philip Goff et. al. ever get around to explaining mental phenomena as being a consequence of consciousness being fundamental, then that could help bring about the doomer scenarios, but frankly, I am not so open-minded as to think there's any real prospect that they will (mainly because they don't seem at all interested in finding such explanations.) I feel there is a real possibility of humanity suffering a serious and possibly terminal setback in the relatively near future, either as a consequence of abusing something we know or not making use of something we know, but I have no opinion as to which way it will go, if indeed it does.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > And thank you for your reply - I think we can agree to differ over where the optimal level of skepticism lies. It depends what you mean precisely - if you mean the optimal level for going about one's life in a general sense (maximizing personal pleasure, the prime directive), sure. But when it comes to optimal with respect to achievement of the best judgment with respect to the epistemological limitations of reality itself, that is a very different thing. I predict I would be better at it, because you would not be able to try: your mind would not allow itself to be applied to that analysis (it would make up some stories to get out of it, or simply refuse to continue the conversation). > Global warming is indeed a serious matter involving not only the use, abuse, and unintended consequences of applied knowledge, but also the abuse (for intended consequences) of skepticism. Notice that I was talking about causality (science is the primary cause of climate change), but you have smoothly slid the conversation to involving. > The same could be said for the lab-leak hypothesis of the origin of covid-19, at least for those of us (such as myself) who think there's a plausible case for it. You could indeed say that lab leak involves many things...but if you constrain the scope of the discussion to causality, it also greatly constrains what can be said. I suspect this is why humans have such a strong and predictable negative reaction to precise use of language, they intuitively sense danger. > As someone who thinks AI "doomerism" is similarly a justified concern, I suppose I should be concerned that if Philip Goff et. al. ever get around to explaining mental phenomena as being a consequence of consciousness being fundamental, then that could help bring about the doomer scenarios, but frankly, I am not so open-minded as to think there's any real prospect that they will (mainly because they don't seem at all interested in finding such explanations.) Agree. If you're looking for someone serious and that can be taken seriously, I recommend folks from "eastern religions"....Buddhists, mystics, etc. This is a good video that well demonstrates how incompetent and unaware of it scientists (in this case Sean Carroll) are in this domain (keep in mind that the gloves do not come off in such exhibition matches, so you never really get to see the true extent of the differential): The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=S-SiOf8nhwb3qddT https://youtu.be/pLbSlC0Pucw?si=S-SiOf8nhwb3qddT > I feel there is a real possibility of humanity suffering a serious and possibly terminal setback in the relatively near future, either as a consequence of abusing something we know or not making use of something we know, but I have no opinion as to which way it will go, if indeed it does. I do too, and I will make a bold prediction: two of the most important things that we will not make use of but should have are epistemology, and non-binary forms of logic. EDIT: "apologies" (not really) for my excessively, "unnecessarily" antagonistic tone. I am simultaneously enjoying this conversation, you seem unusual.