6 ms·

>Who knows what our absolute capabilities are, especially if we hardly or maybe even never try (at least certain things)? Ego quoque, for misunderstanding what

>Who knows what our absolute capabilities are, especially if we hardly or maybe even never try (at least certain things)? Ego quoque, for misunderstanding what you meant by "certain things" (>) I stress that I manifestly do not want to see physicists and tech bros publish bio-meta-how-tos just yet, did you mean high quality professionally conducted BSL training? As for 082349872349872, I think exploring the Taoist metaphysics of marginally injurious mutual surprise as an epsilon over Buddhist tainted reinterpretations could be at most a waste of time. And what's more, I can vouch that he's not a physicist, not even vicariously. >though an ideology taking root in the mind is necessary to exploit its capabilities to their maximum. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Mistermann%20capabilities&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Okay so give me an example of an interesting ideology, as opposed to merely a conspiracy theory, such as "applying skepticism to your own beliefs" ) I could hit the News, but I am interested in how you think. E.g. did I misunderstand that you are interested in locating the precise quantitative boundaries of Systems I vs II? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27489329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27489329

mistermann 2y ago
> Ego quoque, for misunderstanding what you meant by "certain things" (>) > I stress that I manifestly do not want to see physicists and tech bros publish bio-meta-how-tos just yet, did you mean high quality professionally conducted BSL training? How to say....more like curiosity about, and the pursuit of correctness (or at least, accurate representation) of affairs within the metaphysical realm. Something like "Enlightenment 2.0 - The Final Chapter" lol > I think exploring the Taoist metaphysics of marginally injurious mutual surprise as an epsilon over Buddhist tainted reinterpretations could be at most a waste of time. As a Taoist, I am very interested in whether you're interested in the truth value of this belief (and if so, to what degree). (Or were you perhaps using ambiguous language deliberately, for fun: "could be" could be a reference to a subset of the whole, or the whole itself....which did you mean? edit: "at most" seems to imply the whole?) > And what's more, I can vouch that he's not a physicist, not even vicariously. Can I trust you though? > Okay so give me an example of an interesting ideology, as opposed to merely a conspiracy theory, such as "applying skepticism to your own beliefs" ) Ok: I am interested in ~"Non-binary, Comprehensive Truth". Not only is it interesting (to me), it is essentially blasphemous in Western Culture, 2024, so much so that I suspect it may lead to me getting banned from this forum some day (I've certainly been given fair warning at least, so "no one to blame but myself"). > as opposed to merely a conspiracy theory, such as "applying skepticism to your own beliefs" As a Conspiracy Theorist and a Pedant, I lol'd. What a great start to the day!! > I could hit the News, but I am interested in how you think. Me too! I am extremely curious about what "thinking" is". I suspect it is quite other than what it seems to be, and is told to be (pardon the redundancy). > E.g. did I misunderstand that you are interested in locating the precise quantitative boundaries of Systems I vs II? I take a more vague perspective: I am interested in the nature of the distinction, and ways we could optimize it (individually and collectively). If you think about it, our current era (in the Blinded by Science and destroying our ecosystem as a consequence Western World at least) is fascinating: one one hand the humans have extensive knowledge that thinking is what separates us from other (known) life forms on the planet, and yet we pay it essentially no mind (at least at the public level...I suspect what goes on behind closed doors, perhaps within various Three Letter Agencies, perhaps elsewhere, is very different. But then that sort of thing is a conspiracy theory, and we all know what that means epistemically). I often what would happen if we were to do otherwise. But how to accomplish such a thing? How to even desire to try?
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > what "thinking" is A question, does thinking necessarily involve inference? "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal." probably counts as thinking in anyone's model? Does "four legs good, two legs bad" count as thinking? What about "I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard"?
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > A question, does thinking necessarily involve inference? That would depend on the scope/context, which you did not specify. :) But on average (especially if one drops the "necessarily" constraint, but even if not): yes, very much so.
aebtebeten 2y ago
> he's not a physicist, not even vicariously Upon reflection, I do share the physicists' annoying-to-everyone-else habit of believing I can take subjects upon which books worth of ink have been spilled, do some Procrustean projection, and address them (to zeroth order, anyway?) reasonably with dozens of symbols. Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/
- mistermann 2y ago
  Physics is almost entirely deterministic (the exception being quantum mechanics, which seems just short of it). Metaphysics on the other hand seems to not only be not deterministic, it is often the opposite of it (at least at the level we can discern, though there is no consensus on levels or perspectives). > address them...reasonably Is there an implicit epistemic assertion here, or are you using these terms colloquially (as most physicists / scientists do in my experience)?
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    defo colloquially, because (in the tradition of M Jourdain) I'm ignorant of how one might even make an epistemic assertion thus? When I say "[I] address subjects reasonably", I guess I'm trying to implicitly communicate a few things: (a) if I gave you a model of a large rock, and you find something physical that can be mapped onto what I claim to be a large rock, and thereupon proceed to kick it, then no matter what your (or my) epistemic views "reasonably" suggests the model predicts that your foot will hurt before long. (b) this model is continuous: the "easier" it is to map your bundle of sense-perceptions onto my ideal rock, the "better" my theoretical prediction of pedal pain will hold up in practice. (c) pace James, "you get what you pay for": given that it took you seconds or minutes to understand the cheap and cheerful model, don't expect it to make better predictions than another model that takes days or years to understand. for an example of very small models, see the algebraic metaphysics in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 (do we have a set of models that are the equivalent of the feed store "gimme cap"?)
    - 2y ago

mistermann 2y ago

> Ego quoque, for misunderstanding what you meant by "certain things" (>) > I stress that I manifestly do not want to see physicists and tech bros publish bio-meta-how-tos just yet, did you mean high quality professionally conducted BSL training? How to say....more like curiosity about, and the pursuit of correctness (or at least, accurate representation) of affairs within the metaphysical realm. Something like "Enlightenment 2.0 - The Final Chapter" lol > I think exploring the Taoist metaphysics of marginally injurious mutual surprise as an epsilon over Buddhist tainted reinterpretations could be at most a waste of time. As a Taoist, I am very interested in whether you're interested in the truth value of this belief (and if so, to what degree). (Or were you perhaps using ambiguous language deliberately, for fun: "could be" could be a reference to a subset of the whole, or the whole itself....which did you mean? edit: "at most" seems to imply the whole?) > And what's more, I can vouch that he's not a physicist, not even vicariously. Can I trust you though? > Okay so give me an example of an interesting ideology, as opposed to merely a conspiracy theory, such as "applying skepticism to your own beliefs" ) Ok: I am interested in ~"Non-binary, Comprehensive Truth". Not only is it interesting (to me), it is essentially blasphemous in Western Culture, 2024, so much so that I suspect it may lead to me getting banned from this forum some day (I've certainly been given fair warning at least, so "no one to blame but myself"). > as opposed to merely a conspiracy theory, such as "applying skepticism to your own beliefs" As a Conspiracy Theorist and a Pedant, I lol'd. What a great start to the day!! > I could hit the News, but I am interested in how you think. Me too! I am extremely curious about what "thinking" is". I suspect it is quite other than what it seems to be, and is told to be (pardon the redundancy). > E.g. did I misunderstand that you are interested in locating the precise quantitative boundaries of Systems I vs II? I take a more vague perspective: I am interested in the nature of the distinction, and ways we could optimize it (individually and collectively). If you think about it, our current era (in the Blinded by Science and destroying our ecosystem as a consequence Western World at least) is fascinating: one one hand the humans have extensive knowledge that thinking is what separates us from other (known) life forms on the planet, and yet we pay it essentially no mind (at least at the public level...I suspect what goes on behind closed doors, perhaps within various Three Letter Agencies, perhaps elsewhere, is very different. But then that sort of thing is a conspiracy theory, and we all know what that means epistemically). I often what would happen if we were to do otherwise. But how to accomplish such a thing? How to even desire to try?

082349872349872 2y ago
> what "thinking" is A question, does thinking necessarily involve inference? "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal." probably counts as thinking in anyone's model? Does "four legs good, two legs bad" count as thinking? What about "I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard"?
- mistermann 2y ago
  > A question, does thinking necessarily involve inference? That would depend on the scope/context, which you did not specify. :) But on average (especially if one drops the "necessarily" constraint, but even if not): yes, very much so.

aebtebeten 2y ago

> he's not a physicist, not even vicariously Upon reflection, I do share the physicists' annoying-to-everyone-else habit of believing I can take subjects upon which books worth of ink have been spilled, do some Procrustean projection, and address them (to zeroth order, anyway?) reasonably with dozens of symbols. Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/793/ https://xkcd.com/793/

mistermann 2y ago
Physics is almost entirely deterministic (the exception being quantum mechanics, which seems just short of it). Metaphysics on the other hand seems to not only be not deterministic, it is often the opposite of it (at least at the level we can discern, though there is no consensus on levels or perspectives). > address them...reasonably Is there an implicit epistemic assertion here, or are you using these terms colloquially (as most physicists / scientists do in my experience)?
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  defo colloquially, because (in the tradition of M Jourdain) I'm ignorant of how one might even make an epistemic assertion thus? When I say "[I] address subjects reasonably", I guess I'm trying to implicitly communicate a few things: (a) if I gave you a model of a large rock, and you find something physical that can be mapped onto what I claim to be a large rock, and thereupon proceed to kick it, then no matter what your (or my) epistemic views "reasonably" suggests the model predicts that your foot will hurt before long. (b) this model is continuous: the "easier" it is to map your bundle of sense-perceptions onto my ideal rock, the "better" my theoretical prediction of pedal pain will hold up in practice. (c) pace James, "you get what you pay for": given that it took you seconds or minutes to understand the cheap and cheerful model, don't expect it to make better predictions than another model that takes days or years to understand. for an example of very small models, see the algebraic metaphysics in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475 (do we have a set of models that are the equivalent of the feed store "gimme cap"?)
  - 2y ago