6 ms·

A bit off topic, but about commencement speeches... Marvin Minsky spoke at my graduation. It was around the time when it seemed like genetic therapies might s

by lokar 5mo ago

A bit off topic, but about commencement speeches... Marvin Minsky spoke at my graduation. It was around the time when it seemed like genetic therapies might solve all kinds of problems, and there was a big debate, moral objections, etc. Most of the talk was a rambling rant against religion holding us back from scientific improvements to life. It did not go over in the mostly christian crowd. I loved it.

kakacik 5mo ago
Its not a rambling but sad fact of life, one of the failures of mankind so far. And we don't need to talk about some backwater 3rd world country (actually we do) - US has big issues allowing basic science to be taught to kids, because of some set of stories and anecdotes from various people gathered over centuries together about some potential events around one mason who started yet another sect 2k years ago, and they guard it with fanatical zeal to the last word, regardless how misguided and contradictory some of it is. When society fails to deliver even basic known and proven truths to its most vulnerable, then don't be surprised that same people are later trivially manipulated into believing into many simply untrue things and behave accordingly ie in voting, to their own direct detriment.
- lokar 5mo ago
  Rambling in the sense of not being well prepared, like he had an idea and some points to hit, but not a script. The content was good, for me.
- amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
  I just yesterday watched a scathing video about why the US has always had a major strain of anti-intellectualism, starting from the very first colonists: https://youtu.be/j9MubNsh3rs?si=wpG1YLDz_Y9cOECQ https://youtu.be/j9MubNsh3rs?si=wpG1YLDz_Y9cOECQ
  - ethbr1 5mo ago
    I feel like I wasted 25 min watching that (at 2x). If your thesis is "The US was founded on anti-intellectual principles" and your only supporting facts are: - Some of the early colonists were religiously-driven - The inconvenient examples otherwise (e.g. the Enlightenment-influenced founders) can be ignored because some people at the time disliked them - Some presidents since have been populists Then that's a weak argument. ... and also, that could have been a 15 min video without the histrionics.
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      You missed the education related points. Different strokes. I found it extremely entertaining.
      - registeredcorn 5mo ago
        >I found it extremely entertaining. Forgive me for being nitpicky, but I think that is the entire point that they were making. Entertaining, but not informative. Fun, but not well-argued. Example: I can be extremely engaged while listening to a stand-up comedian deliver an anecdote about why they believe what they believe. It can be incredibly interesting, engaging, and well put. It is not, however, an argument which supports their assertions, but merely a conduit which makes that position more palatable. Insight is often dreary and frustratingly complex in terms of nuance and substance because what matters is everything, and what doesn't makes headlines. Entertainment is a broad stroke of a premise; a hand wave that says "like this".
        johnnyanmac 5mo ago
        Let me nitpick the nitpick: we're in an attention economy and it's all to easy to have something salient dismissed with TLDR/TLDW. A more cursory glance that makes it easier to ease into a concept is more important than the subject matter expert making an ironclad argument that no one reads. In the context of the internet forum, that was an appropriate video to post.
        5mo ago
  - godelski 5mo ago
    Asimov wrote about it[0], and talked about it quite a bit. So did Sagan. If you haven't watched Cosmos in awhile it might hit a little different these days, for multiple reasons (not all bad). The book is great too. Not to mention Sagan wrote "The Demon Haunted World". There's a new form and an old form of this same thing happening today too. We have flat earthers, but other cults too. One of the common features of this cult of ignorance: having a little knowledge and thinking it is much more general. We all know those people who read a sentence or two and extrapolate. This happens all the time. Even in flat earthers. It's often seeking evidence to support the prior belief rather than updating that belief. Updating that belief can either strengthen the belief it weaken it. But if you're seeking truth you need you be willing to throw your beliefs out the window. Resistance to that is ego [0] https://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ https://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
- prewett 5mo ago
  Religion is a lot broader than Christian fundamentalism and zealots. It's sort of like applied philosophy: how do you live a flourishing life in relationship to other people and to the god(s). Modernity has an implicit materialist worldview (matter is all that is) and an explicit rejection of the divine. However, if matter is all there is, then there is no meaning in the world. This is not a way to flourish in the world. (And if we cannot flourish with materialist consequences, that is some evidence that the materialist assumption is incorrect.) So religion is not just some silly, backwater thing, and Marx was absolutely wrong. The Christian fundamentalism you decry is the shriveled remains of a branch of Christianity that failed to protect itself from drying out in the heat of modernity. Fundamentalism is actually a reaction against modernity, but the East/West split cut off part of the philosophical richness, and the Protestant reformation cut off most of the rest of the philosophical richness, as well as the pathway to the mystical/transcendent. The Fundamentalists couldn't separate the indisputable truths of materialist analysis (Science) from the assumptions necessary for that analysis (materialism), and so they just rejected both. (Except, not really; they live as functional materialists with an exception for God.)
  - BobaFloutist 5mo ago
    >However, if matter is all there is, then there is no meaning in the world. This is not a way to flourish in the world. Things like this really make it hard, as an atheist, to receive the argument that my problem is with Christianity, and not with religion. You're saying that my beliefs mean there's no meaning, and are incompatible with flourishing in the world. I understand you feel the need to defend your beliefs as valuable and important, but somehow it seems almost impossible for religious people to do so without denigrating atheism. And yes, a lot of atheists are dismissive of religion too. But look, I'll show you: I personally don't find religion necessary to live an ethical and fulfilling life, but I understand that many people find it valuable and compelling, and that's ok as long as they let other people live their lives too. I think people can be intelligent, rational, and respectful of the beliefs of others, while still maintaining their own religious beliefs. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
    - partyficial 5mo ago
- b00ty4breakfast 5mo ago
  there is a specific, very modern strain of mostly anglosphere protestant christian religion that can hinder intellectual progress. When I say "very modern" I mean within the last 2-300 years. Most of intellectual history in post-Roman Europe is linked to religious institutions. countless philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were clergy or members of religious orders. The conflict thesis is, at best, a reaction to this modernist milieu and at worst an ahistorical narrative cooked up by 19th century edgelords. (inb4 "MUH GALLEY LEGO TRIAL!")
rvz 5mo ago
> Marvin Minsky spoke at my graduation. I don't know about mentioning that one.
- justin66 5mo ago
  He’s a seminal figure!
  - chabes 5mo ago
    Eww, I see what you did there
  - LogicFailsMe 5mo ago
    Now why'd you'd have to ejaculate that into the conversation? Anyway, Minsky, perceptrons, great debunking of AI hype at the time, but a horrible person, ya know, just like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov. https://www.christopherkremmer.com/post/to-sir-with-love https://www.christopherkremmer.com/post/to-sir-with-love https://web.archive.org/web/20240519113411/https://skepchick.org/2020/01/quickies-the-harm-of-isaac-asimov/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240519113411/https://skepchick... Anyway, they're all dead. Can we move on? Although I remain astonished that Foundation got made when they cancelled Sandman and Good Omens after Neil Gaiman turned out to be pretty awful too. Maybe you have to still be alive to matter? What exactly are the rules here? I am so confused by this.
    - justin66 5mo ago
      I believe the remains of Asimov's literary legacy are probably managed by his daughter along with an agent. Presumably most of the money goes to her too, but I have no idea. In any case she always seemed nice enough.
      - LogicFailsMe 5mo ago
        So when Roman Polanski finally dies, all his works will be okay given they're managed by a non-offending descendant?
chabes 5mo ago
[flagged]
- chabes 5mo ago
  Downvoting won’t hide the truth. Y’all are welcome to offer a counterpoint, and yet…
- LordDragonfang 5mo ago
  A glance at Wikipedia shows that this is somewhere between misleading overstatement and gross hyperbole, and under contention besides.
  - chabes 5mo ago
    It was in the DOJ releases https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022133.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA000221...
- lokar 5mo ago
  Is there much direct evidence of sexual misconduct vs just influence peddling? FWIW, I found: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-anand-giridharadas.html?unlocked_article_code=1.klA.wZCj.j7ujT5Y4uAx8&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... An interesting listen on this world (which I assume goes way beyond Epstein (sans sex trafficking) in elite circles) of favors, status seeking and influence peddling between cultural, academic, political and financial elites.
  - chabes 5mo ago
    Yes https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022133.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA000221... There are graphic descriptions in Virginia Giuffre’s diary entries as well.

by lokar 5mo ago

kakacik 5mo ago

Its not a rambling but sad fact of life, one of the failures of mankind so far. And we don't need to talk about some backwater 3rd world country (actually we do) - US has big issues allowing basic science to be taught to kids, because of some set of stories and anecdotes from various people gathered over centuries together about some potential events around one mason who started yet another sect 2k years ago, and they guard it with fanatical zeal to the last word, regardless how misguided and contradictory some of it is. When society fails to deliver even basic known and proven truths to its most vulnerable, then don't be surprised that same people are later trivially manipulated into believing into many simply untrue things and behave accordingly ie in voting, to their own direct detriment.

lokar 5mo ago
Rambling in the sense of not being well prepared, like he had an idea and some points to hit, but not a script. The content was good, for me.
amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
I just yesterday watched a scathing video about why the US has always had a major strain of anti-intellectualism, starting from the very first colonists: https://youtu.be/j9MubNsh3rs?si=wpG1YLDz_Y9cOECQ https://youtu.be/j9MubNsh3rs?si=wpG1YLDz_Y9cOECQ
- ethbr1 5mo ago
  I feel like I wasted 25 min watching that (at 2x). If your thesis is "The US was founded on anti-intellectual principles" and your only supporting facts are: - Some of the early colonists were religiously-driven - The inconvenient examples otherwise (e.g. the Enlightenment-influenced founders) can be ignored because some people at the time disliked them - Some presidents since have been populists Then that's a weak argument. ... and also, that could have been a 15 min video without the histrionics.
  - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
    You missed the education related points. Different strokes. I found it extremely entertaining.
    - registeredcorn 5mo ago
      >I found it extremely entertaining. Forgive me for being nitpicky, but I think that is the entire point that they were making. Entertaining, but not informative. Fun, but not well-argued. Example: I can be extremely engaged while listening to a stand-up comedian deliver an anecdote about why they believe what they believe. It can be incredibly interesting, engaging, and well put. It is not, however, an argument which supports their assertions, but merely a conduit which makes that position more palatable. Insight is often dreary and frustratingly complex in terms of nuance and substance because what matters is everything, and what doesn't makes headlines. Entertainment is a broad stroke of a premise; a hand wave that says "like this".
      - johnnyanmac 5mo ago
        Let me nitpick the nitpick: we're in an attention economy and it's all to easy to have something salient dismissed with TLDR/TLDW. A more cursory glance that makes it easier to ease into a concept is more important than the subject matter expert making an ironclad argument that no one reads. In the context of the internet forum, that was an appropriate video to post.
        5mo ago
- godelski 5mo ago
  Asimov wrote about it[0], and talked about it quite a bit. So did Sagan. If you haven't watched Cosmos in awhile it might hit a little different these days, for multiple reasons (not all bad). The book is great too. Not to mention Sagan wrote "The Demon Haunted World". There's a new form and an old form of this same thing happening today too. We have flat earthers, but other cults too. One of the common features of this cult of ignorance: having a little knowledge and thinking it is much more general. We all know those people who read a sentence or two and extrapolate. This happens all the time. Even in flat earthers. It's often seeking evidence to support the prior belief rather than updating that belief. Updating that belief can either strengthen the belief it weaken it. But if you're seeking truth you need you be willing to throw your beliefs out the window. Resistance to that is ego [0] https://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ https://aphelis.net/cult-ignorance-isaac-asimov-1980/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
prewett 5mo ago
Religion is a lot broader than Christian fundamentalism and zealots. It's sort of like applied philosophy: how do you live a flourishing life in relationship to other people and to the god(s). Modernity has an implicit materialist worldview (matter is all that is) and an explicit rejection of the divine. However, if matter is all there is, then there is no meaning in the world. This is not a way to flourish in the world. (And if we cannot flourish with materialist consequences, that is some evidence that the materialist assumption is incorrect.) So religion is not just some silly, backwater thing, and Marx was absolutely wrong. The Christian fundamentalism you decry is the shriveled remains of a branch of Christianity that failed to protect itself from drying out in the heat of modernity. Fundamentalism is actually a reaction against modernity, but the East/West split cut off part of the philosophical richness, and the Protestant reformation cut off most of the rest of the philosophical richness, as well as the pathway to the mystical/transcendent. The Fundamentalists couldn't separate the indisputable truths of materialist analysis (Science) from the assumptions necessary for that analysis (materialism), and so they just rejected both. (Except, not really; they live as functional materialists with an exception for God.)
- BobaFloutist 5mo ago
  >However, if matter is all there is, then there is no meaning in the world. This is not a way to flourish in the world. Things like this really make it hard, as an atheist, to receive the argument that my problem is with Christianity, and not with religion. You're saying that my beliefs mean there's no meaning, and are incompatible with flourishing in the world. I understand you feel the need to defend your beliefs as valuable and important, but somehow it seems almost impossible for religious people to do so without denigrating atheism. And yes, a lot of atheists are dismissive of religion too. But look, I'll show you: I personally don't find religion necessary to live an ethical and fulfilling life, but I understand that many people find it valuable and compelling, and that's ok as long as they let other people live their lives too. I think people can be intelligent, rational, and respectful of the beliefs of others, while still maintaining their own religious beliefs. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
  - partyficial 5mo ago
b00ty4breakfast 5mo ago
there is a specific, very modern strain of mostly anglosphere protestant christian religion that can hinder intellectual progress. When I say "very modern" I mean within the last 2-300 years. Most of intellectual history in post-Roman Europe is linked to religious institutions. countless philosophers, mathematicians and scientists were clergy or members of religious orders. The conflict thesis is, at best, a reaction to this modernist milieu and at worst an ahistorical narrative cooked up by 19th century edgelords. (inb4 "MUH GALLEY LEGO TRIAL!")

rvz 5mo ago

> Marvin Minsky spoke at my graduation. I don't know about mentioning that one.

justin66 5mo ago
He’s a seminal figure!
- chabes 5mo ago
  Eww, I see what you did there
- LogicFailsMe 5mo ago
  Now why'd you'd have to ejaculate that into the conversation? Anyway, Minsky, perceptrons, great debunking of AI hype at the time, but a horrible person, ya know, just like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov. https://www.christopherkremmer.com/post/to-sir-with-love https://www.christopherkremmer.com/post/to-sir-with-love https://web.archive.org/web/20240519113411/https://skepchick.org/2020/01/quickies-the-harm-of-isaac-asimov/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240519113411/https://skepchick... Anyway, they're all dead. Can we move on? Although I remain astonished that Foundation got made when they cancelled Sandman and Good Omens after Neil Gaiman turned out to be pretty awful too. Maybe you have to still be alive to matter? What exactly are the rules here? I am so confused by this.
  - justin66 5mo ago
    I believe the remains of Asimov's literary legacy are probably managed by his daughter along with an agent. Presumably most of the money goes to her too, but I have no idea. In any case she always seemed nice enough.
    - LogicFailsMe 5mo ago
      So when Roman Polanski finally dies, all his works will be okay given they're managed by a non-offending descendant?

chabes 5mo ago

[flagged]

chabes 5mo ago
Downvoting won’t hide the truth. Y’all are welcome to offer a counterpoint, and yet…
LordDragonfang 5mo ago
A glance at Wikipedia shows that this is somewhere between misleading overstatement and gross hyperbole, and under contention besides.
- chabes 5mo ago
  It was in the DOJ releases https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022133.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA000221...
lokar 5mo ago
Is there much direct evidence of sexual misconduct vs just influence peddling? FWIW, I found: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-anand-giridharadas.html?unlocked_article_code=1.klA.wZCj.j7ujT5Y4uAx8&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... An interesting listen on this world (which I assume goes way beyond Epstein (sans sex trafficking) in elite circles) of favors, status seeking and influence peddling between cultural, academic, political and financial elites.
- chabes 5mo ago
  Yes https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022133.pdf https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA000221... There are graphic descriptions in Virginia Giuffre’s diary entries as well.