psysharp

5 ms·

1.
by psysharp 4y ago
Since we are explaining ourselves, the best confabulation is all we can strive to achieve.
2.
by psysharp 4y ago
Exactly, memories aren't immutable, and every visit are bound to have a side effect.
3.
by psysharp 5y ago
When a problem is new and fresh for each participant, pairing can be a great tool to connect with both the problem and each other's innate skillset, IMO.
4.
by psysharp 5y ago
Absolutely. Then the question becomes: when is something fully processed - and to which degree is a person inclined to explore the depths of a concept? What is the limit that decides when depth is no longer valuable?
5.
by psysharp 5y ago
Good question, maybe because time is tangible and measurable? I don't know
6.
by psysharp 5y ago
If you had the choice understand the concept 10 times slower but in the end would come up with twice the amount of connections, would you consider it as something valuable? Yes I see how it would make life easier, but is that really a meani
7.
by psysharp 5y ago
Why do you think thinking fast is more important than thinking slowly?
8.
by psysharp 5y ago
No, it's abstractions of animal instincts, and that difference is huge.
9.
by psysharp 5y ago
"How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain" by Lisa Feldman Barrett should be considered for this list.
10.
by psysharp 5y ago
Holy shit the bias just reeks out of this paper.
11.
by psysharp 5y ago
Dude you have no information, I can't sincerely understand how you think you can have such detailed understanding of the situation.
12.
by psysharp 5y ago
It is not incorrect. In fact, your arguments aren't even mutually exclusive, depending on the context. One is not an individual or a group inherently, it is solely based on the concepts you are using to create the context.
13.
by psysharp 5y ago
There was a cultural agreement to not use those weapons. Back then the community had to create rules for the game.
14.
by psysharp 5y ago
The problem in the middle can also be explained by him treating your question as rhetorical instead of as an actual question
15.
by psysharp 6y ago
You are right, species are discovered when in reference to our defined concept of what it means to be a spiece, that is a structure with all other spiecies. However it's name is an invention, as all definitions are invented. Yes the so
16.
by psysharp 6y ago
> and made me actually me. I've been an addict and dude you sound like an addict
17.
by psysharp 6y ago
That ritalin and other stimulant medicines is available for kids will go down in the history books as an episode of insanity. There is absolutely no good that comes out of it and future peers will just be glad they didn't have to go t
18.
by psysharp 6y ago
If you reference it to the world and its inherent chaos it is an invention. If you reference it to a structure with labels and a finite number of alterations it is a discovery of a part of that structure
19.
by psysharp 6y ago
Well be can begin with defining leader. Can't you say that a leader is one element of the group who is more intuned to regulate the stress levels of the group, and by having one the group can operate more efficiently? Isn't it inf
20.
by psysharp 6y ago
> More generally your goal should be not to let anything into your head unexamined. I can accept this way of reasoning if 'unexamined' is not directly linked to attention. The brain consistently tries to automate thoughts/
21.
by psysharp 6y ago
I don’t know what speech tech will be good for, probably a lot of things, but typing I think will remain as the preferred mode of communication indefinitely. It is already the more sophisticated approach. Using speech is kind of trying to u
22.
by psysharp 6y ago
I see an issue in the web industry that there is sometimes an economical incentive to maintain a solution with technical debt. Just ponder the idea that you hire a bunch of contractors to build you a house, and then you keep them on payroll
23.
by psysharp 6y ago
Well you’d be lucky if you were able to define your goals as such that psychedelics or meditation were attributed as productive, instead of in many ways the polar opposite of amphetamines, I think.
24.
by psysharp 6y ago
The reason trivial tasks appears challenging is because on LSD you are trying to solve those tasks with different neural connections than usual. That can be incredibly confusing if you don’t introspect about it. Some tasks are difficult or