Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[DaveDodo007]

Yeah, the fact that he aligns with Seth is enough evidence in itself that he lacks reasoning abilities. Even without the addition of his drunken rants.

How do I align with Seth,

Jesus, Dave, you can't even remember what you posted only days ago. You've aligned your self with him with the same "I'm the only rationalist in the room" bollocks.

What I want to know is how do people like that wind up at rationalist sites and despite the fact that no other rationalists agree with them they have the belief that they are the rationalist and thousands of others are irrational? I reckon they suffer under the same mental problems that conspiracy theorists suffer. A total disconnect with reality. Fuck, I wish there was somewhere we could hang out without having to listen to these clowns.

and there you have it Ladies and Gentlemen, rEv wants a rational forum that agrees with him.

No, I just want a rational forum where people who are obviously irrational are somewhere else.

How is that even possible, wouldn't you have to negate the laws of physics or something. How did you even get a temporary ban at ratskep? I'm just surprised that they didn't make you king mod of the echo chamber. Then you could have banned anyone who wasn't an rEvist.

It's a shame you can't parse simple English words and phrases, Dave. It would probably solve a lot of your forum problems.

So you have given up on the creationist arguments and now myt injlest is toze badz toe undsterzant. Not sure that is any better, mind.

[Mr.Samsa]

I have only read a couple of essays from him which I didn't always agree on but that is a good quote.

He's basically the new internet crank, I guess taking over from the TimeCube guy.

So don't keep us hanging, care to elaborate or is it wrong because you don't like it.

Why not both? I guess I don't like it because it's so wrong. But more seriously it's the shitty "just-so" stories that people who know nothing about evolution find so convincing. He just presupposes that political stances are biological and hereditary, states that they developed in a rigid form that is only suited to the times our ancestors lived in, and then uses those massive assumptions to reach the conclusion that that's why discussions of politics today are so troublesome.

In reality we have no reason to think that our views of politics are biological in the sense that he requires and instead they're clearly higher-order phenomena that come about from more domain-general processes, so rather than being the rigid time-specific forms that he believes them to be, they are themselves adaptations to the environments we find ourselves in.

The last part about in-group biases is kind of correct but he overstates his case (obviously not all people are so black and white, the thing he's describing really only applies to extremists on each side), and he just tries to fluff up an otherwise trivial comment in flowery unnecessary language to make it seem like he's saying something more profound than he actually is.

[DaveDodo007]

I have only read a couple of essays from him which I didn't always agree on but that is a good quote.

He's basically the new internet crank, I guess taking over from the TimeCube guy.

So don't keep us hanging, care to elaborate or is it wrong because you don't like it.

Why not both? I guess I don't like it because it's so wrong. But more seriously it's the shitty "just-so" stories that people who know nothing about evolution find so convincing. He just presupposes that political stances are biological and hereditary, states that they developed in a rigid form that is only suited to the times our ancestors lived in, and then uses those massive assumptions to reach the conclusion that that's why discussions of politics today are so troublesome.

In reality we have no reason to think that our views of politics are biological in the sense that he requires and instead they're clearly higher-order phenomena that come about from more domain-general processes, so rather than being the rigid time-specific forms that he believes them to be, they are themselves adaptations to the environments we find ourselves in.

The last part about in-group biases is kind of correct but he overstates his case (obviously not all people are so black and white, the thing he's describing really only applies to extremists on each side), and he just tries to fluff up an otherwise trivial comment in flowery unnecessary language to make it seem like he's saying something more profound than he actually is.

I have no time for evolutionary psychology and have called it out on this very forum but claiming we are not part of some biological determinism is akin to claiming we have free will. Are you seriousy claiming that people's political opinions are reached through analytical thought and not just emotional/peer pressure?

[pErvinalia]

Can you not fucking read??

"...[views of politics] are themselves adaptations to the environments we find ourselves in. "

[DaveDodo007]

Can you not fucking read??

"...[views of politics] are themselves adaptations to the environments we find ourselves in. "

Erm.. So you are agreeing with me in such an aggressive tone as to be seen to disagree with me.

[pErvinalia]

"emotional/peer pressure" is part of "the environments we find ourselves in". So no, I'm not agreeing with you in regards to the point I am making. I am fucking refuting your strawman. If you think we are in agreement on this point, then you are refuting yourself.

And in addition to your strawman fallacy, you are presenting a false dichotomy fallacy as well. Why does it have to be either rationality or "emotional/peer pressure"? Why can't it be a mix of both??

[Mr.Samsa]

I have no time for evolutionary psychology and have called it out on this very forum but claiming we are not part of some biological determinism is akin to claiming we have free will. Are you seriousy claiming that people's political opinions are reached through analytical thought and not just emotional/peer pressure?

There are so many odd assumptions here that I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me as it seems to have little relevance to what I wrote. In case you did mean to respond to me, I'll try to clarify some points:

1) I haven't denied that biology plays a role. My claim is that it doesn't play the specific role that Eliezer needs it to. In other words, general biological functions or predispositions might lead us to a particular conclusion or behavior but that's not the same as saying that something is an evolutionary adaptation, which is a more restricted type of behavior.

2) even if my claim made implications about the existence of free will (it doesn't), that's not a problem. There are a number of good arguments in favour of free will and the acceptance or rejection of determinism doesn't necessarily have any relevance at all.

3) where did the distinction between analytic and emotional reasoning come from? You seem to be conflating analytic with "non-biological" and emotional with "biological" when there's no reason to think that. Rejecting that there is a specific evolutionary adaptation towards political stances does not mean political stances are carefully reasoned out.

[DaveDodo007]

I have no time for evolutionary psychology and have called it out on this very forum but claiming we are not part of some biological determinism is akin to claiming we have free will. Are you seriousy claiming that people's political opinions are reached through analytical thought and not just emotional/peer pressure?

There are so many odd assumptions here that I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me as it seems to have little relevance to what I wrote. In case you did mean to respond to me, I'll try to clarify some points:

1) I haven't denied that biology plays a role. My claim is that it doesn't play the specific role that Eliezer needs it to. In other words, general biological functions or predispositions might lead us to a particular conclusion or behavior but that's not the same as saying that something is an evolutionary adaptation, which is a more restricted type of behavior.

2) even if my claim made implications about the existence of free will (it doesn't), that's not a problem. There are a number of good arguments in favour of free will and the acceptance or rejection of determinism doesn't necessarily have any relevance at all.

3) where did the distinction between analytic and emotional reasoning come from? You seem to be conflating analytic with "non-biological" and emotional with "biological" when there's no reason to think that. Rejecting that there is a specific evolutionary adaptation towards political stances does not mean political stances are carefully reasoned out.

Intelligent response and I will get back to you when I have more time and it isn't stupid o'clock where I'm at.

[surreptitious57]

I feel every time I read something from him I get a little bit dumber

Well what do you think about his Twelve Virtues Of Rationality then

[Mr.Samsa]

Well what do you think about his Twelve Virtues Of Rationality then

Most of it is a bunch of self-indulgent wank, like this: "The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can". Just say "Be willing to change your mind" for fuck's sake. I don't need an essay to explain that simple concept.

And other parts are just blatantly false: "The sixth virtue is empiricism. The roots of knowledge are in observation and its fruit is prediction". I guess mathematics doesn't provide any knowledge then. And of course he has to add wank to being wrong: "What tree grows without roots? What tree nourishes us without fruit? If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? One says, “Yes it does, for it makes vibrations in the air.” Another says, “No it does not, for there is no auditory processing in any brain.” Though they argue, one saying “Yes”, and one saying “No”, the two do not anticipate any different experience of the forest. Do not ask which beliefs to profess, but which experiences to anticipate. Always know which difference of experience you argue about. Do not let the argument wander and become about something else, such as someone’s virtue as a rationalist. Jerry Cleaver said: “What does you in is not failure to apply some high-level, intricate, complicated technique. It’s overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the ball.” Do not be blinded by words. When words are subtracted, anticipation remains".

[Scott1328]

I think I got diabetes reading those quotes.

[JimC]

Hell of a lot of dope was smoked in the making of those quoted words...

[Mr.Samsa]

I think I got diabetes reading those quotes.

He wrote a Harry Potter fanfic where Harry is a boy chosen to begin a quest of becoming rational called "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" and the quest begins and ends with: "Let's use science to test it". For like 122 fucking chapters.

His cult following also created a kind of hell for themselves called "Roko's Basilisk" which essentially states that one day in the future an AI will be created that is so powerful that it could recreate past events by retracing the causal events and can in theory recreate someone's entire life, personality, feelings, etc. The AI will then decide to punish anyone that didn't help in its creation by recreating those people and subjecting them to eternal torment, and this applies to people who hear the term "Roko's basilisk" and do nothing to aid its creation. There was so much panic and anger at the creation of this idea among the members (because hearing about it meant they were doomed) that Eliezer had to step in and ban all mention of it on his network. Which I guess means he's super doomed.

And these are the paragons of rationality in the world today.

[Brian Peacock]

But aren't we all like a lonely raven lost in the fog of our own desires, wondering if that fog's passing will leave a damp patch upon the sheets of the bed of reason?

[pErvinalia]