|
Literally The Worst posted:I laugh at this post uncontrollably every time despite disagreeing with it Cyber bullying is absolutely real. But someone describing how they would flip off Cingulate for being a pretentious nerd is not cyber bullying, so it's ok to agree with it this time, I think. 
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:By Google Trends and book sales, Hitchens is less popular than Dawkins or Harris. I mean I'm bordering on atheist but I really don't see a reason to spend all my time arguing that everybody else should mock people for their beliefs - I just wish that I could drink the kool-aid and give myself over to something that seems ludicrous to me at best... It would sure make life easier to believe that it's all a thin facade over the true reality that is that I'm entitled to eternal life and rewards on another plane of existence. It'd be cool as poo poo if I could believe that, but at best I just sort of decided to stand as a conscientious objector, and hope to get a chance to spit in God's eye for doing such a lovely job, if I ever die and find out that all the stuff I learned in bible school was actually true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Cyber bullying is absolutely real. But someone describing how they would flip off Cingulate for being a pretentious nerd is not cyber bullying, so it's ok to agree with it this time, I think. especially since it advises him to stop reading this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Buy a new account and maybe try to be a better poster next time around? coyo7e posted:Harris is a lot less aggressive than Hitchens and he is a regular on Joe Rogan's podcast, and a lot of other places where he can go to pick up more customers. He's got a good line about "having a belief in stuff that's 'spooky' " or something like that, to the point that the first time I heard him he seemed entirely reasonable. Then he got a bit gross and I realized he's just another anti-theist who seems to hold a grudge against religion as a whole. Public perception of Harris seems to me a lot harsher than of Hitchens. Harris is regularly mischaracterized as advocating for preemptive nuclear strikes on the muslim world, torture and all-out war. Hitchens had a much more abrasive style, but beyond style, Harris and him were largely aligned in the respective matters. Although my Hitchens fav, and the line of his that has gotten some of the most outraged, hysterical responses, is this one: Homosexuality is not just an act of sex, but an act of love. It's astonishing how a line like that can be an aggression! Much like, seemingly, claiming science does not know the purpose of sleep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Eh, Cingulate's main problem is that he wants to talk like a scientist in a thread where we mostly just want to laugh at assholes. So he ends up picking at teensy little nits that don't matter to the overall goal of "ha ha ha look at this dumb poo poo!" but would matter in an academic setting. It's just that most of us accept that there's tacit riders of things like "as far as we know" or whatever, and he hasn't figured that out. Uh, basically, Cing, you should probably resist the urge to post nitpicks here, because it just doesn't go well. I know it's difficult, but it's for the best. Just sit back and laugh at the terrible antics of DE idiots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Less aggressive how?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
The sleep posts are interesting and people should stop straining to whine about cingulate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:Eh, Cingulate's main problem is that he wants to talk like a scientist in a thread where we mostly just want to laugh at assholes. So he ends up picking at teensy little nits that don't matter to the overall goal of "ha ha ha look at this dumb poo poo!" but would matter in an academic setting. It's just that most of us accept that there's tacit riders of things like "as far as we know" or whatever, and he hasn't figured that out. I'm claiming, you're correct, with the exception of the tacit "as far as we know". People here are grossly overconfident in both their, and absolute, knowledge on subjects. ... was that a nitpick on my part?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:In his dialogue and arguments. I'm not saying he's less rabidly anti-theist however, he is really good at coming across as reasonable and respectful when he's got a captive audience and nobody to counter him. I haven't followed him enough to see how he acts when he sits down across from a theologian, but he's a lot less rabid-sounding when speaking to his own fan-base, than Hitchens was. One could question if that is just tone, and if his actual positions are unreasonable and lacking respect, of course. But Hitchens wasn't respectful even in tone, and yet he I think never got this extreme of a reaction from the left. (I think.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Cyber bullying is absolutely real. But someone describing how they would flip off Cingulate for being a pretentious nerd is not cyber bullying, so it's ok to agree with it this time, I think. no i mean i disagree with Tyler but the way he says it is for whatever reason the funniest poo poo gently caress cingulate though
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's a mostly plausible interpretation of what I'm doing and the general thread dynamics, but the other side of this is: when I said "as far as we know, the purpose of sleep is unclear", people got really upset. I'm sure almost all of my nitpicks actually are something of the form "actually, I wouldn't be sure of that" or "I think you're overconfident". If there was a tacit "as far as we know" in what I'm responding to, then it would be really easy to respond with "yeah, I meant that, you stupid pendant". But that is not the response. The response is "you're stupid, science clearly knows why people sleep". the purpose of sleep is to stop bein fuckin tired duh
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's a mostly plausible interpretation of what I'm doing and the general thread dynamics, but the other side of this is: when I said "as far as we know, the purpose of sleep is unclear", people got really upset. I'm sure almost all of my nitpicks actually are something of the form "actually, I wouldn't be sure of that" or "I think you're overconfident". If there was a tacit "as far as we know" in what I'm responding to, then it would be really easy to respond with "yeah, I meant that, you stupid pendant". But that is not the response. The response is "you're stupid, science clearly knows why people sleep". I think a part of the issue is also that you tend to present your replies in a pretty adversarial form, which may be either a cultural academic thing, or a cultural/linguistic thing (you're native German, IIRC?) Making more of an emphasis on "Yeah, that's probably true, but..." might help, except that a lot of people have already decided you're some kind of DE sympathizer, instead of just a garden variety gadfly. Like I think a lot of it is just a bunch of assumptions about motives, and you're not wrong, but it usually ends up being a dumb derail because you're ultimately making corrections and stuff that don't make a real difference to the discussion. I don't care too much about the derails, since they're usually interesting, just they get annoying when people get their dander up, and that might be a sign to quit engaging, if only because you're not going to convince someone who's pissed at you. And that's the end of my dumb Cingulate derail posting for now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
please no more giant metaposts, just laugh at DE people and have derails on interesting science
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:no i mean i disagree with Tyler but the way he says it is for whatever reason the funniest poo poo I got what you meant, I was just saying (mostly as a joke), that you don't need to feel as bad for laughing at it this time because, you know, gently caress cingulate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Yudkowsky fellation in Scientific American Blogs. None of his opinions have changed in the years since the Sequences. He's also kind enough to directly state that giving him money for AI pseudoscience is ridiculously more important than mosquito nets, you plebs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:I think a part of the issue is also that you tend to present your replies in a pretty adversarial form, which may be either a cultural academic thing, or a cultural/linguistic thing (you're native German, IIRC?) Making more of an emphasis on "Yeah, that's probably true, but..." might help, except that a lot of people have already decided you're some kind of DE sympathizer, instead of just a garden variety gadfly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
divabot posted:Yudkowsky fellation in Scientific American Blogs. None of his opinions have changed in the years since the Sequences. He's also kind enough to directly state that giving him money for AI pseudoscience is ridiculously more important than mosquito nets, you plebs. The comments on that are hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
divabot posted:Yudkowsky fellation in Scientific American Blogs. None of his opinions have changed in the years since the Sequences. He's also kind enough to directly state that giving him money for AI pseudoscience is ridiculously more important than mosquito nets, you plebs. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The comments on that are hilarious.  Imagine I had posted that 100x. However: A commenter posted:As David Deutschs points out, 'you put a probability on events, not theories'. Bayesianism is a way of reasoning about sensory data or 'events' - probabilities assigned to possible outcomes are basically equivalent to 'predictions' about what's going to happen next. This works well for reasoning about events, but not for reasoning about theories (models). (Although normatively speaking, I agree.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wouldn't call that fellatio. He's treating Yud as an interesting crank.  The resemblance is uncanny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Science fact: nobody knows what sleep is good for, to the extent that we can't even exclude that you could do completely without. There was a neat story on NPR about some waves that travel across your brain while you sleep that slightly reduce the "connectedness" of neurons, so that stuff you practiced and learned really well remains but all the little bullshit of the day basically fades into the noise floor, that seems like a pretty useful sleep thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:There was a neat story on NPR about some waves that travel across your brain while you sleep that slightly reduce the "connectedness" of neurons, so that stuff you practiced and learned really well remains but all the little bullshit of the day basically fades into the noise floor, that seems like a pretty useful sleep thing. Yes: we know a number of things that the body does during sleep, a bunch of house keeping. What we do not know is 1. something that happens only (enough) during sleep so that if you would not get to sleep, you'd die, 2. why these things only, or preferentially, occur during sleep. For example, as you mention, sleep really, really helps with memory consolidation (and sleep spindles have been shown to be an important component of this - like, if you count how many of them occur, that's actually a half-decent predictor of how much your memory consolidates over night), but you can also obviously learn stuff without having gone to sleep. And we don't know why sleep spindles shouldn't also occur while you're awake (although there are some ideas). Sleep has proved a surprisingly hard mystery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:but you can also obviously learn stuff without having gone to sleep. Can you? You know that for sure? How are defining "learn" in this case? What are average retention rates across a 24 hour period, or 48 hours, or a week for people that have slept vs those that haven't?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Can you? You know that for sure? How are defining "learn" in this case? What are average retention rates across a 24 hour period, or 48 hours, or a week for people that have slept vs those that haven't?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
This sleep derail is interesting as hell. Does anybody know why sleep deprivation causes hallucinations?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Look it up yourself. Jenkins & Dallenbach 1924, American J of Psychology If you don't know yourself, just say so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
divabot posted:Yudkowsky fellation in Scientific American Blogs. None of his opinions have changed in the years since the Sequences. He's also kind enough to directly state that giving him money for AI pseudoscience is ridiculously more important than mosquito nets, you plebs. Wow, I totally disagree that nothing has changed! Look at how aware he is of the problems with his confident predictions of the future. This is a man who once planned out an entire path to the singularity, believing that he had cracked the whole of it, and that the answer was a new programming language based on XML. He says all sorts of things that indicate his confidence level is lower: he talks about how lack of certainty implies a wide interval of credible guesses, which is a hell of a lot less strong a statement than "I will build it, and it will take less than ten years". He diverges with his past self on a number of issues: for instance, although it was always Hanson who loved the idea of emulated minds, Yudkowsky went along with it; here he rightly dismisses the idea as "underspecified". That's well done. He's still a crank, still wasting money, still not producing a drat thing, but the crank depicted in that article is way closer to the same reality that most AI researchers live in than the author of the sequences was. E: I mean, still not *very* close. For instance, if you ever want to piss him off you should ask him what he means by 'intelligence'. I guarantee he'll produce a long stream of words to try to hide the fact that he has no clue. SolTerrasa has a new favorite as of 10:41 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
Everytime I see anything about this dude I laugh pretty hard. He's like the perfect pastiche of the Sci-fi fan that wants it to be real
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:This is a man who once planned out an entire path to the singularity, believing that he had cracked the whole of it, and that the answer was a new programming language based on XML
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
On the actual subject of the dark enlightenment, apparently Aurini's YouTube channel got shut down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
What was the charge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sleep spindles. Honestly I only brought it up because I figured you'd know what they were and knew the name of them so I could then go read up on them myself because I think it sounds like a really neat mechanism 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Peel posted:What was the charge? Being too real, maaan
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
DStecks posted:On the actual subject of the dark enlightenment, apparently Aurini's YouTube channel got shut down. Aw, man, there goes like 1/3 of Hbomberguy's material.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Saeku posted:This sleep derail is interesting as hell. Does anybody know why sleep deprivation causes hallucinations? Parallel Paraplegic posted:Honestly I only brought it up because I figured you'd know what they were and knew the name of them so I could then go read up on them myself because I think it sounds like a really neat mechanism A related issue is dreaming, for which we, of course, also don't have any fully convincing answers. But it folds back into AI, as these days everyone is fascinated with googles "deep dream" networks, where they basically used an image recognition network, turned it upside down, and it creates pictures that look like crazy LSD hallucinations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Peel posted:What was the charge? Trafficking in human remains. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Aw, man, there goes like 1/3 of Hbomberguy's material. I'm sure that whatever video of him that shows up from now on will be a lot richer in content for Hbomber's purposes, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Peel posted:What was the charge? 'Repeated violations of community guidelines and/or copyright violations" ie we have no idea. My guess is that his channel probably got flagged for hate speech, was reviewed, and then promptly banned for that. White Nationalists are already running around whining about FREE SPEECH, without a hint of irony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to seeing the alt-right peanut gallery whining about another purge. I have to say though that Aurini is perhaps the only one who self-identified as a neoreactionary and was not taken seriously by other neoreactionaries at all. And I mean taken less seriously than Anissimov. I do remember him commenting on SSC about excess porn destroying masculinity or something and no one gave him even a pity reply. Fututor Magnus has a new favorite as of 17:37 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:'Repeated violations of community guidelines and/or copyright violations" ie we have no idea. My guess is that his channel probably got flagged for hate speech, was reviewed, and then promptly banned for that. Oh no, a Neo-Nazi lost his YouTube account for being a Neo-Nazi, now he has to... make a new one. How awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
he's only a neo nazi on paper
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:14
|
|