A discussion of why alcoholic spirits are called spirits was actually in my most recent comptheology post, but I cut it because it was off-topic. I'd like to hammer on that theme a little more though --- i.e. how in the past people were just not that individualistic, and being influenced by spirits of any kind wasn't abnormal. I suspect it is very different to live with those inductive biases.

I liked that. The historic support is good evidence for your model of people as running different copies of the same algorithms.

This post is for sacrificing my credibility!

by Will_Newsome 1 min read2nd Jun 2012347 comments


Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Don't worry, there won't be future posts like this, so you don't have to delete my LessWrong account, and anyway I could make another, and another.

But since you've dared to read this far:

Credibility. Should you maximize it, or minimize it? Have I made an error?


Don't be shallow, don't just consider the obvious points. Consider that I've thought about this for many, many hours, and that you don't have any privileged information. Whence our disagreement, if one exists?