Well, another possibility would have been the negation of (what's usually called around here) Tegmark's Level IV. (That's probably not the only other possibility.)
ETA: Not that your interpretation isn't the obviously correct one.
Thanks for answering. (Like the one-word one, this comment provides insight into nothing except my own state of mind, in which you are perfectly entitled to be uninterested.)
What cognitive bias list? ---Oh! Probably this one.
Generalising from one fictional example. (But a funny one.)
Mmm. Sounds familiar. But what do you mean by '"physics all the way down"'?
Huh. I agree with both of you, up to
>we do that by tackling the mind killing, not by tackling the issues[.]
At least, if 'tackling the issues' means 'coming to any kind of conclusion|decision as to *what to think* or even *what to do*. Obviously a rational approach is a *prerequisite* for that,...(read more)
Why downvoted? Vacuousness? (Sometimes when I really like a comment, I don't feel satisfied by just upvoting it.)
That's interesting. *I* initially parsed "copyright enforcement law simply is not a highly-charged partisan issue for the overwhelming majority of people in the United States" as meaning that it's almost universally agreed to be *bad*. That reading was reinforced by "A few individuals may *strongl...(read more)
Interestingly, your link is to a political think-tank site. (Of course, argument screens off authority and all that---it looks like a pretty good article.)
Certainly one valid (type of) response to the OP would be to explain why the proposed legislation *wouldn't* harm the internet. (I've seen a few claims to that effect [elsewhere], but none that seemed well-informed or carefully reasoned.)
Or is 'harming the internet' too subjective|vague a notion t...(read more)