I've had a LessWrong account for ~10 years and I am almost never on. Covid-19, among other things, brought me back here. If found the Conversation between Schmachtenberger and Weinstein fascinating. How do I join this virtual meetup?
I already commented on other people's comments and got Karma while not stating that I took it. Am I still supposed to just say "I took it" and get more Karma without commenting anything more of value? Well, I took it. All of it. And I chose to "cooperate" because it seemed more ethical. 30$-60$ isn't enough to arouse my greed anyway.
Oh, btw. Hi everybody, I'm new here even though I created this account years ago when I was lurking. I knew I'd come back.
Really good point. But I still enjoyed the conversation.
A bold, but reasonable expectation that I agree with. There MUST be SOME laws, even if we don't know what they are.
Maybe my definition of "supernatural" isn't the correct definition, but I often think of the word as describing certain things which we do not (currently) understand. And if we do eventually come to understand them, then we will need to augment our understanding of the natural laws...Assuming this "supernatural" stuff actually exists.
I suppose a programer could defy the laws he made for his virtual world when he intervenes from outside the system....But earthly programers obey the natural physical laws when they mess with the hardware, which also runs based on these same laws. I understand this is what you mean by "constrained by natural laws".
Wow, I was coming to edit this post, and you responded so quickly...well, thank you.
I foolishly neglected to research this creation myth before commenting. I now can see how this myth could be purposely using symbolical language. But I wouldn't know how to correctly understand it, without over-interpreting it. (That is if its worth interpreting.)
From the way this woman is portrayed in this post, this woman obviously believed that the myth was literally true, or was acting like she believed it for some other purpose.
If she actually believed in the literal interpretation of this creation myth, then it doesn't matter whether or not there is a plausible metaphorical or symbolical interpretation. The subject matter, and conclusion of this post is indifferent to the nature of the myth. What matters is what that woman believed. Whether Yudkowsky is biased or not is irrelevant to the purpose of his post. (Unless were not assuming that this creation myth is false.)
Please enlighten me. If she did not believe what she said as literal truth, then what was she trying to say? And why did she not say what she meant? Is it possible that you mean to say her whole speech was an act to communicate a deeper message? A secret message that only pagans understand? Or do you mean to say that this woman had social (or other reasons) to believe this, and she promoted that it didn't matter what she believed because it didn't conflict with her scientific life? Or do you mean that she was encouraging the separation of science and religion by making herself an example of how irrationally stubborn people can be, making it too difficult for science to ever eradicate any false religion because it's "the opium of the people"? Is that what you mean by the "evolutionary function of a creation myth"? How could it play any role in evolution? Were you there during this event, or do you know something I don't?