You actually made me think if I spent more time contemplating the rationality of voting or the rationality of the candidates. I believe in voting, but I don't personally want to vote. That is to say, other people can vote if they choose because that's the privilege they have in a democracy, but I don't vote for personal reasons. You could say that I had a traumatic experience (although that would be an overstatement). I followed the 2008 presidential election believing that Obama was the better choice. In hindsight, maybe neither choice was a good one. When I lived in Nevada, I witnessed the Reid/Angle election believing that Reid was a RELATIVELY could choice. I was right, but then later on I learned that if people had the option of voting "Neither," that would have been a better choice. So, I decided that if I register to vote, I won't choose Reps or Dems, I'll write in the "other" category. I haven't decided what I'll write; maybe I'll be a part of the "Dance" party or "Pajama" party or "Birthday" party or "After" party. I'm not saying that I'll never follow politics ever, I still do. I just don't want to vote because, quite frankly, I don't gain anything when voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
When it comes to tipping, though, I use the triple T method: TAX TIMES TWO.
Lastly, and this is totally irrelevant to what I stated before, but your first sentence made me laugh. "It seems to me that tipping involves rather little money, and voting involves rather little time". You know what else involves rather little money and time? Suicide. Or prostitutes. I really don't think your first sentence is really necessary is the point I'm trying to get across.
This whole statement of yours is so fucked up I don't even know where to begin. It has some fundamental errors in logic and English. "If you are an atheist that does not believe in ghosts, what can you learn from rationality?" WTF?! What does being an atheist and/or not believing in ghosts have to do with learning from rationality. Is this your thesis or is this an attention grabbing statement? "I'd love to be wrong about lots of things but my problem is, I think I'm right." Of course you think you're right! If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't believe yourself. There are two clauses here that don't belong together in this sentence, "I'd love to be wrong," and "I think I'm right". If your point is "I think I'm right," then there's no use in saying "I'd love to be wrong"? If your point is "I'd love to be wrong," then there's no use in saying "I think I'm right". Additionally, what is the point of this statement? Is THIS your thesis? Is this statement somehow related to the first statement? Why is this statement relevant? "As far as I can tell, none of this reflective thinking has lead to deeper understanding of consciousness." Are you somehow trying to associate reflective thinking with learning from rationality? If so, you have to be very specific. Also, what is your definition of "consciousness"? Is it the Freudian definition? Is it some kind of mediation lexicon? Define your terms, that's Philosophy 101! Another thing, are you equivocating "reflective thinking" with "critical thinking". I was just confused because since it seems you want to discuss rationality, why don't you talk about critical thinking? Lastly, what does a deeper understanding of consciousness have to do with what we can gain from rationality? One subject is more subjective than the other. "If you feel like it, please tell me about any particular instances where actively working on your own thought processes has lead you to realize you were wrong about something... or if the same program lead to any new understanding of consciousness." You have finally made your fork in the road here. First, you're discussing rationality and now you're discussing personal reflections. Once again, you have not clearly defined your terms. What does "actively working on your own thought processes' mean? Are you suggesting I work with someone else's thought process or do you mean I should reflect on the subject of my own thought processes? It seems as if you started with critical thinking and ended in reflective thinking. If you want an example, I'll give you an example: I figured out I was wrong on my own when I asked myself "Given what I already know, is there a such thing as free will". I didn't do any research online, it was a totally internal journey so to speak. I started by believing in free will, then when I asked myself the question and thought about it for a few days, I arrived at the conclusion that I was wrong.
In conclusion, the main question "What can we gain from rationality?" was never clearly answered or articulated in you post. You have MUCH more to learn about logic and English. I'm not saying you're stupid, I used to do the same exact things. You just need to recognize your mistakes from an objective perspective. You know what you're talking about (I hope) and I want you to get the point across without confusion. If you ever repost this same question and follow my advice, I'll give you a clear and concise answer.
'But even under the reductionist conception of free will, it still seems like Charles and Alex are somehow "less free" than "normal" people.'
This is the sentence that really stuck with me. I disagree with the quotation "less free". If I don't believe in free will, then I wouldn't say "less free" in a figurative or literal sense. I would rather say "less normal" than "less free". Because, I think we can all agree, Charles and Alex are NOT normal. Like you said, it's not like they have LESS control than the rest of us, it's more like they're less able to conform to our social norms. It's possible that none of us have no control in what we do or what we think, but we DO ACT and we DO THINK. Our brains are built to learn and if we have had the opportunity to learn, but didn't, that is our responsibility. Responsibility exists whether free will are not mutually exclusive. The illusion of free will may cause some people to think that responsibility doesn't always exist, but the truth is that the issue of responsibility is irrelevant in the issue of free will.
I understand with conclusion more or less.
I agree it's beneficial to "Just Do It" at times. If you're a fan of Seinfeld, there's an episode where George does the opposite of what his instincts tell him to do and his life gets better. I think the "Just Do It" attitude could be beneficial sometimes, BUT NOT ALL THE TIME. For example, when you're sitting in front of your computer screen weighing the options of whether or not you should download an illegal copy of The Hurt Locker, that's when the "Just Do It" attitude would not be beneficial.
There should be moderation, a "Just Do It" attitude shouldn't be entirely emotional. It should be both rational and emotional. Back to the pool story, you're standing in front of the cold pool waiting to dive. You've weighed the outcomes, "It's going to be painful, but look at the fun they're having over there. I know this is good for me," that's you're rational side, "I know it's going to be painful," that's you're emotional side. After a while, you're conclusion, assuming you want to have a healthy lifestyle, would be "I should jump into this pool and deal with a few seconds of pain." That's you're balanced "Just Do It" attitude.
The issue isn't as black and white as you described it.
Has anyone developed techniques for thinking without words? That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to think in words. The slings and arrows of bewildering neural processes. Or to take arms against a manner of cerebration.
Enough of my soliloquy.
A good follow-up question is "How do people born blind think?" OR "How do people born deaf think?".
There is an answer out there.
How did you get 65%?