-- Exactly what does it mean to be “entangled closer with physical reality”? Naively I would believe that everything is entangled with physical reality to a degree of 100%. And I don’t think you can easily describe a concept of “entangled with physical reality” that is something you’d reasonably want to do, that justifies walking barefoot, and that has no other strange implications.
-- Exactly where are you getting your information about how much rigid movement is natural? It sounds like a scientific claim without the science.
-- “Natural” has some of the same problems as “entangled with physical reality”—lots of things are natural from smallpox to cyanide. If you can articulate a definition of “natural” that explains why you’d actually want it, and which applies to walking barefoot (including to sidewalks and streets, which I’d call not natural!), I’d like to see it.
-- Why in the world would you want to “reduce what you need and broaden what you tolerate”? Is that just reasoning from “I was taught as a child to not be too greedy, and reducing what I need is sort of like being less greedy”? And if I wanted to broaden what I tolerate, I’d go learn Japanese, not walk barefoot.
-- “Sharp objects are rare” is another way of saying “yeah, there are some”. Shoes are like seatbelts in this sense. They protect against things that are rare, but which happen.
-- You’re not “opening people’s minds” by ignoring their objections to you walking barefoot. That’s just taking “I ignore social cues” and treating it as a virtue instead of a deficiency.
Your criticisms are mostly correct. I wrote the post to justify my actions rather than tell robust truth. Posting it as-is on LessWrong was my mistake.
“Entangled closer with physical reality” was a poor choice of words. I meant something closer to “experience my surroundings in more detail”.
Reducing what you need implies broadening what you tolerate, in the same sense that a system with fewer axioms has more models. Interpreting it as twisted greed-avoidance is novel and odd to me. If you get used to walking barefoot, then you can better handle situations where you lack shoes. On further reflection, that broadening is small compared to other methods (as learning a language).
I find these excuses to be terrible reasoning.
-- Exactly what does it mean to be “entangled closer with physical reality”? Naively I would believe that everything is entangled with physical reality to a degree of 100%. And I don’t think you can easily describe a concept of “entangled with physical reality” that is something you’d reasonably want to do, that justifies walking barefoot, and that has no other strange implications.
-- Exactly where are you getting your information about how much rigid movement is natural? It sounds like a scientific claim without the science.
-- “Natural” has some of the same problems as “entangled with physical reality”—lots of things are natural from smallpox to cyanide. If you can articulate a definition of “natural” that explains why you’d actually want it, and which applies to walking barefoot (including to sidewalks and streets, which I’d call not natural!), I’d like to see it.
-- Why in the world would you want to “reduce what you need and broaden what you tolerate”? Is that just reasoning from “I was taught as a child to not be too greedy, and reducing what I need is sort of like being less greedy”? And if I wanted to broaden what I tolerate, I’d go learn Japanese, not walk barefoot.
-- “Sharp objects are rare” is another way of saying “yeah, there are some”. Shoes are like seatbelts in this sense. They protect against things that are rare, but which happen.
-- You’re not “opening people’s minds” by ignoring their objections to you walking barefoot. That’s just taking “I ignore social cues” and treating it as a virtue instead of a deficiency.
Your criticisms are mostly correct. I wrote the post to justify my actions rather than tell robust truth. Posting it as-is on LessWrong was my mistake.
“Entangled closer with physical reality” was a poor choice of words. I meant something closer to “experience my surroundings in more detail”.
Reducing what you need implies broadening what you tolerate, in the same sense that a system with fewer axioms has more models. Interpreting it as twisted greed-avoidance is novel and odd to me. If you get used to walking barefoot, then you can better handle situations where you lack shoes. On further reflection, that broadening is small compared to other methods (as learning a language).