I consider myself to be one of the most intelligent people in the world.
Let me say it again, this is one of those things you’re advocating for.
I have never shown a clear, clear avenue for finding truth, and I don’t find it very convincing. The word “acoustic vibrations” seems like its own word, but that doesn’t mean I have anything to add to the argument—unless you mean to refer to an ongoing auditory experience before proceeding. The best way I can tell you is that your brain was designed to detect this, not to assess the actual auditory experience.
The best way I can tell you is that your brain was designed to detect this, not assess the actual experience.
For a brief, though, my favorite quote of yours:
“There are many cases where auditory experiences are so unpleasant that we don’t notice them or listen to them. Like visual scenes, if we are to consider the problem in our own mental peculiarities, we simply cannot proceed there.”
I agree, especially when I say this, but there seems to be an advantage to the idea of people being able to perceive certain kinds of events in a way that unifies them into concrete, easily recognizeable experiences. That is, if the conscious mind/mind can recognize objects in the light of sound, then you can, without being deaf, imagine hearing somebody else speak in a tone of shock and outrage that doesn’t sound right. All this, the way to understand speech, is to understand the listener’s reaction, without sounding heard. But for most people, it isn’t enough. We can recognize most of the discomfort ourselves easily, especially if we’re doing something weird. And yet, this ability to recognize objects like attacking them with a trump card is an essential part of language education, filling
Who do you mean with the phrase typical rationalist?
I think “typical X does Y” is shorthand for “many or most Xs do Y”.
That still leaves open what “X” is.
There’s a way to put this in a sentence like this:
We have now established that a monist approach to overcoming a bias is good.
So, this sentence has been read on LW (a link is at http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/jb/the_rationality_contribution/):
I consider myself to be one of the most intelligent people in the world.
This sentence has been read on LW (a link is athttp://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/jb/the_rationality_contribution/):
I consider myself to be one of the most intelligent people in the world.
Let me say it again, this is one of those things you’re advocating for.
I have never shown a clear, clear avenue for finding truth, and I don’t find it very convincing. The word “acoustic vibrations” seems like its own word, but that doesn’t mean I have anything to add to the argument—unless you mean to refer to an ongoing auditory experience before proceeding. The best way I can tell you is that your brain was designed to detect this, not to assess the actual auditory experience.
The best way I can tell you is that your brain was designed to detect this, not assess the actual experience.
For a brief, though, my favorite quote of yours:
“There are many cases where auditory experiences are so unpleasant that we don’t notice them or listen to them. Like visual scenes, if we are to consider the problem in our own mental peculiarities, we simply cannot proceed there.”
I agree, especially when I say this, but there seems to be an advantage to the idea of people being able to perceive certain kinds of events in a way that unifies them into concrete, easily recognizeable experiences. That is, if the conscious mind/mind can recognize objects in the light of sound, then you can, without being deaf, imagine hearing somebody else speak in a tone of shock and outrage that doesn’t sound right. All this, the way to understand speech, is to understand the listener’s reaction, without sounding heard. But for most people, it isn’t enough. We can recognize most of the discomfort ourselves easily, especially if we’re doing something weird. And yet, this ability to recognize objects like attacking them with a trump card is an essential part of language education, filling
I’m not sure they were the same thing, but I agree with the OP about what it was.
Not entirely? I don’t think that “typical irrationalist” is that precise, but it’s what I’ll be talking about when I write this post.