Just to be clear, do these multiple-universes have the same qualities as the universe that we inhabit?
Rukifellth
Karma: 349
What if Quirrell is so good at dissociation that he can lie through parseltongue by convincing himself that what he’s saying is true?
Do you know of it?
He might do it less for the “danger” and more for “bad discussion”. The threads I see on /sci/ raising questions about high IQ come to mind.
Well, most threads I see on /sci/ come to mind.
I experienced what wikipedia calls ‘ego death’. That is I felt my ‘self’ splitting into the individual sub-components that formed consciousness. Acid is well-known for causing synaesthesia and as I fell deeper into meditation I felt like I could actually see the way sensory experiences interacted with cognitive heuristics and rose to the level of conscious perception.
I’ve recently come into a deep spiritual terror after such an experience I had while sober (albeit in a slightly manic state from sleep deprivation and some caffeine). Afterward, I refused to speak to prevent any unnecessary harm to whoever I’d seek advice from. This is the first time I’ve seen anybody describe the experience like this, and I was wondering if you knew any resources or persons of experience.
Yes.
I take it you’ve rarely fallen victim to wiki walks and random googling?
I’ve decided not to have more than 3 tabs open on my internet browser at any given point, as a way of increasing my attention span.
Before a discussion on corporeal punishment is started, I want to caution against this happening. It might be that children of people who find corporeal punishment effective are similar enough to their parents to respond well to it, and vice-versa.
Read literature with an old writing style, especially if you dislike said writing style. The more opaque and complicated, the better.
I find that I’m a very fidgety reader, unconsciously skipping words, or even whole sentences, skimming over words I don’t actually know the meaning of, and failing to connect the context of words that I do know the meaning of with the rest of the narrative or lecture. This I do with both literature and more importantly, when reading science. I’ve decided to read At The Mountains of Madness and penalize myself for every time I lose track of the narrative, and reward myself for every time I recognize when one sentence adds or contributes to something implied by another sentence earlier on in the paragraph, and so on. Furthermore, I will do this for only literature, and not with learning new scientific concepts, or even old ones that I have already learned. The problem is with reading comprehension, not with understanding concepts, and exercising two skills at once prematurely may cause problems. I hope this will instill genuine patience, so that being careful and observant becomes a natural thing, rather than the uncomfortable thing I wrestle with.
Spoilers!
I think I figured out Quirrel’s ultimate scheme.
Va pnaba, Ibyqrzbeg cbffrffrf Uneel, gnxvat pbageby bs uvf obql.
Va ZbE, gur ernfba Dhveeryzbeg jnagf Uneel nyvir, fgebat naq vasyhragvny vf fb ur pna znxr uvz vagb uvf arkg ubfg, guhf nyybjvat Zntvpny Oevgnva gb tebj haqre n fgebat yrnqre. Gur Qrzragngvba ng gur ortvaavat bs gur lrne jnf fb gung Uneel’f zragny qrsrafrf jbhyq or jrnxrarq sbe shgher nohfr. Dhveery’f fngvfsnpgvba ng Urezvbar’f qrngu (orsber urnevat gur hcqngrq cebcurpl) jnf va nagvpvcngvba ng shegure ihyarenovyvgl.
The trick is that gratitude and weariness are contradictory, which falls under the umbrella of what sarcasm provides; a way of expressing gratitude in such a way that weariness shows. The reaction of annoyance/unpleasant surprise this causes on part of the receiver of sarcasm is anticipated by the speaker, and is considered a way of wounding them, which is why sarcasm can be used in arguments.
While both your intention and the conventional intention are both valid, the conventional intention is triggered, as the basic structure of expressing the spirit of one emotion with the letter of another is more commonly used, and thus more frequently recognized as such.
In every word structure, there are points where its intent is decided; the longer the sentence is, the more such points there are. This was close to utilizing almost every such point for sarcasm, I’m not even sure if I could make that more sarcastic without taking it to parody levels.
To clarify, the two ideas (correlation with nerdiness and correlation with social skills) are both equally poor, there’s no reason to use one and not the other.
This is unlikely; if we’re going for the idea of autism being correlated with nerdiness, we must also go with the idea of autism being correlated with poor social skills, and polyamoury is a whole other kind of social network. Also, very few nerdy people I’ve met were autism spectrum.
Trying to avoid personal vices by not acting or thinking like the people who had the vices I wanted to avoid. For example, wanting to be a great scientist, and suppressing this desire without realizing that it wasn’t actually possible for me to aspire for one thing, dislike m motivation for it (fame and accomplishment), and try to come up with a better one- the actions conflict with each other, yet I really did think that the only reason I wasn’t pursuing that path already was due to a disruptive home life. This is probably true, but to this day I can’t tell if I was flinching away from the fact, or if I was that distracted that I wasn’t thinking deeply enough.
Trying to extrapolate cognitive science and theory of mind without assistance (or at least familiarizing myself with Egan’s Law) by observing and altering my thought process, and subsequently having a 3-month long dissociative episode involving many suicide hotlines, a significantly lowered GPA, and a “ruined before it started” romance.
Dunning Kreuger effect?
Why autism spectrum?
Another prediction is that there is no difference between a clone of myself and another person.
Does anyone else find the terminology for this discussion strange? I know LW likes to use words with more emotional-colouring when describing concepts and motivations, but now it’s being used to describe people, in a semi-official way.