←back to thread

Personality Basins

(near.blog)
160 points qouteall | 10 comments | | HN request time: 1.491s | source | bottom
Show context
aithrowawaycomm ◴[] No.42204297[source]
One of the more depressing things of the AI boom is watching engineers and “atheists” get hoodwinked by mystic gibberish like this blog. There is nothing here but astrology: even Myers-Briggs is more scientific.

I think 30% of atheists bothered to think carefully about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and recognized Pastafarianism as a funny commentary on epistemic uncertainty. The remaining 70% said “heh, stoopid Christians believe in a spaghetti monster!” and took it as confirmation of their tribe’s superiority.

replies(4): >>42204399 #>>42204476 #>>42204487 #>>42204506 #
steveBK123 ◴[] No.42204476[source]
Personally I've always found, ironically, some of my most ardent atheist friends to essentially treat the topic with a level of intensity you might expect from a religious evangelist. Often there's also a level of religious fervor they carry over to politics as well.

I don't really care what other peoples religion/non-religion is anymore than what type of underwear they prefer, and yet...

replies(3): >>42204566 #>>42204585 #>>42204625 #
MrMcCall ◴[] No.42204585[source]
We already know that our science can simply not explain/understand what happened in the first 10e-33s after the Big Bang, which is just established science.

There is nothing more "negatively religious" than believing that nothing caused that primal explosion of all that is. Unfortunately, they then proceed to throw out the positive aspects of some religious teachings concerning, e.g., compassionate concern for our fellow human beings.

Regardless, religion is a personal thing; forcing any beliefs on others is always a problem and must be prevented. We are all free to choose our attitudes and behaviors. Behaviors that harm others, however, must -- in a just system -- be dealt with by the society, for the benefit of the whole, irrespective of belief system of perpetrator or victim. Using compassion to make such decisions is always the best way, for varying values of compassion.

replies(1): >>42204785 #
jfactorial ◴[] No.42204785[source]
> We already know that our science can simply not explain/understand what happened in the first 10e-33s after the Big Bang, which is just established science.

Yet. There's a very big difference in "I don't know," vs. "I know that no one can ever know."

replies(1): >>42204979 #
MrMcCall ◴[] No.42204979[source]
Absolutely. I actually know that (know that I don't know, but that my not knowing doesn't mean that no other person can know), but modern science will not be the source of such explanations.

Those explanations can only be accessed once we understand that the universe itself is queryable (that is our joint purpose here, us and our expansive environment together) and that a human being needs to undergo a process of self-evolution to become aligned with the Creator's Intent such that we gain access to it.

You could say that a person must learn of the challenge, accept the challenge, and then pass all the tests, thereby gaining access.

replies(1): >>42205049 #
1. jfactorial ◴[] No.42205049[source]
> once we understand that the universe itself is queryable

We do understand that. "What happens when I push a rock off a cliff?" is a query to the universe. The universe's response is observable when the experiment is executed and the rock is pushed.

> a human being needs to undergo a process of self-evolution to become aligned with the Creator's Intent

I have no need for this hypothesis. We can query the universe at any time simply by observing it, proposing a falsifiable explanation for what is observed, and acting within it to test our explanations.

replies(1): >>42205128 #
2. MrMcCall ◴[] No.42205128[source]
There are deeper queries than "What happens when I push a rock off a height?" The science and math of Newton's laws of motion is enough for that, especially if combined with some materials science.

I didn't say that you "needed" anything, but the fact remains that if you want to calculate the trajectory of something traveling at a significant percent of light speed, you will need some higher maths. Such calculations require advancing one's mind, as do other queries. But, no, none of that is necessary to find out what happens when a person's cat pushes something off the countertop.

No observation was even feasible for Einstein to formulate GR or Feynman to formulate QED, so if all that matters to you is what you see, that's your choice; I wish you well.

replies(1): >>42206291 #
3. jfactorial ◴[] No.42206291[source]
I thought it would be obvious that my simple example was only illustrative. I'm not actually suggesting we discuss high school physics.

> No observation was even feasible for Einstein to formulate GR

Einstein made many observations about the real world to formulate his theories, e.g. Mercury's orbit, the relativity of motion, the inability to distinguish between different forms of acceleration.

> if all that matters to you is what you see, that's your choice

To be clear, in this discussion about what science can explain/understand, I'm advocating for the scientific method as the sole means through which objective truth can be verified, not the sense of sight.

When you mentioned a Creator being whose intent could be known and aligned with, my reply was a reference to a Laplace quote I thought you'd recognize. I apologize if it seemed personal. I only meant to say that we can and do query the universe to discover explanations for how it works without ever assuming the existence of gods or their supposed intentions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#I_had_no_...

replies(2): >>42206787 #>>42206825 #
4. MrMcCall ◴[] No.42206787{3}[source]
I am merely explaining that there are more sublime and direct ways of querying the univere, but that is beyond our current understanding of the depths science could be developed to explain.

At some point in a certain kind of seeking, the proof is accepted and no more is needed. That someone calls it a hypothesis is akin to a flat-Earther opining that my understanding of the solar system is a theory.

And, yeah, flat-Earthers are also very authoritative in their manner.

replies(1): >>42207856 #
5. norir ◴[] No.42206825{3}[source]
I agree that the scientific method is the best approach towards finding objective truth (which is of course precisely what it is designed to do). The problem is placing objective truth above all other truths. It annihilates subjectivity, which is possibly the most crucial element of being human. And of course formal science has limitations on the truths that it can reveal in its own system (the uncertainty principle) and on a practical level every known scientific theory, no matter how successful, breaks down at some level (see quantum gravity).

All of which is to say that my stance is: embrace science but accept its limitations.

replies(2): >>42207240 #>>42207541 #
6. MrMcCall ◴[] No.42207240{4}[source]
That is well put.

Know that the key to human existence is the fact that, by changing one's attitudes, behaviors, and thought processes, one has also changed one's subjective viewpoint, by expanding both one's field of view and one's depth of comprehension, so long as those changes are harmonious with compassion.

Our most important capability is being able to self-evolve (with the help of the universe) ourselves beyond our more primal impulses and towards our more abstract endeavors such as selfless service to mankind.

7. jfactorial ◴[] No.42207541{4}[source]
Can you give an example of a subjective truth?
8. jfactorial ◴[] No.42207856{4}[source]
> At some point in a certain kind of seeking, the proof is accepted and no more is needed.

This is part of what intrigues me about this topic, the inductivist view that if we make enough empirical observations we can eventually settle on an objective truth. E.g. by observing enough cats we can conclude that all cats have whiskers.

The realm of science is falsifiable statements. "All cats have whiskers," is a falsifiable statement. We can only state it with 100% certainty by observing all cats (impossible). We can disprove the statement by experiment, however, one designed to discovering just one pathetic little whiskerless cat.

I subscribe to this, Karl Popper's view, that truth is an ideal we can pursue but never quite expect to arrive at. Truth seekers aim to be less wrong, but have little hope of being 100% exhaustively right.

This isn't to say we are unable to act like we believe anything. We can assume the next cat we meet will have whiskers and get by pretty well. But I wish more people could accept that statements like "God exists but is not observable in any way," or "The government is covering up aliens and anyone who says differently is part of the cover-up," are not falsifiable, and because they can't be disproven they also can't be trusted as truth. Maybe they are true, but you can't know, so it doesn't matter.

If a used car salesman tells you the car you're buying has above average fuel efficiency, you can test that and you should. If he tells you that it is a magical car that only runs out of fuel when destiny ordains it, we can't test that, so we should stay skeptical of the claim.

Whatever means by which someone believes they are directly querying the universe, if they are making falsifiable statements, those statements can/should be tested by the truth seeker; and if they are not making falsifiable statements, there is no compelling reason to believe them.

replies(1): >>42213622 #
9. MrMcCall ◴[] No.42213622{5}[source]
There are subjective experiences (especially seeking to connect with God in order to become a more virtuous person) that must be undertaken with all one's heart in order to verify for one's self. We are created with the ability to self-evolve one's self with the help of the universe and its/our Creator, but our free will is not trampled upon, even though it would be best for ourself and all those around us.

Yes, the Creator knows what is best for us, but, no, It has given us free will and honors it until we beseech It to help us.

If you make a prayer with all your heart asking for the Creator to take Its Spirit (our conscience) back into Itself so that we can cleanse and purify our souls of our vice-oriented ("vice-eous", the opposite of virtuous) tendencies, thereby becoming a friend to all, becoming, by degrees, consumed by compassion and a possessor of wisdom, you will be changed. It is the meaning of the 1st Beatitude ("blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"), and is the prerequisite to (IIRC) the 5th ("blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God").

This is a subjective experience. Most people are too wrapped up in their selfish desires to see how different a person is who has undertaken this process of moral self-evolution. I have met two such purified men (Murshids) and a third (from a different faith) whose teacher was also such a one. I am on the way for a couple of decades now but am not purified, only semi-cleansed. Happiness is different for me; it is a sublime joy, a pleasure to help a person in any small way.

Yet, I am rejected by my family and lifelong friends, but they are only rejecting happiness because their forms of religion (especially those with none at all) reject the path I am on. Our son is an open chess champion (3x!) and our daughter is an accomplished seamstress while still in her teens (Singer 503a is badass). We do not reject any form of religion, but understand that we are all one human race and should care for one another and create peace here on our blessed Earth.

This is the subjective truth that we live but is rejected by nearly all; such is the world we live in, of selfish idiocy and destructive strife. But what we Sufis teach and live is truly the science of the soul. In history, all groundbreaking science is rejected, be it that of Eugene Parker, Boltzman, or even the doctor who found that most stomach ulcers were caused by a simple bacteria. That others reject the truth that we live -- and they can, if they try -- is not a testimony about us, but only about them.

I love you. I have no selfish motive in telling you the truth here. I want nothing from you. I only want for you to be happy, and to spread happiness to all those you experience, by both your actions and explanations. You can verify this for youself, but only if you jump in with both feet.

The great Islamic mystic, Rumi, said 800ish years ago, "The Way goes in."

The truth is that we human beings could be creating a must happier world, but selfishness is ruining it for everyone. There has been talk around HN lately of "mathematical thinking" but who contemplates how we would change things if selfless compassionate service was our systems' intention and goal, instead of their current motive of profit-at-all-costs? We Sufis understand that calculus and understand that it begins with each of us. We inhabit a world that pushes us to be selfish animal-like creatures, when we could instead be humanitarians that care about everyone.

We could create a simulation of such a transformation now, but there is a force within each of us that pushes back against such notions, decrying them as impossible. You will feel that push back as you read the deepest truth in the universe. It will say that I'm crazy or don't know sh_t. Just please remember you are free to choose, and pay close attention to what that negative inner voice says. Perhaps it's not you, and is, as Castaneda's Don Juan explains, a parasite of our mind. We Sufis have a much simpler explanation: there is an enemy within.

Peace be with you.

replies(1): >>42215576 #
10. jfactorial ◴[] No.42215576{6}[source]
Thanks for your words. I've read a bit about Sufism and I think if we could sit and speak at length over many days and a few cups of coffee, we would find a lot of agreement and kinship. You seem like a person who has thought a lot about the nature of truth and the divine, and someone who values peace and knowledge.

Please imagine for a moment that I told you the REAL truth is: we are surrounded by trickster spirits. There once was a Creator who created these tricksters along with the cosmos, and they whispered their powerful lies into his mind and convinced him to die. Now, they turn their powers on us and convince us of religious beliefs. Every personal mystical discovery through prayer and meditation is a lie from such demons, and the only path to salvation is the painful task of purifying yourself of all religious belief.

I think you would probably not believe this (me neither). But how could you know it's not true?

Maybe you would reject it because you have received God-given teachings that contradict it, but I would say this is evidence of my view, the supernatural convincing power of the trickster spirits. You might challenge my view, but that's not possible, because my statements are unfalsifiable. Every statement you made in favor of your belief would further support mine.

Neither of us would be able to test or disprove one another. We would be stuck, each believing the other ignorant of an essential cosmic truth.

This type of thinking is poisonous to our species, it locks us into ignorance and makes us putty in the hands of the powerful, leading us to believe whatever we feel or hallucinate or are taught. It leads us to label non-belief as idiocy and a rejection of happiness. It leads good people to believe they are impure and in need of purification. The power of those trickster spirits twists our kind natures into isolation and self-hatred.

The fact is, to be truth, a statement must be observable by even our enemies and all of those who do not share our views. What makes truth is its objectivity.

Your belief is that you and very few others have a special knowledge of the thoughts and intentions of the creator of the universe. I feel this is an intensely prideful view. How small the creator's intentions must be to be comprehensible to our minds, a few tiny mites crawling on a mote of dust for only an instant, floating through a sunbeam in a vast and ancient cosmos.

You say we are all one human race and should care for one another and create peace here on our blessed Earth. I agree with you fully on this.

But what peace we have has come only from diverse and open societies, liberalism and secularism and scientific pursuit of truth. The world is improving, demand for equal human rights growing, lifespans extending, generation upon generation thanks to idea exchange and liberal values, not faith or autocracy.

You say all groundbreaking science is rejected at first. This is to the credit of science, not a criticism of it. All the examples you referenced were the result of questioning, skepticism, and the acknowledgment that previous views could be wrong, and today they are accepted, thanks to science. What religions can be said to equally subject their own ancient god-given teachings to the same skeptical inquiry? If this is what you value, the ability to be proven wrong, you will not find it in your religious claims of ancient, infallible, immutable teachings.

You claim to know the science of the soul, but science is challenge, disproof, falsifiability, doubt, skepticism. I don't see evidence of skeptical science being done on the soul by the faithful. Faith has none of these questioning qualities. In fact you encourage me to call skepticism negative, an enemy, a parasite.

No truth has ever feared any doubt or question. That's the nature of truth: it is not harmed by doubt. Skepticism is not the enemy, it is the path to discovering lies. Descartes said: "If you would be a real seeker of truth, you must, as much as possible, doubt all things."

Thank you again for your thoughtful discourse.