Comment by verisimi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by verisimi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It seems many of us focused on STEM STEM STEM or COMPUTERS COMPUTERS COMPUTERS in education but perhaps are emotionally infantile to an extent.

100%. Worse than that, I think we are even encouraged to be computer-like. We are told that AI can be conscious - that we are just a machine. As if emotions/intuition/spirituality are non-existent.

The core problem for me is that the principles that drive most us are not our own - they are installed in us by school, society, etc.

You can take the time to work out what they really should be. Eg is trying to be based in truth a valuable principle? What am I assuming and have not verified? Is the 'golden rule' a principle that I should follow (don't do unto other as I wouldn't have done to me)? What happens when I follow this?

The way I think about it is that when we die, we judge ourselves. You can bullshit your boss, neighbour, partner even - but you can't bullshit yourself. You know why you choose what you choose, and whether this accords with the principles you purport to hold. If you choose according to your heart, whether you believe in life after death or not, there is a value to it in the here and now.

No, money/jobs/[some other provided external goal] isn't everything; being yourself and living authentically according to your heart is.

I agree that intuition and spirituality is completely discounted in western/scientific culture.

It is entirely possible to be a secular spiritualist. Make it a habit to feel one with nature and the world around you, without any supernaturals entering into the picture.

And funnily enough, for all people dunk on experts and say they can rely on themselves instead, it is pretty much the definition of an expert to be a person that has so much experience with something that they have developed good intuition for it. That’s also why everybody is useless as an expert just coming out of school, they may know all the theory but none of the practicalities.

Anyway I just wanted to say that none of this is incompatible with the premise that we’re basically meat based automata that accidentally developed consciousness. I don’t think we’re anywhere near developing general AI but in principle I don’t see why it couldn’t be done.

You are not conscious, stop pretending.

Adrift in a world of my own

Who is adrift?

>spirituality are non-existent.

It is. It doesn't exist.

> It is. [Spirituality] doesn't exist.

The majority of people on the planet claim to practice some religion / have some spiritual practice.

I think that means spirituality exists, as it's practiced to at least some extent by billions of people every day.

Do you mean the supernatural doesn't exist?

I'd readily grant that most (maybe all?) supernatural claims cannot be falsified, but that doesn't prove they're false.

I recommend a much more limited claim, perhaps reflecting your personal experience, such as "I have found no evidence that anything supernatural exists."

> I'd readily grant that most (maybe all?) supernatural claims cannot be falsified, but that doesn't prove they're false.

What is the meaning of a claim whose truth has no impact on my sense experience?

For many, many people, their sense experience has included some interactions with what they perceive to be the supernatural.

If yours hasn't, then obviously that isn't pertinent for you personally, but it seems wise to me to admit that others have their own experience and their own interpretation of those experiences (often not easily falsified).

A good example is Philip K. Dick's experience of apparently hallucinating a pink beam of light telling him his son needed medical care. He took the kid to the hospital, and found his child had a hernia, IIRC.

could that be coincidence, or his drug-addled subconscious picking up on some subtle behavioral cues from his kid? Yep.

Could it have been something beyond human ken? Also possible.

Can we confirm or falsify either of those possibilities? I don't see how.

> For many, many people, their sense experience has included some interactions with what they perceive to be the supernatural.

How can you perceive the supernatural? If you perceive it, then it’s sense data. So photons and sound waves.

> A good example is Philip K. Dick's experience of apparently hallucinating a pink beam of light telling him his son needed medical care. He took the kid to the hospital, and found his child had a hernia, IIRC.

Not having a good explanation for how you know something does not imply fairies did it.

> How can you perceive the supernatural? If you perceive it, then it’s sense data. So photons and sound waves.

You can perceive something, but what you perceive is not necessarily a comprehensive and accurate representation of what may be there.

> Not having a good explanation for how you know something does not imply fairies did it.

True, and the fact that this is true has little bearing on whether the underlying proposition is objectively true (but perhaps beyond humanity's current ability to "know").

inb4 solipsism.

> You can perceive something, but what you perceive is not necessarily a comprehensive and accurate representation of what may be there.

I don’t understand what point you are making here. Please clarify.

> True, and the fact that this is true has little bearing on whether the underlying proposition is objectively true

Agreed. But if you offer the explanation “magical pink laser did it”, then I say, “going to set up some lenses and sinks and mirrors to study this phenomena”, then you say, “nope, it’s magical, your dorky science equipment can never contain it”.

Then what?

Consider two examples:

"Water is wet." - it is true that water is wet, but is that all that water "is"? (Non-comprehensive)

"January 6 was a coup attempt." - it is certainly believed by many to be that, and it was an insurrection (according to the technical definition), but whether it was actually a coup attempt in "base reality" is a function of (among other things) the number of people who genuinely intended to commit a coup. (non-accurate)

> Agreed. But if you offer the explanation “magical pink laser did it”, then I say, “going to set up some lenses and sinks and mirrors to study this phenomena”, then you say, “nope, it’s magical, your dorky science equipment can never contain it”. Then what?

Then I would suggest you ask me to present any supporting evidence for my claim because I have a burden of proof, as I am doing to you here for your claim (with implicit claims made explicit - feel free to criticize my translation):

>> "How can you perceive the supernatural? If you perceive it, then it’s [only] sense data. So photons and sound waves [only and necessarily, nothing else is going on]".

> If you perceive it, then it’s sense data. So photons and sound waves.

This presumes materialism, which many believers in the supernatural do not grant.

Even in a materialist framing, where the brain is the source of all perception and experience, these things could originate as strictly internal phenomena, not triggered by senses.

It's also conceivable a supernatural being / Simulator could tweak things directly in your brain to communicate, which stays fairly materialist but still allows for non-sense-driven communication.

Are these plausible? Perhaps not. They are conceivable, though.

Your perspective is perfectly valid and rational, but holding yours out as the correct answer won't help you understand perspectives other than yours.

> Not having a good explanation for how you know something does not imply fairies did it.

Since I didn't bring fairies up, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If you have no good explanation for something, that's not great grounds for saying "I'm sure the true explanation lines up with the way I see the world."

And yes, that cuts both ways, and a little more humility would hurt neither side.

And yet here we are talking about it, again.

So do we with unicorns.

An extremely common association that forms in the mind when a mind is exposed to the idea of religion.

But regardless: do any conclusions derive from your observation?

My point was: it is an interesting phenomenon whereby people who claim that certain things do not exist seem to have a deep interest in discussing them.

Another interesting phenomenon: there are certain ideas that cause the unforced errors in cognition to spike, and religion and spirituality is one of the more potent ones - it can cause people who are otherwise exceptional at logic to suddenly lose access to those abilities. If you ask me, science should be studying this phenomenon with greater vigour due to its (plausible) causal importance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com