coffeecat

> “the Universe sprang into existence last Thursday”

I have memories from before last Thursday; therefore, this claim would contradict what currently seems to be true. That's the best I can do. If you're a physicalist, you cannot deny this claim with certainty either: if electrical activity in the brain is truly the substrate of consciousness, then you have to admit to the possibility that you could be a brain in a vat, hooked up to some kind of world simulator.

> “I am the only entity that exists”

That would imply that I'm God. And I'm pretty sure I'm not God. Therefore, other conscious entities must exist.

> “Jupiter doesn’t actually exists, it merely appears to exist.”

To be is to be perceived, in my view. I don't think there's a meaningful distinction between the two.

My understanding is that the shift can mostly be attributed to the rise of biblical minimalism as the dominant interpretive framework. Radiocarbon dating of the Jericho ruins did rule out Albright's preferred late Exodus date. But the radiocarbon date is consistent with an (in my opinion, far more interesting) earlier Exodus date, which would line up with the hypothesis that the Israeli people were the Hyksos, and which would also line up with a sequential interpretation of the timeline presented in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.

> or are you implying that the interpretation of archaeological evidence either way is simply a matter of arbitrary personal preference?

Archaeological evidence constrains the set of defensible explanations. But the available evidence from this time period (Exodus, conquest of Canaan) is so scarce that it mostly comes down to personal preference.

> And notwithstanding that, there is absolutely no credible evidence of the supernatural at all.

How could it be otherwise? If there were reproducible evidence, then the phenomenon in question would be classified as natural.

> On what basis do you believe the Bible and its supernatural claims could have happened?

I'm quite certain that mind is more fundamental than matter, and I'm not very sure about a whole lot else.

Of course the supernatural events could have happened! Unless you're certain that:

- matter exists (i.e., physicalism or dualism is the correct metaphysical worldview)

- the universe is strictly a physics simulation

- there's no God who's capable of fiddling with human affairs (or interested in doing so)

Just out of curiosity, what are some investment moves that you made as a result of Claude's advice?

"In a bull market, everyone's a genius."

    while crypto_balance > 0:
        generate_scam()
        send_out_emails()
        deposit_proceeds_into_crypto_wallet()
        pay_cloud_bill()
        spawn_new_instance()

I wish! My salary is a bit below the median US household income.

I think the key insight is that only a small fraction of people who read recipes online actually care which particular version of the recipe they're getting. Most people just want to see a working recipe as quickly as possible. What they want is a meal - the recipe is just an intermediate step toward what they really care about.

There are still people who make fine wood furniture by hand. But most people just want a table or a chair - they couldn't care less about the species of wood or the type of joint used - and particle board is 80% as good as wood at a fraction of the cost! most people couldn't even tell the difference. Generative AI is to real writing as particle board is to wood.

I've been finding that ChatGPT is helpful when taking a "first dive" into an unfamiliar topic. But, after studying the topic at greater depth through primary sources, I'll start to see many subtle errors, or over-simplifications, or claims stated as facts which are actually controversial among experts, in the ChatGPT answers. Overall, I'd say ChatGPT can provide a good approximation of truth, which can speed up research by providing instant context. But it should not by any means be the final destination when researching a topic.

It's a progressive system overall - but it wasn't designed for the purpose of wealth redistribution, hence the payroll tax ceiling.

* More precisely, their monthly benefit at full retirement age increases by 90 cents for each additional dollar of pre-retirement average monthly earnings, whereas yours only increases by 15 cents.

I hear that sentiment a lot, but it doesn't seem right to me. My salary is pretty close to the median plumber's income, and my family's effective tax rate last year came in at... 1.6%. And that's with all retirement account contributions going toward Roth accounts. If we'd chosen to contribute to traditional IRA/401k accounts instead, the EITC and child tax credit would easily turn our tax bill negative.

If you have literally no income (or your income is entirely "off the books"), then you qualify for medicaid; everything is covered with no premiums, copays, or deductibles. At a middle-class level of income, you're probably looking at either a comparatively shitty ACA marketplace plan, or a comparatively shitty employer-provided HDHP plan. At an upper-class level of income, you can afford top-of-the-line healthcare.

The article that the OP was written about is case in point. One calculation they do in their paper is the sum of all IQ points lost due to Pb exposure, which comes out to some absurdly large number. Sums of IQ points don't mean anything. It's just a sensational marketing gimmick. And it worked! It got them a national mainstream news article. Reporting their findings on lead exposure without the sensational IQ point calculations and commentary probably would not have gotten them a national news article.

My belief is that lead is a noisy metric for dirt/dust ingestion, which correlates with IQ for a variety of reasons. Homes of poor families tend to be dirtier, and wealthier families tend to live in newer suburban housing farther from curbs for example, but that sort of thing is pretty easy to control for. The big thing that can't be controlled in a straightforward way, is developmentally delayed children eating more dust/dirt. To a much lesser extent, this also correlates negatively with IQ in adults due to pica, disregard for cleanliness, etc correlating negatively with IQ. But the lead-IQ correlation is strongest at age 2, and that's no coincidence.

Observable symptoms of lead poisoning occur at blood levels above ~60 mcg/dL, which is 3-4 times higher than the levels studied in 1970s-era lead IQ research, and about 2 orders of magnitude higher than the levels studied in contemporary lead-IQ research. The latter body of research reports significantly larger effect sizes than the former.

1) Multiple researchers have obtained U-shaped lead-IQ curves which regress toward the mean at extreme values. This, in my opinion, strongly implies that the lead-IQ correlation only occurs in the "ordinary exposure through dirt and dust" regime.

2) The effect sizes reported back in the 70s, when lead levels were an order of magnitude or two higher than they are now, were significantly lower than the effect sizes reported in contemporary research. In both cases, however, they can be broadly summarized as "3-5 IQ points per standard deviation of exposure".

> Finally, when you suggest there are confounders, that's a causal claim. What confounders do you have in mind here, what standard of evidence do you need to accept them as confounders, and do they supersede the evidence we have for lead and IQ?

Dirt and dust ingestion, for which lead is a noisy metric. It's no accident that the correlation between lead and IQ is strongest at age 2. That's the age by which the smarter children have figured out that dust bunnies don't taste very good.

Back when lead levels were mostly in the 10-20 mcg/dL range, the observed correlations with IQ were typically around 3-5 IQ points per standard deviation of lead exposure. Now that lead levels are an order of magnitude or two lower, the observed correlation is still... 3-5 IQ points per standard deviation of exposure. Blood levels of other environmental toxins have also been correlated with IQ. These studies typically come in around... wait for it... 3-5 IQ points per standard deviation of exposure.

The common-sense explanation, in my opinion, is that developmentally delayed children eat more dust and dirt.

Edit: It's worth noting that the study described by the OP does not demonstrate an effect on IQ. They estimate population-wide lead exposure. The lost IQ point calculation is based on correlation coefficients obtained through observational studies.

My view is that poverty, low IQ, and lead exposure are all caused by intractably complex webs of genes, behaviors, beliefs, and parenting styles. This occurs in such a way that high IQ, high socioeconomic status, and low lead exposure are all strongly correlated, but not perfectly correlated.

As a spherical-cow sort of model, imagine that there's a "I don't give a fuck" (IDGAF) gene. People with the IDGAF gene have higher levels of lead exposure (because their houses aren't as clean), lower IQs (because they're not as motivated to think hard about the IQ test problems), and lower socioeconomic status (because they're not as motivated to get high-paying jobs) relative to those without the gene. But some IDGAF-positive people will get lucky and end up with high-paying jobs. Some IDGAF-negative people will be impoverished due to bad luck, etc. In other words, socioeconomic status is a noisy indicator of IDGAF. The key point is that IDGAF-positive people who have good jobs still probably don't keep their houses as clean as IDGAF-negative people. So when you control for poverty, you've killed off most of the IDGAF-mediated correlation between lead and IQ, but not all of it.

(as a reminder, this was just a spherical-cow model for illustrative purposes... reality is intractably more complex!)