Carl-Richard

Things become recontextualized.

Give an example.

I honestly don't know what makes you different from us "hyperrationalists".

You're so condescending When is the blog post coming out?

Rationalizing away your "social ineptitude"? ?

@Scholar Speaking of social awareness, I've noticed (for a long time actually) that you have a tendency to frame an argument as a personal confrontation (e.g. "you are so trapped in it", or "you are just missing how human beings work"), when you could've framed it as an impersonal one (e.g. "being trapped in it entails...", "missing how human beings work entails..."). So you're very often risking to rile people up emotionally when that is maybe not needed. It's possible to communicate an idea without necessarily making it about someone. And you can maybe use this to make sense of past interactions: is this why Forestluv doesn't seem to like you? Maybe he is not being "overly logic-brained" in his interactions. Maybe you're just being socially unaware. And to demonstrate my own point, do you see how emotionally cutting this comment is?

Don't be afraid of engaging in logic-brained rationalizations. That's all this is.

@Scholar I'm not denying that he is a crybaby. But you can still try to give logical explanations for why someone is a crybaby (like you're doing now btw). And the explanation you happen to land on doesn't have to be the only correct one (or correct at all). I think I'm taking this less seriously than you are.

My brain melted.

I like how you don't make any arguments though

Do it for Young Earth creationism.

Of course. Everything is irreducible non-duality for you I'm very aware that I'm defending somebody I like.

@UnbornTao Of course he got emotional. That is conceded territory. He is explaining why.

As he said in his blog post, he wasn't referring to or insinuating anything about the person in the conversation. He was responding to the ideas of his intellectual opposition in response to the question Curt asked him. It was Tim that took it personally. He didn't know anything about Tim's work before the discussion. He didn't know he was such a fan of the theories he was criticizing, and you shouldn't just assume that, as not everybody is a fan of those theories (even among real physicists, which he is not by the way ?). If anybody is being social inept, it's you guys ? But sure: 18:07 "[...], and probably, it's a flat-out appeal to magic". What is more insulting to a naturalist than that? And again, he gives a principled reason for calling it that (this time explicitly). But do you care? I mean, if it just comes off as insulting, it surely must be socially unaware behavior, right?

I mean, Bernardo routinely says stuff like that in all of his live appearances. It was only Tim that responded that way. So you can flip it around that way too.

I think "extremely ugly" would also be fitting for what Bernardo was describing. You can't get any more extreme than zero empirical evidence.

Me

"Very ugly". In the context of scientific theories, and given that scientific naturalism relies on some form of empirical evidence to validate theories, a theory that makes empirical claims and has absolutely no evidence to show for it, could be described as grotesque.

Actually, what Bernardo (usually) means by "theoretical fantasies" in the context of interpretations of QM, especially the many-worlds interpretation, is quite specific: they're based on zero empirical evidence. In other words, they're merely theoretical and not grounded in "reality" (empirical tests), and are thus "fantasies". So in this context, "theoretical fantasies" is not simply a blind dismissal or cheap insult, but it's rather descriptive of the problems with the theories. But of course, it can come off as insulting if you don't know what he is referring to.

The New Yorker energy probably threw him off. It's not always what is being said, but how it's being said that can determine the perceived civility of the discussion. Bernardo said (after a long string of civil argumentation) "[...] willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies [...]" in a very calm and laid-back tone, while Tim opened with "that's silly!" as if he had been coming off a sprint and went on to say things like "what do you even mean by physical realism?! ". Of course, on a purely analytical level and stripped from all contextual nuance, what Bernardo said in the beginning was pretty much equivalent to what Tim responded with. You can say that the pure substance of what was said by both was not civil (and that Bernardo started it), but the emotional tone and general presentation was completely different. Bernardo did of course get (overly) emotional in response, but that's because Tim was additionally not being civil in the emotional sense. A part of the point of being civil is to not create excess noise that clouds the underlying points, and the emotional tone is a big part of that.

Now I understand why the logical positivists rejected metaphysics.

I don't think Razard86 was only referring to that.

All paths lead to cartoon wolves? ?

I think that blog post perfectly encapsulates the difference between the 5-MeO-spirituality/psychonaut approach and the sober rat approach Like, if this goes into the history books, that is the quote they'll use for that.

Did you read about the ACE study?