Carl-Richard

"I just follow the dietary recommendations from the national institute of public health; they have 1000s of scientists that have done more research and better research than I could ever do".

When you're in the statistical worldview, - you are acutely aware that many things can influence one thing, and their relationship is statistical (quantitative). Some things can have a strong influence, other things less of a strong influence, and some things only a weak influence (e.g. the butterfly effect). In reality, there is a huge web of influences, where each influence is a particular node or string on the web, and each node is weighted with a certain strength of influence or statistical value. For example, ADHD can be influenced by beliefs, experiences, genetics, etc. Even if you think one of these things have a stronger influence, it doesn't mean it can only be reduced to that thing, and talking as if it can be reduced to that thing can lead to problems with accurately talking about and perceiving reality. Words like "partially", "mostly", "some of", "many", are often used. - you often say things are "probably so", "most likely", "less likely", "probably not". It does not preclude you from making firm and exclusive analytical statements (e.g. "given x and y, z is true or false, coherent or inconsistent"). But you are very acutely aware when something is statistical and probabilistic so you don't overstep or overgeneralize or oversimplify. - you realize a thing can be many things at the same time. There is often not just one way to do things, or one thing you can do at any one time. "Should I meditate every day or should I do retreats where I meditate more deeply?" Why not both? "That's the placebo effect". Why can't it be a real effect and placebo at the same time? "Trans is social contagion". Why can't some of it be real trans and some of it be social contagion (both within and across individuals)? "Yes — both" is very often realized to be the answer. The statistical worldview is a way to conceptualize nuance and holism, as opposed to black-and-white thinking and naive reductionism. It's also related to the modern scientific framework of putting numbers and quantities to these relationships. Modern science, especially human-oriented science (e.g. medicine, psychology), primes this kind of statistical thinking where everything is viewed through statistical associations (mediation, moderation, correlation) and ways of quantifying them (effect sizes, correlation coefficients, measures of statistical significance). If you do enough scientific thinking, in the right fields of science, you will eventually end up viewing a large chunk of the world this way.

Just chop off your.. hand.

Kill meee, now I have another reason to cringe when at the gym. Some observations I've found myself: So much gen alpha music (and probably earlier) steals whole songs, perhaps modulates and changes the rhythm and places a generic EDM beat on top. Like purely shameless stealing. The last example I heard of this was with The Sound Of Silence cover by Disturbed (which is itself a cover, so it's already recycled); and it's so bad to listen to because they sped it up so much the vibrato sounds like something from an Alvin and the Chipmunks YouTube cover. "Don't you worry about a thing, everything is gonna be alright" lyrics is everywhere and it drives me beyond the realms of insanity. Lyrics about partying and getting drunk (not a purely gen alpha thing but still). Songs where you just know some producer used a list to check off the most formulaic ways to create a song that maximizes commercial appeal.

The PFAS.

"There are stupid people and there are smart people" is the most stupid way to view the world.

Aim high.

AGI should be able to drive a human body better than a human or else it's just a garbage push-to-start token shuffling machine, only a glorified gumball machine (this is a false dichotomy but it's for the lols).

What about poisonous plants? We've been through this before. When in doubt, don't. I prefer sperm. But sperm is actually technically a venom because it's an animal shooting something into an other organism that may cause the other organism to die. (That's a joke and a horrible stretch of definitions outside their common usage 🤓).

😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

I've been watching national cable news in my country and noticed "it's not x, it's y" AI sentences from the news anchors. I've also smelled AI on the radio. I want to pour gasoline on the world.

What about Ozempic but for porn? 😂 Wait... does it already work for porn? 😂

Because we want them to screw open a Coca-Cola.

@zurew And I'm like yeah ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, reality is weird, and it has always been weird. What does Bernardo think about the three body problem or morphogenesis in biology or simply chaos theory? There have always been clear limitations to trying to deduce laws and getting a clear picture of reality. Models have always just been like small doodles on top of an infinite stack of papers. That we find out that big grand daddy God also has a mind of its own, that just adds more to the fun. Models have always been domain-specific. That "seeing through sense organs" explains some forms of vision but not others is totally fine. To get limpy about that is like getting limpy about being able to get ice cream from more than just one ice cream truck. You're still getting ice cream; you're still getting an explanation that can give a satisfying account (if you just drop the idea of "The Ice Cream"). Or in other words, sense organs are nice explanations for the game called physical reality. But you can level up. It's been a while, but I think Tom Campbell's model has a better approach to dealing with these notions (he created his model largely as a response to dealing with psi phenomena). In fact, I remember Tom Campbell's model specifically helped me underscore that conventional naturalism like that championed by Bernardo is a choice or a preference for how to explain reality and that you can go outside of it, and not just by being a retard and retracting all explanatory power like in solipsism or refusing to explain anything like in metaphysically naive non-duality, but by perhaps expanding explanatory power):

@zurew The AI couldn't even find that out

AGI but can't screw open a Coca-Cola.

Instagram. Cobra venom is nature 🤔

Then I made a mistake insulting the AI. That does not invalidate them full sale. "Mostly negligible", ok, so you said a bunch of nothing. If you personally can't experience effects from different things, that's fine. Nobody is saying we're doing placebo-controlled double-blind experiments (although sometimes, there is a form of placebo control in that you expected one effect but you actually experienced the opposite or something else entirely). Nobody is saying you should be cautious. You need to make the distinction between a microscopic effect and a bigger effect. Depends on what you consider a big deal. I agree @integral likes to be hyperbolic ("extremely toxic environment"), but that does not negate that there are empirically verifiable and theoretically consistent influences.

@cistanche_enjoyer

It's actually very possible to express any physics or maths equation in natural language. It's how we originally learn the abstracted language in schools and universities. For example, E = 1/2 mv^2 is easily translated as Energy equals half the mass multiplied by the velocity squared. I'll try with barely high school math (and some cheating): Work (never mind: weight, or actually I don't know) equals the integral where k is smaller than lambda for all the possible values of the variables g, A, v(?) and wtf and exponent(?) in the element of some variable i times the integral of d to the fourth times x square root minus g times [I cba with this bracket]. I don't know what the letters mean (except W, g, m, F, V) and I barely know integrals . But does @integral know integrals? 🤔

If you ask it kindly enough, ChatGPT will find you problems where there are none. And if you actually take a graduate course, they will teach you how to not talk/write like a retard (I love this word). This was something we were recommended (among a larger document of writing tips that emphasized clarity and precision): https://x.com/sapinker/status/1084490338629242880 In fact, in a slight failure to gauge the culture and expectations, I took concerns about format and word choice (and brevity/simplicity, which is a huge trap) way too seriously, it limited my academic performance (I started essentially censoring myself), so I had to break out of that and allow myself to write more freely. The trap was I started holding back information and literally dumbing myself down instead of simply polishing my message. It's like you take the butcher knife and instead of trimming the fat, you chop off entire limbs and throw them in the garbage.

Sexual intercourse, let alone porn, makes you fall asleep if you did it correctly. That is an influence that lasts not just a few minutes but hours (and of course weeks as well). The "waste of time" comes as a chronic dampening/softening of energy. That said, natural cycles of sleep are good. But only sleep, probably less good.

Energy rises upwards, like in the video.

Solipsism is retarded.

@Saop Mactavish Jesus Christ you people are relentless.