Comments by "whynottalklikeapirat" (@whynottalklikeapirat) on "SPDA" channel.

@bartekburcza I whispered that to my coffee this morning …
2
She doesn’t feel sorry about it
1
@dentkort Humans do not have purpose or meaning outside of what we define for ourselves. That kind of teleology is just not a thing.
1
@dentkort It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim - status is that currently no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated at all. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
@dentkort It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim - status is that currently no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated at all. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
@dentkort It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim - status is that currently no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated eitherl. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
@dentkort It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim on my part - status is that currently there is no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated either. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
@dentkort It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim on my part - status is that currently there is no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated either. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim on my part - status is that currently there is no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated either. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
@denkort2046 It’s not something I really need to prove, it’s not some absolute claim on my part - status is that currently there is no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better.. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated either. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “is such teleology even hypothetically possible - and how” and any explanation of the “how” would need to not ignore but somehow either circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And good luck with that …
1
@dentkort It’s not some absolute claim on my part but It’s not something I really need to prove,- status is that currently there is no proper evidence to suggest that teleology or purpose are driving forces in the universe, the idea has not shown itself to be a viable model. In other words there is no good REASON to believe it is the case or that it would even be possible, if you like that way of putting it better. For a primer you could for example search the recorded conference “moving naturalism forwards” where this question is touched upon briefly by physicist Sean Carrol and other scientists across various fields (around the beginning of day 1). It’s not controversial at all. It’s not my job to disprove claims of dragons, pixies or mermaids either. It’s the positive claim that the universe should be somehow driven by “purpose” that happens to require proving at this stage in the conversation. Some people then feel “well anything is possible until proven otherwise” this is a fallacy. The claim that anything is possible has not been substantiated either. Everything we’ve seen so far indicates that it’s NOT the case. So, pending evidence of the primary claim that there is some inherent meaning to the universe - your starting point could actually be answering “in what way might such teleology even hypothetically possible” and any explanation of the “how” would need to somehow either rationally circumscribe or falsify our current positive knowledge of the universe. And-uh good luck with that …
1
@dentkort I don’t have to - there is no good evidence for teleology in nature, and the scientific consensus is that it’ not a useful or rational position (see for example “moving naturalism forwards” with Sean Carrol and others). It’s a positive claim that there should be inherent meaning and purpose to the universe so it’s on the person claiming it to cash it in, which means that pending evidence to the contrary, it’s quite rational to work from the assumption that the proposition may be ignored. Some people feel “anything is possible until disproven”. This is not a rational assumption either. It remains less than hypothetical that anything should be possible. That’s another claim which requires its own substantiation and process of falsification. Meanwhile all our positive knowledge so far indicates that anything is indeed NOT possible. It’s not the kind of universe we observe. So yeah - back to you buddy …
1
@dentkort2046 I don’t have to - there is no good evidence for teleology in nature, and the scientific consensus is that it’ not a useful or rational position (see for example “moving naturalism forwards” with Sean Carrol and others). It’s a positive claim that there should be inherent meaning and purpose to the universe so it’s on the person claiming it to cash it in, which means that pending evidence to the contrary, it’s quite rational to work from the assumption that the proposition may be ignored. Some people feel “anything is possible until disproven”. This is not a rational assumption either. It remains less than hypothetical that anything should be possible. That’s another claim which requires its own substantiation and process of falsification. Meanwhile all our positive knowledge so far indicates that anything is indeed NOT possible. It’s not the kind of universe we observe. So yeah - back to you buddy …
1
@38225 Or maybe it’s all you can do 😄
1
What she doesn’t get is that it’s not the fact that you may be in the 99th percentile that is the real issue, it’s that you felt compelled to create an interaction where you establish yourself as something the person you are with is then less than on certain scores. When you read a book you can’t really do much about it, but if you were in the room with her you’d have to either accept that as a socially, and personally acceptable action or confront why raising it in the given context would be necessary or relevant. In the case of no response, she’d have successfully pushed a boundary at the cost of your space: It is now acceptable to perform this type of action, and it might be acceptable for her to refer to that in future scenarios i.e. “My opinion is more important because I am smarter than you and you know and accept that” and next “you are less important as a person than I because I am better than you” and maybe next - call it long term effects on a partner - “Your opinion doesn’t count, how you feel is unimportant and irrational, you really are nothing without me”. It is about apparently discreet avenues of social dominance, not about describing formal cognitive properties. And people SHOULD be taken aback by that, because something is not right. The fact that most people also can’t tolerate the idea of being less smart than someone else, even when it is clearly the case, is a different issue. But it goes to show that self worth and personal and social status are at stake. There are real life consequences to being less intelligent. People can fool you more easily. Maybe get one over on you. You’ll have trouble where others don’t. General intelligence is not a neutral property in social life. She may not understand that - but she understands dominance, and she understands social games and hierarchies and power. She understands getting one over. She understand she feels entitled to more than you, and feels it’s justified. She understands that when it comes to her needs and preferences, everybody else should just pipe down. And frankly she probably feels she is entitled to the adoration of others for being such a stable genius. Why hide your candle, when you’re certainly not ashamed of it yourself. Whe be dragged down or held back by dullards? So either way it’s a problem. Deliberate or not, pointing it out is most likely to be a mode of bullying and self promotion. Her minimising the social and transactional significance of saying it in conversation, is part of minimising the importance of how other people might feel or react to her actions - hey it’s just a formal truth here, why can’t you deal with it? But it’s not that simple. She is just pushing it that way because its her nature as well as probably - her angle.
1