New commenting rule (…you might be a midwit)

New rule: to comment at da blergh you must be interesting or endearing. I will not spend my patience on tolerating condescension from midwits. (The spirit of this rule may migrate to the forum soon in another form, but I’m going to consult Koanic about the changes I want to make there.)

Now then, let the hate flow through you!

If you think understanding something is the same as knowing a lot of things about it…you might be a midwit.

If somebody says “good morning” at 12:10 PM and you correct them…you might be a midwit.

If you think having a lot of citations means your opinions are correct…you might be a midwit.

If you can’t tell the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions…you might be a midwit.

If you think statistics, data, and evidence are the same thing…you might be a midwit.

If you think PhDs are a sign of high intelligence…you might be a midwit.

If you think philosophy is easier than engineering…you might be a midwit.

If you think genius is brilliance, and brilliance is just very fast mental computation…you might be a midwit.

If you believe the singularity is possible because consciousness is just emanations of electrical signals doing logic in the brain…you might be a midwit.

If you think smart people prefer to use big words…you might be a midwit.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to New commenting rule (…you might be a midwit)

  1. Akuma says:

    If you can’t attend an Alt-Right rally you might be a midwit.

    • glosoli says:

      What if you can’t attend because it’s too far away to travel on a bicycle?
      Heh.

      • ///M M/// says:

        >single
        >black pilled
        >600 posts, 48 followers
        Are you the archetypal failure, Glosoli?

        • glosoli says:

          Failure or success is all relative. Hillary has more followers than me on Twitter too.

          My brother has had 3 marriages compared to my zero, is he winning? (The 3rd is over too, and his ex-wife has caused his estrangement from his daughters too).

          An ex-colleague and I became self-employed together at the same time 9 years ago, but she went the network route, I went on my own. She has more clients and (probably) more income, but I have 30 hours more to myself each week, working c. 15 hours per week? Who is winning?

          I have only shot a sub-par round of golf twice in my life, I know I can do it again. But I don’t really care if I do. Success or failure?

          I became a Christian last year, so I’m past black-pilled status now. On to the eternal golden pill. On the winning side in the long run I reckon.

          I learned you are a Christian so I have buried the hatchet with you by the way. Good to see you sharing stuff to help the community.

  2. ThalMelon says:

    Who has been condescending or saying stupid stuff exactly? I’ve never seen anyone do that here.

  3. Heaviside says:

    I think you should not ban ace of ms.

  4. Ulixes Orobar says:

    So, in other words, you will not tolerate shaming, moralizing, emotional manipulation, and status games in place of argumentation and reasoned debate. I feel the same way. When we’re having discussions and debates, let’s keep our language descriptive and focused upon the relevant issues.

    Also…

    “If you believe the singularity is possible because consciousness is just emanations of electrical signals doing logic in the brain…you might be a midwit.”

    The electrical signals in our brains correspond to the structure and the content of our experiences, but there’s much more to consciousness (subjective experience) itself. Our brains merely produce interconnected and integrated subjective experiences; however, subjective experience itself is much more… fundamental to existence.

    This doesn’t mean that the singularity (in the Kurzweilian sense or the LessWrongian sense) is possible or likely, though. Maybe one could produce an accurate simulation of a human brain, but growing new humans would cost much less. I honestly don’t know how useful AIs will be in the long run. Maybe they can do cognitive labour for us; however, replacing human workers with AIs probably will lead to misery and boredom on a societal scale.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >So, in other words, you will not tolerate shaming, moralizing, emotional manipulation, and status games in place of argumentation and reasoned debate.

      Nope, not at all the same as what I said.

      >The electrical signals in our brains correspond to the structure and the content of our experiences, but there’s much more to consciousness (subjective experience) itself. Our brains merely produce interconnected and integrated subjective experiences; however, subjective experience itself is much more… fundamental to existence.

      Maybe.

      >This doesn’t mean that the singularity (in the Kurzweilian sense or the LessWrongian sense) is possible or likely, though.

      The singularity is impossible because perpetual motion machines are impossible.

      >I honestly don’t know how useful AIs will be in the long run. Maybe they can do cognitive labour for us; however, replacing human workers with AIs probably will lead to misery and boredom on a societal scale.

      Post-scarcity is another issue entirely. We’re already there.

      • Ulixes Orobar says:

        >>So, in other words, you will not tolerate shaming, moralizing, emotional manipulation, and status games in place of argumentation and reasoned debate.

        >Nope, not at all the same as what I said.

        Let me attempt to describe the connection that I see here. When someone behaves condescendingly towards a person who has a more thorough understanding of a subject, he probably does so for one of two reasons:

        1.) Overconfidence. This stems from the inability to judge one’s own level of competence and from an intuition that one’s opponent has taken an unpopular position.

        2.) Feigned condescension used in place of a substantive point. The goal here is to undermine the confidence of one’s opponent with emotion alone. (“You should feel bad for thinking X,” instead of, “Here’s how we know that X is false…”)

        I assumed that people were doing the second one.

        >The singularity is impossible because perpetual motion machines are impossible.

        This clears things up for me. You’re referring to continually accelerating improvements in computing technology. People can mean several different things when they talk about “the singularity” or “the technological singularity.”

  5. ///M M/// says:

    Simulating consciousness not necessary.
    The danger is that the elites will not need us for anything and can then release the bioweapons.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s