/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

Per the sister thread, I believe the solution is widespread gene editing to give the general population williams syndrome.

I don't really even care any more. Evolution selects against knowledge of evolution.

Let's all do STEM and produce AGI or transhumans. Better a bot world than a tropicalized world.

lower the AOC

 >>/6382/
you're making a lot of assumptions about what's good for the future of humanity there.

 >>/6536/
"Dilate" seems to have won out as a response. Have you seen this, have you heard about this?

 >>/4460/
You can find more of these videos here:
http://files.howtolivewiki.com/fight_videos_2005ish/

 >>/4460/
this is unbelievable

the fighting style is so fluid, it's like he can see through his enemy's defense and completely disregards all traditional styles for his own method

i'm convinced now of everything gupta claims

 >>/4554/
Don't you have other things to do in your life than trolling on 8chan, Vinay?

 >>/4398/

I blame the Bay Aryans. There's some strange force of memetics there which corrupts anyone that moves. 

 >>/4405/

Aella is a True Rationalist anon. That is to say she's a bizarre woman deep into esotericism pursuing high variance life strategies like camgirling and weird crypto startups.

 >>/4421/
>  I don't know, Chapman has specifically called out this view as false and harmful.
https://meaningness.com/monism

True, although I'm not sure all the postrat (or still-rat or rat-adjacent) psychonaughts got the memo.

Advanced tentatively:  Chapmanism is compatible with atheism and materialism but is perhaps in conflict with empiricism.  It is an introspective, naval-gazing sort of philosophy; sure there's all sorts of emphasis on tantra and "play" and experiencing, but that isn't the sort of thing of which Karl Popper would approve:  no repeatable, falsifiable knowledge is being produced, and even if it were, Chapman's hostility to quantifying anything would get in the way of adding the results to the sum of human knowledge anyway.

Come to think of it, that's kind of a common theme among the postrationalists:  they accept the conclusions of science (unlike their fin-de-siècle/postmodernist/occultist/whatever predecessors), but their own epistemology prevents them from doing any science themselves (relevant:  http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/03/against-anton-wilsonism/)

 >>/4423/
Chapman also said Monism wins the conflict between it and dualism.

I mean, "Monism holds that all religions and philosophies are essentially the same, and that they point at the same ultimate truth." is not the only kind of monism, neither is "the denial of separateness and diversity."

The sophisticated monisms sound exactly like Chapman's "Patterned yet nebulous" shit.

One thing I don't like about Chapman is that he shows little ability to apply his own multi-systematicity.

 >>/2149/
lol yeah get back on that dragon army rationalist dojo fam among a gaggle of polyamorous trannies and diabetic neckbeards

afterwards you can meet at your swinger's meeting, talk AI/furry/fantasy fanfiction and mechanical keyboards while Jamal gives your non-primary gf the Warm Fuzzies

then he pascal mugs you but you realise by doing so you've become an Effective Altruist

rationalists are *huge winners*

tmp_12459 png
(88.12 KB, 1062x470)

l o fucking l

Hey, is “grey tribe” done going on record over Ahmari-French to the extent that the idea of concepts, kinks even, as threatening to destroy society (and not just change it in a way you don’t like) to the extent of legitimating extraliberal suppression is ridiculous, porting over their existing takes on “antis” or whatnot?

‘cause for a while I’ve been expecting a cultural turn on correlation of forces grounds but it was severe enough I couldn’t possibly imagine how anyone could get to narrativizing it from where we are, and I just found an answer-shaped idea, it’s chillingly well precedented, the coalition that would be against it just spent the last decade defining themselves against each other,  the premise and the motte are perfectly in line with modern goodthink, and the bailey is the most corrosive weapons-grade infohazard I’ve ever seen

But I'm not quite like Perevozchenko. I have more balls than him. And if I had been in Chernobyl, and I saw Dyatlov, my leader, behaving like a deranged modern jackass, I would have punched his lights out (Oh, how uncharitable, the horror!) and started executing my plan for dealing with the crisis (and I have such a plan), because Dyatlov is not in need of charity, he's in need of being smacked around the room, and charity, along with the other rules of the sub, are not the tool we need for this crisis, so mods, you have to suspend them for me, instead of locking my posts for Culture War like you're a Fahrenheit 451 fireman instead of a decent human being like me.

What's that mods? Was that uncharitable to you? Do you think that the ethical thing to do when O'Brien tells you 2 + 2 = 5 in Room 101, is to be charitable and play along, instead of biting his face off? How sure are you you're not O'Brien? Because you remind me of him. And when you ban me or lock me, you are saying 2 + 2 = 5, but without typing it out! That's how wrong you are! And I don't know what casuistry you have running through your head, that makes you think you're being the good guy when you deplatform me, but I'm sure it's worthy of r/SneerClub.

 >>/6495/
What the hell does this even mean?

 >>/6528/
It's Kontextmaschine (on tumblr) announcing that he thought of a genius scissor statment which will upset the political landscape, destroy the existing set of political coalitions, and sweep away the last remnants of the liberal order. At first he was all "oh no, I couldn't possibly let this basilisk lose", but now he seems to be saying that he might drop it if we flatter him enough.

What did Godel know png
(217.17 KB, 651x306)

 >>/6529/
Has he posted it yet? Or at least let slip any clues about it? I'm only asking out of curiosity.

 >>/6516/
> The expected number of actual people trying the quantum billionaire trick is much smaller than the expected number of fictional people written by Scott trying it
Scott's only one man, and he won't likely be making the same kind of rationalist-y fiction you can hypothesise about by knowing Scott's writing  decades from now, and he hasn't even written on the quantum billionaire trick, so the expectation that gives me is <1. What kind of assumptions are you making to get expectations that make a Pascal's-Mugging-adjacent "even a little bit" argument viable?

 >>/6406/
You know nobody's going to change your view, yet you have no intention of suicide. Funny that.

 >>/6545/
I think it's very unlikely that even one person is going to try the quantum billionaire trick, at least until ems are invented.
If you find yourself seriously considering it then you're arguably pretty likely to be a fictional character. If you care in the abstract about how fictional rationalisty people are portrayed, then you should take that into consideration, because there's a decent chance you'll influence that.
This consideration still isn't as important as the possibility of dying and/or becoming a billionaire, but it might be enough to change some specifics about the way you execute it, or be a tiebreaker.
It's not likely*important enough to be an imperative, but it's likely enough to take into consideration.

 >>/6548/
I was completely serious about  >>/6422/, other than implementation specifics, and I'm not a fictional character as far as I can tell. I'm not suicidal, but in general I have a hard time believing the set of people who (believe they) have nothing to lose, from now until the invention of ems, contains 0 people who consider quantum suicide trickery worth messing with.

Also your whole argument still relies on fictional characters having a conscious experience. My intuition is that it would be wasteful to simulate a universe with this level of complexity simply for storytelling, so it would be relatively easy to identify your world as created for narrative purposes from the inside. Our universe would need to meet that criteria before I can bother worrying about whether I'm in a Scott masterwork or some plebeian mass entertainment.

 >>/6549/
> Also your whole argument still relies on fictional characters having a conscious experience.
It doesn't. By being the kind of person who would consider the possibility of being in a story, a fictional character based on people like you will be more likely to consider the possibility of being in a story.
That's the beauty of acausal decision theory. You can acausally influence the behavior of your simulation, often even if the simulation is insufficiently detailed to be conscious.

tmp_32421 png
(49.12 KB, 1029x530)

Scott embraced cultural evolution and came out as NRx.

Scott just doesn't want to be blamed for everything associated with rationality and EA when he's only responsible for what he himself posts on SSC.

He's not the leader or the movement or anything, obviously, since there is no organized movement with leaders.

 >>/6526/
You mean he's a coward who doesn't stand by his own followers.

 >>/6520/
> I consider applying for an unpaid internship at CEA.
Why?

Become an edgy left-wing artist.

 >>/6435/
Anything. Does it matter?

 >>/6456/
I'm not sure, the general solutions are probably harder (meditation, learning to control your emotions, etc.) and you might want to deal with each cause anyway which could easily go in opposite directions.

Miscommunication, injustice, inability to stand your ground, "entitlement", a burdensome family member, petty envy, etc. can all foster anger and resentment.

 >>/6458/
Then anger and resentment over any of those.

 >>/6460/

drugs

try this:

wget -p –mirror  –reject-regex=".*replytocom.*"   https://unsongbook.com/

I haven't checked to make sure the reject-regex works. You'll know it works if you don't download a lot of index.html?replytocom= links.

I think I got banned. You should probably put in some kind of waiting option.

git clone https://github.com/moorederodeo/Unsong-In-Ebook-Format

 >>/6503/
thanks :D

This thread should be merged into  >>/3373/. Polite תנא.