I thought it was a valuable conversation. It was for me at least. Maybe she doesn't like her understanding questioned in public? What's the point of publishing notes then?
"Caveat: agreeable replies only"
well, he kept sawing away at the flaws in your understanding, i'm sure you learned something from it
Discussion
lol, you were learning?
seemed more like you were trying to punch a hole in her reputation because of her tendency to type the first thing that comes to her mind
i agree that her understanding is weak in some areas and i also understand the process by which she learns through argumentation, mainly because i do a lot of this myself, but i am also very good at inference, many things i figure out even though i never actually read a strict definition of something, i just saw it used so many times in a context that i cemented my understanding based on this and it has been right like 7 times out of 10, in most cases, thus my brazen confidence at typing words
To some degree you're right. She writes a lot of long and confident pieces (that don't come off as stream of consciousness experiments) and posts them to the public for consideration. One form of reply you'll get when you do that is people saying "I don't think you're right about that, and here's why."
Muting them and calling them assholes is an interesting style of replying to feedback on your content.
I didn't drop a single snarky, rude comment and disappear. I had several long threads with her where we strongly disagreed and I hoped would eventually come to some kind of understanding at least of each other if not the world.
I suppose that happened? She's left with an understanding that I'm some sort of sociopath. And I'm left with an understanding that she's deeply uncomfortable with long-winded disagreements. Uncomfortable enough that _she doesn't even want to see it in her client_...
no, and i agree with her that you focused on the religion part and ignored the philosophical basis of her point about psychic profit because she isn't as schooled in economic theory and relies on things she does know that are the religious basis
it's fine if you don't want to believe in God or ultimate justice of any kind but you also can't deny that a society that organises around these principles is a better society... the whole reason why europe has come to dominate the world in the last 500 years has not just been guns, it's also because a more just system of money and contracts, which are central principles of christianity, were in effect, from the chiming of the church clock bells to the mediation of disputes performed by the priests of a parish, christianity has been critical to how the world has got a lot better in the last 500 years, and further, Satoshi even gave a nod to that by picking the same day to finally go to public with his early alpha bitcoin project, to make a clear connection to Luther and the end of the catholic monopoly on christianity, and their prohibition of distribution of the bible
and yes, she is a very intelligent lady, and very confident about her intelligence, and performs well at carrying that
i also write a lot off the top of my head, so much so that i get accused occasionally of being an AI (even though i post photos of my ortholinear mech keyboard) - back in the old days people would say "you're on meth" and occasionally that was true
people with high intelligence and low impulse control have a lot of audacity at argumentation, even when they have got something wrong, and attacking that as a personality flaw does not endear you to them, nor does it achieve the ostensible goal of correcting their inaccurate models
and i'm definitely of the opinion that atheism is a wrong model, this universe has rigid laws and you have to at minimum agree that the entire edifice of science rests upon the foundation of this fixity of the laws, even if maybe some of the apparent constants fluctuate the laws that they regulate do not
Well she sure carries herself as if she's some sort of nostr celebrity. Especially the "doesn't take criticism well / quick to mute" aspect.
At no point did I attack her personality. The closest I came to something resembling an insult was to say I don't understand moderate religious people, and that I understand fanatics better.
And that was in the context of psychic profits. Namely: if there is an endless wealth of psychic profit available to the believer, and those profits are unbelievably strong (both immediately and literally forever after) why does one ever defer on maximizing those profits?
I know you think atheism is a wrong model. That's fine.
it's not your privilege to get the engagement of everyone you wish to engage with
if you start along this line of "harden up, ignore the trolls" mentality that i know well from reddit and steem blockchain and many shitcoin comunities, you are on track to also lose my interest in engaging with you
Harden up, yes. But also be wise enough to discern between "the trolls" and "people who just don't agree with you". If someone wants to review the conversation from this morning and find the places where I was trolling or being needlessly rude and antagonistic, they can be my guest - there's no delete nor edit on nostr. There's not a whole lot I would have said differently. Maybe if I knew how sensitive she is I would have couched a few things a bit more, but that gets exhausting after a while.
Easier for everyone for her to just mute me I guess? Let's hope I never have anything of value she'd prefer to see. "Mute" is a pretty strong action - saying that there's nothing you could possibly want to see from this account.
Not sure what you're talking about re: shitcoin communities.
Smart women b crazy
It's quite the claim that Satoshi's nod was at Christianity itself and not actually the process by which the church's ideological stranglehold was dismantled and potentially a celebration of the decline of the church... but we'll both just be guessing here so let's not.
---
I focused on the religion part because I had a strong suspicion that her points about economics were backed not by economics but by religion. I feel that she mostly confirmed this, but we'll never really know since I guess I scared her off by going there.
If I'm going to get into a conversation with someone and some large portion of their opinions on all topics are undergirded by a metaphysics I don't subscribe to, I sort of want to know that early on because in my experience it's hard for religious people to set their beliefs aside and meet me on neutral grounds about the topic at hand.
Faith tends to be totalizing - and it's understandable that it is, that's kind of the point. It's not meant to be this little sliver of a thing [over here] that sometimes has an effect; it runs through a person's core.
So I prefer to find the places we're going to "agree to disagree" early and just get that out of the way and see what else (if anything) is left to discuss that isn't poisoned by either of our convictions about metaphysics (here I am including my own convictions - I totally get that religious people will think I'm quite wrong).
In this case, it seems there was "nothing left to discuss" after the religious part was out of the way - since we couldn't even get past the religious part without her blocking me.
well i'm just gonna leave it there also because i don't like the way it feels thinking of the universe as a heartless, dumb machine, because what is the value of my life in such a context? nothing, or at best, an ever shrinking miniscule triviality
i believe that there is a force in nature that accumulates coherence and order and continues an unending trajectory towards goodness and justice, terence mckenna called it a "novelty conserving engine" but i think it is no less an abstract thing that governs all around us, and that this nihilistic, mechanistic, materialist perspective only leads to decay and death
if there is no eternal axiomatic laws in our universe, then the continued existence of it is a spite in the face of your so called philosophy
and i'm just not gonna let this thing go because otherwise i might as well be dead, and there is nothing in the future but eventual heat death and dissipation
what kind of model is that? one that does not bolster your will to do the right thing, that excuses evil and criminality and violence, you just haven't thought it through
The universe doesn't care whether or not you enjoy the feeling of how it is.
I get that that feels bad - you said it yourself. But I don't choose my beliefs by looking at a bunch of options and saying "which one will make me feel the best, regardless of its validity?"
_That_ is wild hedonism.
Sometimes you have to accept that the true nature of a situation is not as good as it could actually be or as you'd like or imagine it could be.
This is the post of someone who only thought about atheism for 5 minutes.
Meaning is so much more meaningful in a universe where you can truly meet the most meaningful being in existence in person and know that you did with certainty. Not having your meaning doesn't mean having no meaning.
The morality of atheism is well documented, if you think we are all just monsters giving in to our every sin impulse it is because you choose to see us that way. I would point out that only one of us feels full responsibility for our wrongdoing. After all nostr:npub19ma2w9dmk3kat0nt0k5dwuqzvmg3va9ezwup0zkakhpwv0vcwvcsg8axkl and I can't say the devil made me do it or god wanted me to make that mistake to learn some lesson. We must simply face the full force of that mistake with 100% of the responsibility in our hands.
Put those together, any harm I do to another human is a direct attack on "god" defined as the most amazing and powerful being to exist and I am fully to blame for any damage done.
i have extensive personal experience with atheists and satanists and every last one i have met has signs of mild to moderate psychosis
and the way that text is structured it smells like AI had a big part in composing it
and lol what the fuck, if you are an atheist, you also are inclined towards the solipsistic brain in a jar interpretation and how do you know anything happened at all? give me a break
Lol the people who don't believe in the supernatural are the ones with the psychosis...
Look, I mean it when I say that I don't hold your religion against you. I can't fully ignore that aspect of your worldview (because it potentially implies a lot), but I'm happy to keep having discussions with you about other topics. Hopefully the feeling is mutual. We can just say "well, we're veering into metaphysics now, probably best to avoid.." and we'll hope that isn't the fate of every conversation.
I'm willing to bet that psychosis comes from circular logic on your part or a refusal to understand that a different world view can be consistent and their actions make sense given their world view but not yours.
No AI used. Just a wordy person by nature. Too much reading old books.
Or a blood infection or too little sleep for too long.
nostr:npub19ma2w9dmk3kat0nt0k5dwuqzvmg3va9ezwup0zkakhpwv0vcwvcsg8axkl nostr:npub1qyxlpj2gl6dt2nfvkl4yyrl6pr2hjkycrdh2dr5r42n7ktwn7pdqrdmu7u
thanks for this. it's fun to read.
I had trouble describing my own beliefs (raised by atheists) in ways that weren't belief based, so I cointed the term "Apathet" to describe myself for religious classification.
I don't care if there's a god. I'm a good person anyway in case there's some moment/eternity of judgement awaiting me. Let some God figure it out, and I'll continue making conscious decisions in the present moment. what a relief.
the universe is way bigger than me, but it is me.. and I it. as are you, even if you're AI. and there's something valuable in connecting with the universe how my ancestors did. through symbols.
.. and it's nicer to consider the world (my limited perception) through a slightly mystical lens.
LOL I spent almost an entire afternoon debating you and didn't get upset until you claimed religion addled my brain and you be like,
She refuses to even respond!
🥴
as i was getting tired of reading it i realised that he was using all kinds of rhetorical and fallacious logic tricks to keep engagement going, i've bumped into this one before and i'll keep him on my mute list i think
Yea we've bumped into eachother before. We talked about Stray and other video games. It was fun.
Where did I say religion addled your brain?
"Addled" has a negative charge. Wouldn't you agree that someone with strong religious beliefs has different worldviews when it comes to all sorts of topics than those without any religious belief? (It wouldn't be much of a belief if it didn't change your mind, right?)
You don't have to use the derogatory term "addled". I am indeed curious where your worldview and mine diverge, and when that divergence stems from our differing metaphysical beliefs. That's not an insulting or trolly disposition is it?
For instance, I asked what you consider the term "greed" to mean, elsewhere in the threads. I'd wager we have different ideas there due to our belief systems. There was nothing rude or baiting or inciteful about that question.
Of course it's your prerogative if you choose to answer or simply ignore the question. But calling me an asshole, muting me and then chalking it all up to "me thinking you're insane because you believe in god" is quite the different tack than merely choosing not to answer...
We are talking about flowers, now.
> She refuses to even respond!
I mean... yes - demonstrably.
I'd rather you keep me muted than make a show of pretending to respond to old messages with joking nonsequitirs about flowers.
If this is one of those "let's just change the topic and re-start on friendly terms as if nothing happened" things, I'm not doing it. You called me an asshole, said you were muting me, claimed I called you insane/brain damaged, constructed false realities about me in other threads (https://primal.net/e/note1lmcehrh9rh5tj65g8uyau0s2z6dx3w8elgm7h7kvyaz3xav5gw2q3xm7sw), etc.
I'm not smiling and walking into "new topic" land like that without a discussion, sorry.