[HN Gopher] Make believe
___________________________________________________________________
Make believe
Author : kiyanwang
Score : 69 points
Date : 2023-01-21 12:26 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sive.rs)
(TXT) w3m dump (sive.rs)
| zug_zug wrote:
| upvoting for the audio. the incredibly relaxed audio presentation
| gives this theory a casual and jovial nature which feels wildly
| different than most blog posts (which I tend to read in a
| lecturing-professor tone).
| tombert wrote:
| I don't want to be too mean here, but this comes off as idiotic
| nonsense. Well-intentioned bullshit is still bullshit. I think
| most religions were initially well-intentioned but because they
| added a layer of supernatural bullshit to it people decided to
| weaponize it and justify basically anything horrible.
|
| When you base your belief on bullshit, you have the ability to
| justify _anything_ , because nonsense can mean whatever you want
| it to mean.
|
| Obviously not all religious people are homophobes or racists or
| bigots but it does seem like a lot of demagogues have an easy
| time using religion to justify homophobia or racism or bigotry.
| cratermoon wrote:
| > make: ** No rule to make target `believe'. Stop.
| galactus wrote:
| " Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like
| loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they
| are useful."
|
| His use of the word 'useful' implies he classifies things as
| 'useful' and 'useless' according to some absolute value system
| that he considers evidently true but that in reality is no more
| or less valid that those things he lists as merely useful.
| adolph wrote:
| _All models are wrong is a common aphorism in statistics; it is
| often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful".
| The aphorism acknowledges that statistical models always fall
| short of the complexities of reality but can still be useful
| nonetheless. The aphorism originally referred just to
| statistical models, but it is now sometimes used for scientific
| models in general._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
| Sakos wrote:
| I struggle to understand what the point of this comment is.
|
| Yes, we know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You
| don't have to believe him or agree with anything he says.
| That's ... how it works.
|
| I generally find his posts quite helpful and useful. Even ones
| where I might not agree with him.
|
| Your comment is noise. It's just blind criticism without
| actually saying anything. I don't find it helpful or useful.
| "His value system could be valid or not valid". Also, water is
| wet and British food sucks.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Huh? No. As I understand it, GP is making the point that
| implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually _is_ , at
| bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than merely
| this sort of utilitarian notion of useful. Because in order
| to even judge whether something is useful or helps to achieve
| some beneficial end in any way that we'd care about, one must
| have some axiological conception in mind.
|
| Also, I really don't understand why your comment is so biting
| and aggressive and how you finding his posts helpful and
| useful is responsive to GP's point? Did GP offer some general
| critique of his posts? Maybe GP also finds them generally
| helpful and useful, but had a point to make about this
| specific post? Your entire response is generally strange and
| the rudeness is unwarranted.
| Sakos wrote:
| > implicit in Sivers' idea is that there actually is, at
| bottom, a notion of objective truth that is more than
| merely this sort of utilitarian notion of useful.
|
| Sivers' perspective is subjective. As most opinions are. So
| even if he is implying an "objective truth", none of us are
| obliged to treat it that way. But that isn't specific to
| Sivers or his above post. That literally applies to
| everybody.
|
| Again, it's like saying water is wet.
| galactus wrote:
| You explained it better than I did, thanks
| LouisSayers wrote:
| He may as well say "join a cult, it feels great!".
|
| Religion is like the OG social network - designed to hook its
| members and extract value from them.
|
| "But I get value from my Instafeed" its users decry.
|
| Yeah, but it's also a lot of non productive doom scrolling,
| causes social issues and can be used as a political tool to
| manipulate the masses. The people running the platforms can buy
| themselves a nice boat though, so there's always that.
| NickBusey wrote:
| > Following a religion improves your daily actions
|
| Citation needed.
|
| Edit: the fact that this is being downvoted is hilarious.
| Religion is a helluva drug.
| nindalf wrote:
| There's no direct cause and effect between believing in a
| religion and living a longer, happier life.
|
| However, religious people are more likely to attend regular
| religious services, where they are likely to develop social
| connections. As social animals, social connections are great
| for our physical and mental well being. This is probably one of
| the factors that leads to religious people living longer,
| happier lives (Association of Religious Service Attendance With
| Mortality Among Women https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainte
| rnalmedicine/fullar...)
|
| You got the citation you wanted?
| NickBusey wrote:
| Nope. None of that says that they have "improved their daily
| actions" just because they joined a social club.
| wellanyway wrote:
| This is a _somewhat weak_ argument.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Expect citations to come from religion user's manuals and
| promotional material. We need trusted reviews and real life
| long-term comparatives for religions.
| wellanyway wrote:
| Amount of religious people on HN is very surprising to me. I
| expected engineering community to do better.
| elammett wrote:
| Comments like this confirm the stereotype that engineers have
| a one-track mind. Imagine crapping on billions of people for
| believing something that they cannot prove, but that you also
| cannot disprove. How arrogant.
| lostmsu wrote:
| There's plenty of evidence against Abrahamic religions core
| sources. The followers simply ignore it.
| cratermoon wrote:
| What do you mean by core sources? Are you able to provide
| examples?
| lostmsu wrote:
| 7000 old Earth and carbon dating.
| cratermoon wrote:
| The 7000 year old Earth claim is not found in the Bible
| or any other sacred text of the Abrahamic faiths. The
| young earth chronology is a 17th century invention
| attributed to James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and
| Primate of All Ireland, from a literal reading of the
| Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Biblical literalism as a whole is
| an 18th century invention, the desire to find literal
| truth in ancient texts was a product of the scientific
| revolution.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| I think they just have a different orientation to the
| world than you do. I'm not religious for what it's worth,
| but for many of the religious people I know I don't think
| stripping them of their religious belief would make them
| any better off.
| fasterik wrote:
| That's a false equivalence between proof and disproof. If
| someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit around
| Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither of us
| can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean we both
| have an equal claim to being right. Who is the arrogant one
| in this case?
| jondeval wrote:
| Let's leave aside the arrogant/not-arrogant portion of
| the thread for now and key in on your main point:
|
| > If someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit
| around Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither
| of us can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean
| we both have an equal claim to being right.
|
| I agree with you. No person is rationally justified in
| believing in such a teapot without evidence. However, a
| teapot is a _contingent_ thing. Meaning it 's very
| existence depends on the existence of other things (tea,
| water, the ceramic material that makes it up, Proxima
| Centauri etc.)
|
| I suspect (I could be wrong here) that you are tacitly
| implying that people who assert the existence of God are
| making a similar move.
|
| Please keep in mind that God is by definition base-
| reality and _non-contingent_ and so exists necessarily.
|
| To illustrate the difference here with an analogy: If we
| witnessed an alternative rendition of a conversation
| between Romeo and Juliet where they attempted to prove
| the existence of Shakespeare, we wouldn't be surprised if
| they failed to find evidence for Shakespeare from
| _within_ the play and their own character existence. But
| at the same time we would find their conclusion absurd if
| they thought they had successfully proved that
| Shakespeare did not exist. They are Romeo and Juliet
| after all.
| fasterik wrote:
| There are two separate issues here. One is how we choose
| to define God, and the other is what religious people
| actually believe.
|
| OP was referring to "billions of people" with certain
| beliefs. Most of these people believe in God as an entity
| with a personality who intervenes in events on Earth.
| That kind of God doesn't have to exist by necessity.
|
| On the other hand, if we define God as base reality, then
| God exists by definition. In that case why not just call
| it "reality" or "the universe"? When most people say they
| believe in God, I don't think they are saying they
| believe in the universe. I think they are making a
| stronger claim than that.
|
| I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example is supposed
| to show. The base reality for Romeo and Juliet is our
| physical world rather than the play world, and God is
| Shakespeare who exists contingently in base reality. Yes,
| it's impossible for them to prove that God (Shakespeare)
| doesn't exist. But what reasons could Romeo and Juliet
| have for believing that Shakespeare exists or that they
| are living in a play world rather than base reality?
| Unless Shakespeare explicitly writes evidence of his
| existence into the play, their claims are on the same
| footing as Russell's teapot.
| jondeval wrote:
| Thanks for the response. Let me take your comments one at
| a time. Apologies in advance if it seems like I'm jumping
| around and cherry picking. I'm just trying to focus in on
| the key issues.
|
| > if we define God as base reality, then God exists by
| definition.
|
| Right. You are stating the conception of God that is
| advanced by Judaism and Christianity. Its succinct
| expression is put forth by Thomas Aquinas and can also be
| found in the thinking of Aristotle.
|
| To get even more concrete, the Roman Catholic Church
| teaches that God is _ipsum esse subsistens_ or roughly
| _subsistent being itself_.
|
| > In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the
| universe"?
|
| I think you're touching on a good point. Let me take each
| case separately because I see them as slightly different:
|
| >> ... why not just call it "reality" ...
|
| You sort of can. As long we acknowledge that reality is
| made up of things that are more and less contingent. For
| example I'm looking at my headphones as I type. I can say
| 'these headphones are reality'. Even though these
| headphones are real, we both know that they would be a
| terrible candidate for base reality itself since the
| headphones can't explain their own existence and are
| clearly contingent on other things in being. (similar to
| the teapot)
|
| >> ... why not just call it ..."the universe" ...
|
| Typically when people say "the universe" they are
| implying the sum total of all material reality as we
| observe it.
|
| The question is: is this the best or even a good
| candidate for base-reality. I think the answer is no for
| a very simple reason. The universe changes. energy
| changes form, objects change in an emergent phenomena we
| call time, they move through space, there are stars and
| not stars, and atoms and not atoms etc.
|
| Everything else that we know of or can conceive of that
| changes as much as the universe does is coupled to a more
| fundamental reality that is the cause and explanation of
| the change.
|
| So the universe is real, like the headphones, it just
| can't be the best candidate for base-reality itself.
|
| So what is a good candidate for base reality?
|
| * For starters there is only _one_ base-realty. If there
| were 2 or more then you would need something more
| fundamental to distinguish them.
|
| * Whatever this base reality is, it's utterly simple. It
| has no parts since parts would require distinctions and
| more fundamental explanations to identify them.
|
| * Base reality needs to be outside time and space,
| because of the whole _can 't change_ thing I eluded to
| earlier.
|
| * Finally, anything that has the _potential_ to actually
| exist in reality, is in some weird way already present in
| base-realty. This is just a different way of saying that
| base-reality is the cause (directly or indirectly) of all
| things. cause of all possible potential things - > all
| possible potentials -> all-potentials -> omni-potentials
| -> omnipotent.
|
| So, by necessity there must be a base-reality that is at
| a minimum: one, simple, eternal, immaterial, and
| omnipotent.
|
| We then assign (like a reference pointer :^) ), the
| english word God to whatever this best candidate for base
| reality is, being sure to acknowledge that we are really
| dealing with the best candidate.
|
| const God = (maximally full expression of base reality)
|
| > I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example shows.
|
| Apologies if this is not helpful. I offered this analogy
| to get closer the proper definition of God that I
| outlined above. In the same way Romeo and Juliet can
| never step outside of the play, we can nonetheless see
| that Shakespeare is the their creator and is in a sense
| closer to Romeo and Juliet then they are to themselves.
| You and I cannot step outside of base reality but it
| should be obvious that we are held in existence by
| something that is more fundamental then ourselves.
| todfox wrote:
| Billions of people are not that smart.
| Dudeman112 wrote:
| To be fair, a large chunk of said billions of people's
| beliefs have _infinite_ complexity compared to give or take
| every other alternative, and also imply that every law
| regarding the universe 's behaviour is optional
|
| That's more than enough to safely say that belief is full
| of shit. Unless it's a religion, then you have to respect
| it
|
| Everywhere else "that belief goes against thermodynamics"
| is good enough argument to consider the belief bonkers
| Carrok wrote:
| Tell me you've never been beaten up on a schoolyard for
| admitting to being an atheist, without telling me...
|
| Does that sound like religion has helped these people
| "improve their daily actions"?
|
| For many of us "crapping" on religion is not some
| metaphorical concept, but a direct reaction to bullying,
| harassment, and otherwise disdainful treatment at the hands
| of the devout.
| adolph wrote:
| Comments are cheaper than therapy I suppose, but also
| less effective given the apparent level of projection.
| Juliate wrote:
| Counter examples also abound in history books. And day-to-day
| life.
|
| Edit: what OP may have wanted to say is that << following a
| religion is a make-believe that also makes you believe what you
| do is good >>. Which is not much more reassuring either (but an
| apt << mise en abyme >> observation of what religion without a
| sane self-criticism can become)
| nerdponx wrote:
| Good non-religious people exist, and bad religious people
| exist. Religion might help a lot of people stay good or
| become better, but lack of religion is almost never a
| plausible cause for badness.
| [deleted]
| Swizec wrote:
| A lot of things are religions if you squint hard enough. We
| humans believe all sorts of stuff without much explicit
| evidence that it is in fact true.
|
| For example: New-ish research is showing that some surgeries
| are no better than placebo.
| https://www.painscience.com/biblio/four-orthopedic-surgeries...
|
| Another fun example is that allergy drugs, which clinical
| trials have shown are effective in double-blind studies, are
| _less effective_ if you watch an ad saying that drug is bad
| right before taking it. Nocebo effect. If you have a strong
| belief the drug works, it will work better. Placebo effect is
| strong _even in drugs we know are not placebo_.
| https://freakonomics.com/podcast/is-the-placebo-effect-for-r...
|
| And then you have the whole field of management and business
| books. Very close to a sort of federated decentralized
| religion.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| The thing with some surgeries being no better than placebo is
| that this can be shown and behaviors can be adjusted.
|
| With religion, "god did it" and "god works in mysterious
| ways" is always the answer and behaviors can't be adjusted.
|
| Why do we do these needless surgeries? God works in
| mysterious ways.
| Swizec wrote:
| The "god did it" argument is weird anyway. If you truly
| follow that logic, then god gave us the scientific method
| and double-blind experiment so we can more effectively cary
| out their ideas.
|
| More importantly, we have evidence that believing
| _something_ , anything, is really good for the human
| psyche. You can pull a meaning out of your arse tomorrow
| morning and that leads to better psychological outcomes
| than no meaning. Even something as simple as "I need to
| keep this potted plant alive" will work.
|
| Viktor Frankl's work is a good intro to that topic.
| galfarragem wrote:
| You underrate the value of belonging to a community.
|
| As an entrenched atheist (and by definition an atheist is also
| an individualist), by love, I attended mass most sundays for
| several years. I understood that I underrated the community
| part and that to belong I didn't need to believe only respect.
| I didn't convert (and most likely never will) but it softened
| my views.
| krapp wrote:
| >by definition an atheist is an individualist.
|
| No? By definition an atheist doesn't believe in the
| supernatural or divinity. Nothing about that proscribes
| individualism, nor does community presuppose religion or
| "softening one's views" on the existence of the supernatural,
| as you have. Plenty of atheists are also social people who
| enjoy the benefits of community, while remaining perfectly
| comfortable in their skin.
| Karellen wrote:
| It probably depends somewhat on the religion one follows.
|
| That said, I have always been fascinated by the fictional
| religion of Bokononism, which is centered around "Foma". Foma
| are beliefs that are acknowledged to be untrue, but which will
| make your life better if you believe them (or act as if you
| believed them) anyway. I find the metacognitive aspect
| intriguing.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I've lived in areas where religion is prevalent. Plenty of
| unhappy people who feel trapped in religion due to peer
| pressure, but there are also plenty of people who seem to
| benefit greatly from the sense of belonging, structure, and
| order that their religion provides.
|
| The primary benefits seem to be the sense of belonging,
| support, purpose, and convenient explanations that difficult
| circumstances in their lives have a higher meaning.
|
| It's not for me, probably not for a lot of people in this
| comment section, but it's clear to me from my experience that a
| lot of people _do_ derive significant benefit from their
| religion. If you can't understand why that might be the case
| for other people, you might be projecting too much of your own
| personality and circumstances on to others.
| doix wrote:
| > Following a religion improves your daily actions, feels
| wonderful, and connects you to a worldwide community. These are
| better reasons than insisting it's absolutely true.
|
| Religion terrifies me, I don't feel wonderful thinking about
| eternal existence in the afterlife. Even if there was some proof
| that the afterlife did exist, I would most likely pretend it
| doesn't exist.
|
| You can get a sense of community doing many other things.
|
| > Same with philosophies, nationalities, norms, and concepts like
| loyalty, destiny, and identity. None of these are true. But they
| are useful.
|
| I don't know what this means. How can nationalities not be true?
| Philosophies do not claim to be true, they are just a logically
| consistent framework.
|
| No idea how it applies to concepts either.
| sambapa wrote:
| If eternal existence terrifies you then look into Buddhism
| Tomte wrote:
| > How can nationalities not be true?
|
| I've had a university course where Benedict Anderson's
| "Imagined Communities" was taught:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities
|
| It's been most interesting. I highly recommend it.
| redler wrote:
| Sounds a lot like Vonnegut's Granfalloon.
| metacritic12 wrote:
| > You can get a sense of community doing many other things.
|
| Do you have a strong sense of community yourself -- and what
| other things have you found most gives you community?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| For me, the gay community. Which is actually filled with a
| bunch of people rejected by their religious community.
| floppydiskette wrote:
| Nationalities are a social construct, a bit of a shared
| delusion we all believe in. If we all stopped believing in them
| at the same time, they would cease to exist. That's how they
| can not be "true". Whether or not it's useful or relevant to
| think that way depends on the situation. And that doesn't mean
| they don't have real consequences.
|
| As for philosophies, he's referring to living your life by any
| particular philosophy, whether or not it's "objectively" the
| best way to live.
| [deleted]
| doix wrote:
| Edit: the definition I had for "nation" in my head was
| incorrect. My comment is based on an incorrect understanding,
| leaving it up since there are replies that won't make sense
| if I remove it.
|
| I find it very hard to make the mental leap between religion
| and nationalities. I think the correct thing to actually
| discuss is if "nations" are true. Nationality just means you
| belong to a nation, by definition.
|
| If we stopped believing in nations, people would still form
| groups. Groups would organise and govern, nations are reborn
| again.
|
| I think as long as humans are social creatures, nations are
| about as "true" as you can get. They are inevitable in my
| opinion.
|
| Religion on the other hand, if people stop believing in it,
| it ceases to exist.
|
| > As for philosophies, he's referring to living your life by
| any particular philosophy, whether or not it's "objectively"
| the best way to live.
|
| Okay, I misunderstood that part. I thought they were talking
| about the study of philosophy. I agree that living your life
| by a philosophy does not make it true. But I suspect most
| people that follow a particular philosophy would not claim it
| is "true", but maybe I'm in a bit of a bubble.
| imbnwa wrote:
| >I find it very hard to make the mental leap between
| religion and nationalities. I think the correct thing to
| actually discuss is if "nations" are true. Nationality just
| means you belong to a nation, by definition. > >If we
| stopped believing in nations, people would still form
| groups. Groups would organise and govern, nations are
| reborn again.
|
| Well, nation-states didn't exist until the 19th
| century/late 18th century, so there's that.
|
| Just for example, 'Italians' didn't exist until the late
| 19th century, and it took another 30 - 50 years for people
| in places like Sicily and Naples to see themselves as
| 'Italian': most immigrants from Italy to America spoke
| Sicilianu (featured in The Godfather and Boardwalk Empire)
| or Napolitano (featured in The Sopranos), not 'Italian',
| which IIRC is actually _Tuscan_ , the language of Tuscany.
|
| Similiar story in France, where a national identity only
| emerged after the Revolution and the top-down imposition of
| French-ness; people largely spoke their regional derivative
| of vulgar Latin like Occitan or Picard. Hard to talk about
| a 'nation' when there are around 20 regional languages
| spoken in your borders. 'French', as we know it, is the
| language of the ils-de-France urban center that was imposed
| on everyone else; like wise with 'Italian'.
|
| So I don't think 'nations' are inevitable, they're a fairly
| recent and well-documented phenomena that we don't really
| have to guess about its causes and origin.
|
| A kingdom is not a nation-state, a kingdom is a large piece
| of real estate whose legal identity is that _of the monarch
| 's body_, or, where breaking the law is a personal attack
| on the King or Queen (hence, the King's peace). Even if you
| are King of all England, like Aethelstan was, you are not
| the leader of a nation because that is an altogether
| distinct entity, one where the law is ostensibly an
| expression of the unitary will and identity of the people
| irrespective of the offices of power (read: a
| constitution).
|
| So if people don't see themselves as a unitary identity
| with others hundreds of miles away, the nation will cease
| to exist. The American Civil War was just such an incident.
| doix wrote:
| You're right, the definition of nation I had in my mind
| was wrong. Learn something new everyday :).
| cratermoon wrote:
| What nationality is someone born in Czechoslovakia or
| Yugoslavia?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Depenfs on the olace of birth, and especially in the case
| of Yugoslavia, his ancestry. The latter fought a couple a
| very nasty wars trying figure that one out.
|
| Those people are either Czech, Slovak, Serb, Slovenes,
| Croat... Rather easy to answer.
| floppydiskette wrote:
| What does it mean to be Czech or Slovak? At one point,
| those countries were combined into the nation of
| Czechoslovakia. Was a person born in Czechoslovakia
| Czech, Slovak, or Czechoslovakian? If we're going to take
| ethnicity or language into account, then what does it
| mean to be American?
|
| Many of those Eastern European languages are more of a
| sliding scale than divided by country borders. Moldovan
| and Romanian are basically the same thing.
|
| I met someone on my travels from Italy who was Italian,
| but only spoke German, as they do in parts of Northern
| Italy.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Nationality is pretty easy, just look at someones
| passport. Ethnicity is much more difficult.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Did nations exist before passports? What is I don't have
| a passport? If I hold a passport for a nation that no
| longer exists, what nationality am I?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, the idea of nation states isn't that old. Passport
| are pretty recent, in their current form at least. And a
| person can be nationless, in which case they would be
| eligible for a UN passport.
| masswerk wrote:
| Ok, so I happen to be Austrian. A 105 years ago, Austria
| was a big, multiethnic empire. Still, being Austrian was a
| nationality, embracing what are now several countries and
| nations. (This is the nationality my grandparents were born
| into.) Back in the day, I probably would have identified as
| a German-Austrian. However, there are at least 3 major
| countries with a major population of mostly German
| ancestry. 32 years ago, there had been 4. But I do not
| identify as German. ("German" ethnicity is a construct, as
| well. In this particular case, according to a once famous
| Austrian saying, it's a mix of those left behind during the
| great migration.) Instead, I do identify as part of a
| community inhabiting a certain political territory. This
| territory has lost considerable parts, entire countries and
| nations, but it also has received regions and ethnicities
| from what had been the Hungarian part of the Habsburg
| empire. It even isn't the same political entity it had been
| not that long ago. Over the last century, it had been an
| empire, a small republic, part of the third Reich, and then
| a newly reconstructed republic. It had been located at the
| very outskirts of the Western hemisphere and is now right
| in the middle of a greater Europe. Still, there is
| identity, but this identity is undeniably fluid. - It's
| hard to not to observe some fluidity in the concept of
| nationality.
| alexvoda wrote:
| The definition of true is a rabit hole and spelunking its
| depths is not especially productive. It is more productive to
| replace the word with what is actually meant.
|
| Is something part of objective material reality. Is something
| a valid logical inference. Is something an action which had
| the desired result even if the result was not caused, even
| indirectly, by the action itself.
| mwcampbell wrote:
| On nationalities and religions, I'd like to live by Thomas
| Paine's famous quote (which, incidentally, was set to music by
| Dan Barker), "The World is my country, all mankind are my
| brethren, and to do good is my religion." Of course, to take that
| seriously, I'd have to care about bad things that happen to
| others far away that benefit me, that it would be easier to just
| ignore because they're happening to other people somewhere far
| away. So believing in an in-group and an out-group may allow us
| to remain blissfully ignorant of uncomfortable realities. But I
| suppose that's not the best way to live.
| inphovore wrote:
| We are self deceivers. The question becomes, is this useful?
| imbnwa wrote:
| Enter Nietzche and the revaluation of all values
| inphovore wrote:
| Or Zarathustra, by Nietzsche the noble messenger.
| masukomi wrote:
| see also: why role playing games are an important form of play
| for adults.
|
| There are so many amazing Tabletop Role Playing Games (TTRPGs)
| these days. They span every genre: sci-fi, horror, fantasy,
| bronze age, lovecraftian horror in the 20s, pretending to be
| babies pretending to be jumping over lava... you name it, there's
| probably a game out there in a genre and play-style that you
| would enjoy.
|
| If you're interested in something like this, but don't know where
| to start, or don't think D&D is the right thing for you, feel
| free to message me. I love helping folks find the right game for
| their kind of play.
| fasterik wrote:
| The author cherry picks a couple of positive examples while
| ignoring all of the negative consequences of making believe.
| Believing things are true when they aren't has also been the
| cause of war, genocide, human sacrifice, and oppression.
|
| It is also possible to have the positives (community, sense of
| connection) without any unjustified beliefs.
| jawns wrote:
| What the author is proposing is known in philosophy as the
| Pragmatic Theory of Truth, which says, essentially, something is
| true if it is useful to believe that it is true.
|
| This is in contrast to the more widespread Correspondence Theory
| of Truth, which says that something is true if it corresponds to
| the way things actually are. This is a classical theory of truth
| held by both Aristotle and Aquinas.
|
| Personally, I think the Correspondence Theory is far superior to
| the Pragmatic Theory. I don't want to believe in a religion
| because it feels good to believe in it. I want to believe in it
| because it's actually telling us true things about the way things
| actually are.
|
| By the way, there are many other theories of truth, some quite
| out there. This entry on truth in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
| Philosophy gives a good overview:
| https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
| narag wrote:
| _What the author is proposing is known in philosophy as the
| Pragmatic Theory of Truth..._
|
| I've read a dozen comments and, except one by some adolph about
| models, all of you seem to have read a different article.
|
| >>> "None of these statements are true." <<<
|
| >>> "while knowing they are make believe" <<<
|
| That doesn't sound like some alternative theory of truth. To
| me, at least.
| braindead_in wrote:
| In ancient Indian philosophy, the Charvakas (materialists)
| considered the world to be real because it is seen whereas the
| Advaitins (nondualists) considered the world to be an illusion
| because it is seen.
| cratermoon wrote:
| But are you familiar with Gettier problems[1] and justified
| true beliefs?
|
| 1 https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/
| eternalban wrote:
| I missed the bit where belief in "anybody" was justified by
| the facts regarding "Jones" getting the job. Given that all
| sorts of smart people have looked at this before, I'll plead
| to being dumb and hopefully someone will help me understand.
|
| [For me] All that seems to reinforce the need for the
| 'correspondence' variety of truth. Smith is free to believe
| all sorts of non-sense, and this in fact happens in real life
| all the time. People around us have all sorts of funny
| theories about the world and reality. We all have them. That
| sort of 'knowledge' -- actionable and informative theories
| about the world regardless of completeness or factuality --
| serves its purpose in every day life. The degree to which it
| is false and contextually relevant determines the probability
| of a collision between _actual reality_ and _one 's theories
| about reality_ modulo 'chance' events. This is basically how
| human society operates and has operated for ever. We have
| (hopefully) learning agents navigating a partially error
| tolerant environment. "Live and learn". So this is a
| practical sort of knowledge that can be well served by a
| pragmatic take on truth.
|
| The only question really is more fundamental and this asks if
| philosophy is itself a sort of mental appendix, a part that
| really serves no purpose :_, for every day conduct of life.
| To wit, this 'unassailable' sort of knowledge, who needs it?
| And if we can't answer that, why ask the question?
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Aristotle also recognized that there are a wide variety of
| people and what works for one group might not work for another.
| The Sivers piece reminds me of a phenomenon I see all the time:
| people assuming that what works for them will work for
| everyone. People are really different in a lot of important
| ways and that makes advice hard to generalize unless it is
| pretty banal (spend less than you earn, do the things you need
| to get done, etc.)
| jawns wrote:
| I think you're addressing a different topic, though. The
| first topic is, "What determines whether something is true?"
| The second is, "Are all things that are perceived as helpful
| by one group universally helpful?"
|
| If you hold to a pragmatic theory of truth, these two
| questions might be related.
|
| But if you instead hold to a correspondence theory of truth
| (as Aristotle did), you can still acknowledge that what is
| helpful to one person might not be helpful to another. But
| you would assert that it has nothing fundamental to do with
| whether something is true or not.
| gmuslera wrote:
| Some Hogfather vibes. Believing small lies make you ready to
| believe the big ones. Yes, they are useful, till they are not,
| when following the lie instead of the truth is really harmful.
| Will we face that kind of situations? or we will prefer to
| believe that it won't happen?
| jchw wrote:
| If I'm going to make-believe for fun I'd rather pick something
| that invokes enjoyable thoughts and not religion. I'd rather take
| up something lame but fun like role playing, or I dunno ...
| Y'know, suddenly, I feel like I now understand overly-attached
| adult anime and video game fans a little better.
| krembo wrote:
| Go pastafarians
| jchw wrote:
| I had my time of being angsty about religion in HS, but now
| I'm indifferent. Doesn't affect me, at least anymore.
|
| I think it's amusing trying to guess what in my comment
| caused it to get downvoted. Could be suggesting that religion
| isn't "fun", calling role playing "dumb", or the note about
| anime and video game fans. I feel like any one of those
| things could have been polarizing on HN. I'll imagine it's
| the last one, since I think that's the funniest
| interpretation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-21 23:02 UTC)