Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023) • Hacker News Board

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#71

Post by llamaimperative » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 1:55 PM UTC

satvikpendem wrote: post #52

llamaimperative wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure some people believe that, but there’s still an interesting and worthwhile path of inquiry along the lines of: “it’s remarkable how such fundamentally simple systems can generate such profoundly complex and varied structures.” The discovery of evolution in nature, for example, could be seen (and was seen by Darwin as) an increase in the wonder and awe we can find in the world.

See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.

Got it, yeah I think we're in the same boat here. It's clearly physical, and yet that ought to be the beginning, not the end of inquiry.

Dualism is probably one of the most intellectually destructive ideas we've managed to come up with.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#72

Post by skummetmaelk » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 1:58 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #68

skummetmaelk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you believe it is wrong? Can you construct an argument which does not require the existence of a supernatural "divine"? If you presuppose such things exist, of course we reach different conclusions.

No. I just don't think using the current hot technology as a metaphor for human behavior is as smart of an idea as some think it is. In fact I think it displays the opposite of what is necessary to reach actual artificial intelligence.

The terms used to describe the modern technology are derived from early neuroscience going back to the late 19th century. Our understanding of how biological neural networks operate lead to this conclusion. Not the other way around.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#73

Post by bloopernova » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

seper8 wrote: post #57

bloopernova wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Married at 25, divorced at 35, met my new wife about 6 months later.

Thats quick! Lucky you :)

heh, thank you!

We actually got married on the 10th anniversary of our first date :)

We had known of each other online for a couple of years, but hadn't interacted much. She was going through a nasty divorce, so I offered some support. We'd known that we were somewhat alike just by being on the same site, so we had a baseline of common views to start from.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#74

Post by kranner » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:05 PM UTC

azzentys wrote: post #70

kranner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how the xkcd seems to frame it: seeking out problems to list can cause insignificant problems to seem significant. It's how "writer's mind" can be a problem in deepening a meditation practice.

Curious: What does "writer's mind" mean with respect to deepening meditation practice?

The mind of someone who is seeking things to write about, thus setting up new forms of craving and ego-gratification, misunderstanding transient experiences and insights to be significant milestones or fitting them into concepts that are constrained by one's ability to express them in language.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#75

Post by skummetmaelk » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

jalapenos wrote: post #67

skummetmaelk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel attacked? Nobody is above anyone. Seems like that's your defensiveness reading something between the lines which isn't implied.

Could just say "yeah what I said was nerdy" and call it a day.

You expect the person whom you just called an arrogant narcissist to agree with you? Good luck with that.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#76

Post by mettamage » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

bloopernova wrote: post #40

wizerno wrote: post #5

This is so important and underrated in life. > "This is what I infer when I see someone who is comfortable in their unique strangeness, too. There probably exists someone who enabled that evolution of personality. A parent, a friend group, a spouse. It is rare for people to come into themselves if no one is excited and curious about their core, their potential. We need someone who gives us space to unfold."

After a divorce, I met my soulmate. We're both weird and silly together, and together we discovered that we're both people with autism. We've stopped masking around each other, and we both support each other's growth in self understanding. The passage quoted in the parent comment really resonated with us both. We both know we're incredibly lucky and privileged to have found each other.

Same, I have approached more than a 10000 women to find her. In the grand scheme of things, fearing rejection is silly. Every time rejection was painful, never fully got over it, but the journey was fun nonetheless and in the end so worth it

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#77

Post by satvikpendem » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:36 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #58

satvikpendem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.

You have superb skills in leveraging often hard to spot ambiguity the English language offers, I think you would excel in sales of most any product, truth included.

Thanks, indeed I do do sales, for SaaS specifically, my own as well as for others.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#78

Post by satvikpendem » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:37 PM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #71

satvikpendem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other comment, I don't deny that. By "figured it out," I mean that the general principle of physicalism versus dualism seems empirically established based on all of the tests we've done in cognitive biology. That is not to say that the general theory cannot be improved via further research.

Got it, yeah I think we're in the same boat here. It's clearly physical, and yet that ought to be the beginning , not the end of inquiry. Dualism is probably one of the most intellectually destructive ideas we've managed to come up with.

Yes, and I really think it stems from religious biases, of wanting to think ourselves as being a soul inhabiting a body instead of being the body in itself. There's a reason why Descartes was one of the prime motivators of dualism.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#79

Post by satvikpendem » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:40 PM UTC

keybored wrote: post #54

satvikpendem wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m more used to this viewpoint being presented when someone who doesn’t work in some area expresses some opinion (hot take) on it. That could be a physicist expressing an opinion on cognitive science e.g. (whatever cognitive science is about). Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even su…

> Seems like your comments are responding to a point in your head without anyone expressing such points. Again I urge the reductionists[1] to look in the mirror. > No one here is like the physicist in your example, so I am not even sure against whom you are arguing here. Unless the original poster is a relevant expert like a biologist[2] the point stands. You already agreed that it is thought-terminating—and justifia…

No, they don't need to be a biologist to understand the current situation of physicalism versus dualism. Physicalism is extremely well established in the literature as compared to dualism, of which there is barely if any evidence. You are looking for a philosopher of the mind, not actually a biologist, who can speak on these issues, as biologists and indeed scientists in general are not philosophers, while the debate is philosophical in nature.

Re: Relationships are coevolutionary loops (2023)

#80

Post by jalapenos » Wed, Jul 24, 2024, 2:41 PM UTC

skummetmaelk wrote: post #75

jalapenos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could just say "yeah what I said was nerdy" and call it a day.

You expect the person whom you just called an arrogant narcissist to agree with you? Good luck with that.

Fair point haha