Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#251

Post by tomcatfish »

adventured wrote: post #173
JackFr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to... Honestly why not? (To be clear, I don't think we should, but I know my reasons. They're not science based, because the question "Should we care if humanity causes an extiction event?" can't have a scientific answer.)

> Honestly why not? It can have a scientific answer if you set a scientific goal for the planet. We get to decide what the purpose of this planet is, insofar as we quite clearly control the planet and its condition in most respects. The planet may have the potential to produce more variations of intelligent life yet, given its seeming rich potential for such in its current more docile condition. I think it may be a w…

You can only get a scientific answer to an "ought" or "should" if you believe that morality is objective in the universe. Otherwise, you have a hidden principle "We should do what we like best", which itself cannot be justified and must be taken as given.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#253

Post by ClumsyPilot »

BurningFrog wrote: post #213
tshaddox wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentiment seems completely useless (actually incredibly dangerous) without at least some attempt at explaining how we might distinguish between aspects of society which seem terrible but are actually secretly good even though no one knows why, and aspects of society which seem terrible because they're terrible.

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…

"Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable"

Let's imagine for a second that we really believe is this idea - society is in a fragile equilibrium, and any change is dangerous and could be for the worse.

Well, first obvious effect is that any change regarding woman rights, etc. would not have happened the way it did. That's in line with the Conservative viewpoint.

But more importantly, the society changes all the time from technology and market forces- it has changed massively with globalization, introduction of mobile phones, and social networks. Nobody talk about that!

No mainstream conservatives proposes 'let's ban kids form having mobile phones and Facebook until we fully understand their effect'. So if you are not willing to apply the principle consistently, are you just using it a a charade to mask some irrational belief of personal gain? It seems hypocritical, a bit like 'pro life' people not supporting healthcare reform.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#254

Post by czbond »

tomcatfish wrote: post #239
czbond wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Pascal's wager didn't take the final logical step. A G0d knows that any worship on Earth is meant for them. It's like a symlink

Well, the god of the Christians doesn't seem to know that as there is a commandment written to not worship other gods. Either many gods seem to have missed the memo that they are identical to all other gods of their type or your conception of religion is more about you than the religions that actually exist, and I would bet on the latter.

I would bet that humans, especially in the early times that interpreted all of the now current religious texts - were poorly educated, biased, and also human. So ... there were "additions/mis-translations/an individuals belief/better if phrased this way" type of interpretations over thousands of years.

My bet... in the grand universe scheme of things, a creator doesn't give two craps about which human created, modified, "game of telephone" religion a person follows. As long as that person attempts to be good, and improve themselves, and kind. And ask for forgiveness of mistakes.

I believe G0d is smarter than all of us, and looks past all these individual human infightings of "my football team (errr religion) is better than yours" type.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#255

Post by nickpp »

WalterBright wrote: post #231
danblick wrote: post #83

The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…

Similarly, nobody understands the free market. (This is likely why there's so much interest in socialism, as the mind yearns for order and predictability.) Yet the free market works well despite this lack of understanding, and even contempt, of it.

I believe the free market is like Darwinism for economic organisms: unintuitive and little understood by the regular folk, however working just fine nevertheless and able to solve and explain any issue without needing the intervention of an intelligent designer/regulator.

People will still look for a planner though…

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#256

Post by czbond »

timeon wrote: post #233
czbond wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any enlightened G0d would know that humans minds are limited, and thus the worship of any G*d is actually meant for them. Thus no problem. [Italics are being inserted by HN]

If it is enlightened do you even need to be believer?

One will not know, but the downside risk is greater if you must at least believe.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#257

Post by csours »

ren_engineer wrote: post #204
danblick wrote: post #83

The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…

>You may not understand the forces that have led society to be organized the way that it is, but you should respect that sometimes the order of things reflects knowledge you may not have sounds like Chesterton's fence to some degree https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence >In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will p…

The good form is protective, the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time.

Is there any particular reason a woman cannot lead a prayer?

Is there any particular reason why we exchange work for money?

Is there any particular reason why not to eat pigs?

For each of those, the answer may be yes or no depending on your time and place.

The reason yes or the reason no may also be different.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#258

Post by pdonis »

tshaddox wrote: post #232
BurningFrog wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…

> Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. Right, but the quote I was questioning seemed to indicate that this principle should be applied in cases where no one knows or perhaps even there is no way to know what the purpose is or even in there is one. That’s a much stronger claim than Chesterton’s fence, because a fence is…

> You should investigate all the normal reasons a fence would be there, and if no extant reason turns up, tear down the fence

No, you should give up the idea that you can justify tearing down the fence by any intellectual investigation. If you really believe it would be better if the fence came down, then you need to work to convince everyone who has an interest in the fence to agree with you. If you succeed, then the fence will come down on its own without you having to force anything. And if you don't succeed, perhaps your belief that it would be better if the fence came down was wrong.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#259

Post by divbzero »

There seem to be many more examples along the same lines:

– Managers not talking about potential M&A or layoffs to avoid distracting the team.

– Leaders not talking about their backup plans to avoid demoralizing their organizations.

– Athletes not talking about strategy and tactics to avoid tipping off opponents.

– Investors and traders not talking about ideas and methods to maintain their edge.

– Business owners not talking about outsized returns to avoid attracting competition.

– Economic leaders not talking about systemic risks where widespread awareness would increase likelihood of occurrence.

– Politicians not talking about policies known to be ineffective but implemented to placate voters.

– Members of exclusive groups not talking about internal dynamics to maintain exclusivity.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#260

Post by timeon »

czbond wrote: post #218
njarboe wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea is called Pascal's wager. What if what G*d really wants is for people not to believe in G*d and those that do are sent to hell? How do you know the mind of G*d?

Yes it is. But taking the highest probabilistic chance, with the highest ROI, and lowest downside seems the best right? It is better than arguing what ifs, and nuances all day?

Highest probabilistic chance is that there is no afterlife.

Like when you are in deep anaesthesia during serious surgery. The one without dreams (no lights at the end of the tunnel). They switch you off and when everythings goes ok switch you on again. Your mind is in void. When you wake up it was just moment for you. Nothing in between. Whet if surgery goes bad? You think that you are going to wake up in to the death? Void is bigger card.

Or the void we all experienced. The one before you was born.

Edit: obviously I'm talking about my believes here.

Post reply on HN