291–298 of 298 posts
A simple self-experiment if you haven't read the paper, find which of these sentences are bullshit. Answer in order without reading further ahead, and don't go back to change your answers (as to replicate experimental conditions). * 1. A river cuts through a rock, not because of its power but it's persistence. 2. The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty. 3. The future elucidates irrational facts for the seek…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the other comments further down, you seem to be caught up on whether the statement is technically true for specific definitions of pain, rather than the underlying point of the statement. The underlying point is that whether you think that someone's suffering (physical or emotional) has a real or imaginary cause, that doesn't make them suffer any more or less, because you are not in their head, and they are…
I agree with the "underlying point", but it simply isn't what the sentence says. If you're willing to put that much effort into interpreting it, practically any statement could qualify as profound.
If you're going by effort, it seems that your interpretation is anything but simpler or lower effort.
If you're trying to make the point that the statement could have been phrased better, I don't think anyone would disagree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only sentence that confused me is this one: > 3. The future elucidates irrational facts for the seeking person. I'm not a native English speaker, so I might be wrong, but I'm reading this as "the future will more likely reveal the truth to those who are open-minded" which seems to be too profound to be bullshit. Of course, "irrational fact" is an awkward way to refer to false beliefs, but awkwardness≠bullshit.
Vague and awkward wording is a signature of bullshit artists like Deepak Chopra. They word it that way on purpose, for exactly the reason that it worked on you: people will struggle to find meaning in it until they find an interpretation that works for them, and then they'll feel like their interpretation offers them some kind of insight. Metaphors are written to be interpreted more narrowly. It's ... the difference…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the "underlying point", but it simply isn't what the sentence says. If you're willing to put that much effort into interpreting it, practically any statement could qualify as profound.
You've already put far more effort into debating that everyone else's interpretation isn't "simply what the sentence says," when their (and my) interpretation tend to hover around the same approximate meaning. If you're going by effort, it seems that your interpretation is anything but simpler or lower effort. If you're trying to make the point that the statement could have been phrased better, I don't think anyone w…
Hmm? You seem to be mixing up the effort required to reach that interpretation with the effort required to argue with other people about whether it's the correct interpretation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the disconnect here is on what imaginary means in this sentence. Most people in this thread see it as real physical pain conjured up by one's imagination - so things like psychosomatic pain, pain caused by mental illness, pain caused by fears, etc. So think of someone getting dizzy from their fear of heights, or a hoarder doubled over retching because someone is throwing away parts of their hoard. Whereas you…
>Whereas you in essence think that [imaginary pain] is an oxymoron No, I think that there is such a thing as imaginary pain, just as there is such a thing as an imaginary elephant. You can imagine being in pain. You can imagine an elephant. But if someone said "imaginary elephants weigh just as much as real elephants", I would be confused (unless they just meant that the imagined weight of the imagined elephant was e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The n-gate summary of this thread is going top be great.
Something something prime directive
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But pain is subjective by definition. What does "imaginary pain" mean? The answer can only include some notion of "cause."
Imaginary pain is pain in your imagination, just like an imaginary car is a car in your imagination. If you stub your toe, you are really in pain and not just imagining it. If you imagine stubbing your toe, you are only in imaginary pain (assuming that you imagine it to be painful).