This is actually not stupid. I also laughed when I first heard about it (5 minutes ago). We focus a lot on managing time. But there are other finite resources we have to manage within each day. * mental energy * attention * physical energy * concentration * frustration * creativity * patience * many more You can only spend so much of each one before becoming exhausted. Spoon theory deals with one of these things - physical energy. And the article is well explained. So it's a good introduction to this kind of thinking. *** You can go much further in this thinking than the article. Think about management. You normally assign tasks to whoever has the free time. But people have different amounts of patience to spend each day. So if one of your people has a lot of patience, you should assign him the task, because he can spend a lot before running out. But if you have two tasks requiring a lot of patience, that guy might run out. So you assign the second task to someone else. It's basically very intuitive. But it's helpful to think about it the same way we think about time. To quantify it.

Why I think we may live in a single person simulation
To have a simulation all we need is an emulated brain AI and another AI that recreates the world the emulated brain sees to make the emulated brain believe what it sees is real. This adversarial AIs will be run many times while training. By the time we manage to simulate a world and everyone on it this kind of single person simulations will have run so many times that the chances that we live in a world simulation or in base reality are minuscule by comparison. I'm no longer [concerned that we are playing full dive vr]( since that seems more difficult to accomplish than this scenario, and therefore the chances are much smaller. Although I think the chances of it are still higher than world simulation or base reality.

About the internets

A scary thought about the simulation hypothesis
If we could prove that 1) Simulations are possible, 2) we would survive and learn how to build them, and 3) Simulations would be built and run. Then the chances are high that we live in a simulation. But I always thought why would we be simulating the whole history of the planet, we would be simulating from the present to the future to predict possible outcomes. But if I had a computer capable of simulating just what I live sped up so that I could live many times in the simulation, I might do that after getting tired of superhero simulations, just to see what I do in those virtual lives. Let's assume we enter a simulation, removing our memory and making it as immersive as it can be, without any indicators that we are in the simulation. Now let's suppose we live in a simulation, and get to the point at which we can simulate our lives in the simulation, and we enter another simulation, and that keeps happening simulation after simulation. How would we ever know, when we go back, if we are in base reality? We can't. Now, knowing this I would never do that, and since I don't see any indicators that I'm on a simulation or have memories I shouldn't, I'm sure I haven't created the simulation. I could still have made the simulation warn me only before entering another simulation. Like "you are on simulation level 2 or 3, are you sure you want to enter a new simulation?" The closer we get to full dive VR the more this scares me. We may not know what we look like in real life, or what our values are or even our specie. We might have gotten tired of simulating our specie and tried with another. I see this scenario as much more likely than whole world simulation since the computational power required is much smaller. By the time we manage to simulate the whole world there will have been so many small simulations that the chances that we live in a whole world simulation are very small.

Some thoughts for food :)

“Trust Me, I’m a Scientist”: How Philosophy of Science Can Help Explain Why Science Deserves Primacy in Dealing with Societal Problems - r/philosophy
This thread caught my attention regarding the philosophy of science. I've read through the comments and discussions, but I want to move the arena to lemmy's philosophy community. What's your opinion on the Scientific Method? Do your perceive its usefulness in the practical world? And are the flaws in Science the result of this method or the individual causations of the scientists themselves?

![]( # The [Trolley Problem]( is a cyclical (iterative) experiment, showing how a change in the available information can affect the choices made. To increase the emotional factor in the decision-making process, it is dramatized as a scene where a speeding car runs along a track, and the subject of the experiment (the "player") has to decide whether to divert it to one track or the other. ![]( One of the options is technically easier because it only requires doing nothing. Without player interference, things will (khem, khem) take their course anyway. # The Trolley Problem trap is built of three parts: 1. The experiment has an arbitrary number of cycles. In each consecutive cycle, the experimenter (equivalent to the game master "GM" / director) changes the scope and content of the information available to the player, trying to lead them from a situation of simple and obvious choice to a situation in which the choice becomes less and less obvious. 2. The player is also under increasing tension between the emotional aspect (*Track A: the last panda on the planet; Track B: a psychopathic rapist, the future father of the first feminist president of the Earth Nations Federation*) and the implicit expectation that they will solve the dilemma using rational thinking only. In reality, the only goal of the MG is to drive the player to a nervous breakdown due to an unbearable cognitive dilemma. 3. A subtle element of the trap is the time travel aspect. Each cycle (iteration) begins (in the story world – "in-game") at the same point – after a full reset. However, "out-game" the player is aware of previous cycles and the choices made in them. The human mind tends to become attached to its own decisions. The MG tries to push the player to change his or her decisions for less and less obvious reasons, which adds to the discomfort, as the mind wants to see itself as an "integrated" being, not an unstable one. # How to get out of the trap (and use the experience to strengthen self-determination)? This requires developing several important elements of awareness, which boil down to a readiness to make (and fix) mistakes. **1. Acknowledging the information reset.** When I receive new significant information regarding a previously made decision, it is as appropriate as possible to review that decision and possibly change it. I don't get attached to my previous choices, and it doesn't offend me if I back out of them. **2. Accepting the limitations of rational thinking.** Regardless of the completeness of the decision information, I am always ready for the fact that some things cannot be (especially under time pressure) compared rationally. I am ready to make some decisions (after exhausting other sensible ways) randomly or intuitively, and accept the consequences. **3. Accepting that my knowledge and agency are incomplete – always and everywhere.** I will never have full knowledge of the circumstances of my choices. I will never be fully capable – physically, mentally or emotionally – of making and executing every decision imaginable. ------------------------ **To sum up, the trap of the trolley dilemma is to impose unrealistic and contradictory expectations on the player. And getting out of it requires acknowledging one's own limitations and making more direct contact with reality (bypassing even the most magnificent intermediaries).** The plus side is that it doesn't require rearranging a vase full of glowing coals with your bare hands.... ![](

Principle of explosion
Consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist", by using the following argument: We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part "All lemons are yellow" of the two-part statement is true (as this has been assumed). However, since we know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true to ensure the two-part statement to be true, i.e., unicorns exist.

Carnap quote. Do you agree?
‘The acceptance or rejection of abstract linguistic forms, just as the acceptance or rejection of any other linguistic forms in any branch of science, will finally be decided by their efficiency as instruments, the ratio of the results achieved to the amount and complexity of the efforts required.’ (Carnap)

The Simpson's paradox is a paradox in probability and statistics in which a trend appears in several groups of data but disappears or even reverses when the groups are combined. This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics and is particularly problematic when frequency data is unduly given causal interpretations. Example: There exist treatment A and treatment B for kidney stones. Treatment A is more effective when used on small stones, and is also more effective when used on large stones, yet treatment B is more effective when considering all stones at the same time. Different levels of overview: []( []( [](

Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994)
Popper’s way of demarcating science from pseudo-science is to say that conjectures which cannot be criticised and tested empirically are useless, and not science. He was deeply influenced in this view by two twentieth century intellectual developments, and the contrast between them. After centuries of believing that Newtonian gravitational theory truly described the astronomical universe, scientists accepted the superiority of Einstein’s new theory of gravitation. A theory once thought to be securely founded was overthrown because it could not account for small discrepancies in the motion of the planet Mercury. Popper also saw how in stark contrast psychoanalytic theories seemed impervious to unwelcome evidence, and so he concluded that psychoanalysis was not a science.

Umberto Eco: “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt”
cross-posted from: > In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift
The enormous impact of Thomas Kuhn's work can be measured in the changes it brought about in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science: besides "paradigm shift", Kuhn raised the word "paradigm" itself from a term used in certain forms of linguistics to its current broader meaning. The frequent use of the phrase "paradigm shift" has made scientists more aware of and in many cases more receptive to paradigm changes, so that Kuhn’s analysis of the evolution of scientific views has by itself influenced that evolution. For Kuhn, the choice of paradigm was sustained by, but not ultimately determined by, logical processes. Kuhn believed that it represented the consensus of the community of scientists. Acceptance or rejection of some paradigm is, he argued, a social process as much as a logical process.

CONSPIRACY - occam’s razor
One of the most fundamental principles of reasoning and investigation is what has come to be known as Occam's Razor. Named after the 14th century logician William of Occam, it is the principle which favors the least complicated of two or more possible explanations for an observation. Needless to say, most conspiracy theories don't satisfy this rule.

".. a community dedicated to improving our reasoning and decision-making."

I would love to see a parallel universe with collective transportation
A discussion on HackerNews > I would love to see a parallel universe, where collective transportation obtained the upper hand. Where countryside railroads are still operating, and where roads/highways haven't consistently led to the expropriation of millions of people worldwide, and to the current car-oriented urban nightmare. See Ivan Illich for a demonstration that car-oriented urbanization is hostile and counter-productive, as opposed to what he calls "convivial tools" (empowering technologies).

What is virtue ethics? Gonzo philosophy uses a moral dilemma from the game Wither 3 to discribe what virtue ethics is.

    Create a post

    All about Philosophy.

    • 0 users online
    • 1 user / day
    • 1 user / week
    • 2 users / month
    • 12 users / 6 months
    • 1 subscriber
    • 31 Posts
    • Modlog
    A community of privacy and FOSS enthusiasts, run by Lemmy’s developers

    What is


    1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
    2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
    3. No porn.
    4. No Ads / Spamming.

    Feel free to ask questions over in: