funnily enough this dynamic was first explained to me in a LW post somewhere, possibly even in the sequences and written by long yud himself
Conversation
i get it, but their confidence about priors that lead them to be skeptical is what's funny to me
for example, scott said it wasn't neurogenesis because neurogenesis doesn't occur in adult humans -- he's super wrong, specifically it does in olfaction
9
1
54
like, if your prior is low that psychedelics can have striking and idiosyncratic effects on your nervous system, that's your problem dude, not mine
2
2
42
another dude mentioned he's doubtful because maybe i couldn't correctly notice large changes in olfaction, like the LSD was a smokescreen
and like, i get it you live as if you don't have a body, but this is not my experience
3
2
58
i think this is a rationalist failure mode i'm quite aware of, moreso now: Naive Skepticism
5
1
60
This is why empiricism > rationalism
1
29
“I don’t know how this could work therefore it can’t work”
“Okay bro watch this”
3
2
43
There's A Reason They're Called The Rationalists And Not The Empiricists Eh
1
39
brb starting my own version of LessWrong and calling it WhatIfWeActuallyLookedAtTheTerritory
4
5
82
Ah but you see, the territory is necessarily inaccessible. There are only representations generated by the brain from sensory inputs. There is no probability 1. You can only ever look at ever more accurate maps
1
12
it's too bad "THE TERRITORY" isn't 10 letters or else you could get tattoos of it on your fists
this is why I prefer finger pointing at the moon as a metaphor
you can tattoo moon on your fingers
wait
1
10