I may even need to end up as professor for reputation economics. Actually, that would be kinda cool-ish.
I am confident that I am able to pull that off now that I’ve finally managed to get my health under control. Over the last few months i’ve been surprisingly stable and high-functioning.
Perhaps I could also gain respectability be helping the Backfeed project to succeed and provide the foundations for decentralised autonomous organisations to work. That would be awesome.
In any way, I am ready to dedicate 60 hours per week to things related to turning the reputation economy into a reality. I don’t have anything better to do anyway.
How convenient. Hah. ‘Higher level rationalist’. Who do you think you’re kidding? We all know it’s just how you maintain your delusion of being rational while doing what your silly emotions tell you!
It’s a typical fault of low level rationalists to consider emotions as “silly”. Actually, emotions are useful heuristic feedback mechanisms that can make people act in instrumentally more rational ways. Granted, emotions can surely do the opposite, if people are unable to control problematic emotional impulses. But once you are able to use emotions as sources of information, rather than as direct determinants of your actions, you have a definite advantage over those who don’t do that.
The problem of a lack of emotions is that it makes practical decisions almost impossible. The environment in which we have to make decisions is extremely complex and chaotic. People who suffer from reduced levels of emotions find it very hard to make clear decisions. Emotions can accelerate decision making. Cognitive rational thinking is best reserved to really important long-term decisions, making strategies, finding out how to world works, analytical thinking, and so on.
Often, low level rationalists are deluded about not being influenced by emotions. That’s in part because they may not be very much aware of their emotions, and about those influencing their reasoning. It’s comparatively easy to get trapped in a state of denial and to rationalise the conclusions that emerge from emotional influences, rather than being actually rational.
“Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.”
Just as long as you remember that your personal human sensory experience is limited by your human sensory organs.
The sensome of the digitally connected world shall be my incoming perception stream!
Yep, emotions become useful tools once you understand what creates them and how to modify the rules generating them. It’s only emotions that you don’t understand, that are bad guides. Emotions stem from a very deep form of belief and will go away if the belief goes. Although, it’s important to note that this isn’t the same as logical belief and that it’s possible to logically understand something while at the same time emotionally believe it’s opposite. Often the thing that causes a belief to become impervious to logic is a kind of a sense that you’ve directly perceived the belief as a part of the world. When you pay attention to the belief and realize that you can’t possibly have directly perceived it, but rather created it yourself, it dissolves.
That is only partially accurate. Some emotional programming can go deeper than any beliefs. In fact, some programming runs counter to beliefs.
A parent whose belief system by both decision and upbringing is nonviolent can find him or herself compelled to a violent response when their child is threatened.
Romantic love can also overide beliefs, or at least cause the individual to interpret facts in ways that create an unawareness of conflict between belief and action.
Personally, I tend to consider that emotional programming to be just exceptionally strong beliefs that we happen to be born with. Not something different.
In other words, I see both of these as cases of conflicting beliefs. It is perfectly possible to hold beliefs that conflict with each other. Although, it does not tend to be a very enjoyable state to be in.