Carl-Richard

Of course. Everything is irreducible non-duality for you I'm very aware that I'm defending somebody I like.

@UnbornTao Of course he got emotional. That is conceded territory. He is explaining why.

As he said in his blog post, he wasn't referring to or insinuating anything about the person in the conversation. He was responding to the ideas of his intellectual opposition in response to the question Curt asked him. It was Tim that took it personally. He didn't know anything about Tim's work before the discussion. He didn't know he was such a fan of the theories he was criticizing, and you shouldn't just assume that, as not everybody is a fan of those theories (even among real physicists, which he is not by the way ?). If anybody is being social inept, it's you guys ? But sure: 18:07 "[...], and probably, it's a flat-out appeal to magic". What is more insulting to a naturalist than that? And again, he gives a principled reason for calling it that (this time explicitly). But do you care? I mean, if it just comes off as insulting, it surely must be socially unaware behavior, right?

I mean, Bernardo routinely says stuff like that in all of his live appearances. It was only Tim that responded that way. So you can flip it around that way too.

I think "extremely ugly" would also be fitting for what Bernardo was describing. You can't get any more extreme than zero empirical evidence.

Me

"Very ugly". In the context of scientific theories, and given that scientific naturalism relies on some form of empirical evidence to validate theories, a theory that makes empirical claims and has absolutely no evidence to show for it, could be described as grotesque.

Actually, what Bernardo (usually) means by "theoretical fantasies" in the context of interpretations of QM, especially the many-worlds interpretation, is quite specific: they're based on zero empirical evidence. In other words, they're merely theoretical and not grounded in "reality" (empirical tests), and are thus "fantasies". So in this context, "theoretical fantasies" is not simply a blind dismissal or cheap insult, but it's rather descriptive of the problems with the theories. But of course, it can come off as insulting if you don't know what he is referring to.

The New Yorker energy probably threw him off. It's not always what is being said, but how it's being said that can determine the perceived civility of the discussion. Bernardo said (after a long string of civil argumentation) "[...] willing to entertain sometimes grotesque theoretical fantasies [...]" in a very calm and laid-back tone, while Tim opened with "that's silly!" as if he had been coming off a sprint and went on to say things like "what do you even mean by physical realism?! ". Of course, on a purely analytical level and stripped from all contextual nuance, what Bernardo said in the beginning was pretty much equivalent to what Tim responded with. You can say that the pure substance of what was said by both was not civil (and that Bernardo started it), but the emotional tone and general presentation was completely different. Bernardo did of course get (overly) emotional in response, but that's because Tim was additionally not being civil in the emotional sense. A part of the point of being civil is to not create excess noise that clouds the underlying points, and the emotional tone is a big part of that.

Now I understand why the logical positivists rejected metaphysics.

I don't think Razard86 was only referring to that.

All paths lead to cartoon wolves? ?

I think that blog post perfectly encapsulates the difference between the 5-MeO-spirituality/psychonaut approach and the sober rat approach Like, if this goes into the history books, that is the quote they'll use for that.

Did you read about the ACE study?

The solo sounds like Allan Holdsworth on Benadryl.

Statistically speaking, and very generally, it's true.

I say be intelligent about it. Do what is appropriate in each situation. A one-size-fits-all solution is generally not that.

Ok. A clearer way to put that is that you should challenge people's belief systems. "Hurt other's spiritual egos" has a loaded connotation. Aiming to awaken others has to be approached highly intelligently and with care.

I'm specifically referring to social abuse. You should read some of the modern psychological studies on trauma (e.g. the ACE study).

If you think of other people as rocks, then I can understand.

But you said "randomness is just human ignorance" But wait, you're saying there is no such thing as ontological randomness, and you're also saying that humans just suck at predicting reality. Doesn't that just leave you with epistemic randomness? (it being the only valid concept).

I didn't really think that. I just didn't understand what you said. No, I'm forgiving of them in general, because I've met a lot of great religious people and read enough about religion to see that the bad rap is hugely undeserved, and that it's actually really hard to make a hard distinction between spirituality and religion if you're intellectually rigorous about it. I'm still struggling a bit to understand what you mean. Religious people are not insulting to my intelligence. Cargo cult people, maybe a bit more. However, "cargo cult" is not "cultish" in the general sense of the word. I used it to point out the inconsistency between the claimed allegiance to the 5-MeO belief system and the lack of commitment to it. My stance doesn't really strike me as skepticism. It's much more of a realist position. I'm not saying you should question the 5-MeO belief system. I'm saying you should implement it properly, the real version of it; and that you should do it while being true to yourself, to what you really feel deep down and what makes the most sense to you. Ask yourself: is basing your worldview on 5-MeO really a reflection of how you see the world? And if that's not true, can you identify the resistance to admitting such a thing? Is it based in fear, anxiety, lack, or authenticity, truth and love?

So then, should we step on it "as much as possible" as proposed by the OP, or just a little? Or should we maybe not even step on it, but instead maybe expose it to the weather a little (unless there is a storm)? Fun personal story: my mom grows leafy greens in her garden every summer; one patch is inside a mini-greenhouse, the other is exposed to the weather of the Norwegian West Coast, known for heavy rain. The leaves on the ones inside the mini-greenhouse are smooth and thin, like a baby's skin, while the outside ones are rough and thick, like an alligator's skin. It goes to show that the right form of friction, preferably the natural kind that the organism is built to handle, and in the right amounts, makes a stronger, tougher organism. Now, is being exposed to social abuse really that for humans? Meh.

Certainly if you piss on it.