Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

SenK

@ SenK @lemmy.ca

Posts
3
Comments
27
Joined
1 mo. ago

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • You personally don't have to engage at all. In fact with the way algorithms work, very specifically do NOT engage if you're not ready to go all in. But be aware that there are plenty of people out there ready to fill the information void with whatever nonsense that benefits them.

    Nobody has to be a crusader against misinformation, but I'd strongly caution against thinking that just ignoring the problem will make it go away.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • If you define this subjectively, from where comes the wording "we must" and "we need to" in your earlier messages?

    Your words: "we must destroy consensus reality" "We need to kill the idea of objective reality"

    In your world of free, subjective experience first, are people not allowed to form consensus that disagrees with your subjective ideals?

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • How do you define what a realist cage is without being informed by objective reality?

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • ...no? Help me out?

    Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood you lol

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • Neither. I just enjoy picking apart philosophical arguments.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • If objective reality doesn't exist, then your definition of 'subjective' is just a consensus-based hallucination you inherited from your own comfort. How do you know your 'multiverse' isn't just a realist's cage you haven't recognized yet? Your own argument destroys the premise upon which it rests. Also, what if my subjective experience includes what I would characterize as objective reality? You would be imposing your own definition on to me, again destroying your own premise.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • Good on you for asking! Dawkins doesn’t prove there’s no God; he argues the idea isn’t necessary to explain reality. The burden of proof isn’t on him to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, it’s on those making the claim to provide testable evidence. That’s how critical thinking works.

    https://youtu.be/Qf03U04rqGQ?t=301

    As for "How do you learn without learning?" you don’t. But a lot of people confuse rote repetition (parroting Dawkins or the Bible) with understanding (grappling with the arguments themselves). One’s memorization; the other’s understanding.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • Wow, that’s… not quite what I meant. The goal isn’t to reject objective reality, it’s to question how we define it and who gets to decide what counts as “real.” Pushing people to explore their own perspectives is one thing, but encouraging pure solipsism just replaces one dogma with another. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, yeah?

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • Oh my gosh, thank you for responding this way 😭

    I feel like on Lemmy it's really difficult to ever post anything but total agreement without it immediately becoming an argument. Glad we found common ground!

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • I get what you’re saying, but you’re kind of setting up a strawman yourself here here. Not every idea deserves endless debate, sure, it’s about the habit of dismissing things as "stupid" without even considering them. Sure, lizard people and bricks fixing teeth are absurd. But those examples are extreme on purpose, and they don’t really address the core of people rejecting ideas out of hand just because they’re unfamiliar or uncomfortable. If an idea is actually bad, it will fall apart under scrutiny. But if the default response is just "that’s dumb," we’re not thinking critically, we’re just avoiding the work, and worse, we are participating in a culture where it's okay to do so. Which is exactly what leads to people getting (and abusing) terrible ideas.

    Remedy to stupidity isn't LESS critical thinking.

  • People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

    Jump

  • I unironically think the braindead atheism online greatly contributed to the rise of Christian nationalism we've been seeing in the past decade...

  • Showerthoughts @lemmy.world
    SenK @lemmy.ca

    People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies

  • Meditation is like Neo exiting his dream-coffin

    Jump

  • Kinda. Or at least beginning to exit it. The Matrix has plenty of intentional Buddhist undertones. And Revolutions features a vedic hymn in its soundtrack, also signaling the idea of waking up from illusion.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZQUoI0iOz0

  • A Web Revival: the Internet didn't die, you're just not on it [12:20]

    Jump

  • Aah... Webrings, Cliques, dithered gifs...

  • rabbit attack, france, 14th century

    Jump

  • The rabbit is flaying the skin I think.

  • The urge to sing "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" is always just a whim away. A whim away, A whim away, A whim away...

    Jump

  • Made me chortle!

  • Do you ever feel like you need to cry but can't?

    Jump

  • Oh absolutely it is. And to some degree it's understandable: it's vulnerable and icky icky icky so there's an inclination to find and provide ways to mask and suppress emotions instead of expressing them. It takes a lot of strength to be vulnerable, and you can only build that strength by being vulnerable. It's far easier to suppress.

  • What are some depressing realizations or positive benefits about life you've learned growing up?

    Jump

  • Do you ever feel like you need to cry but can't?

    Jump

  • You didn't, you just learned to push them down.

  • Do you ever feel like you need to cry but can't?

    Jump

  • I’ve learned not to cry. I don’t know if that is a good thing or not…

    It's not healthy. Emotional expression is part of being a human but many cultures have normalized emotional suppression. Read what Vodian wrote, I think it might be useful.

  • Buddhism @lemmy.world
    SenK @lemmy.ca

    Contemplative Artificial Intelligence - Teaching AI Buddhist principles gets it to make more ethical choices

    arxiv.org /pdf/2504.15125
  • Ask Lemmy @lemmy.world
    SenK @lemmy.ca

    How much trash is there on the surface nearest to you right now?