psysharp

Since we are explaining ourselves, the best confabulation is all we can strive to achieve.

Exactly, memories aren't immutable, and every visit are bound to have a side effect.

When a problem is new and fresh for each participant, pairing can be a great tool to connect with both the problem and each other's innate skillset, IMO.

Absolutely.

Then the question becomes: when is something fully processed - and to which degree is a person inclined to explore the depths of a concept?

What is the limit that decides when depth is no longer valuable?

Good question, maybe because time is tangible and measurable? I don't know

If you had the choice understand the concept 10 times slower but in the end would come up with twice the amount of connections, would you consider it as something valuable?

Yes I see how it would make life easier, but is that really a meaningful goal?

And how do we know that the reasons behind that it makes life easier isn't just a bias society has towards its own traits? - E.g life is easier for right handed people aswell.

Why do you think thinking fast is more important than thinking slowly?

No, it's abstractions of animal instincts, and that difference is huge.

"How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain" by Lisa Feldman Barrett should be considered for this list.

Holy shit the bias just reeks out of this paper.

Dude you have no information, I can't sincerely understand how you think you can have such detailed understanding of the situation.

It is not incorrect. In fact, your arguments aren't even mutually exclusive, depending on the context.

One is not an individual or a group inherently, it is solely based on the concepts you are using to create the context.

There was a cultural agreement to not use those weapons. Back then the community had to create rules for the game.

The problem in the middle can also be explained by him treating your question as rhetorical instead of as an actual question

You are right, species are discovered when in reference to our defined concept of what it means to be a spiece, that is a structure with all other spiecies. However it's name is an invention, as all definitions are invented.

Yes the song example can be put on a scale, but even the most plagerised of works can call it an invention to an extent when referencing a newly created title.

On a side note, since we all share the most primitive source of information, all behaviours are indirectly stolen on one level or another. But that idea doesn't contribute alot of practicality

and made me actually me.

I've been an addict and dude you sound like an addict

That ritalin and other stimulant medicines is available for kids will go down in the history books as an episode of insanity.

There is absolutely no good that comes out of it and future peers will just be glad they didn't have to go through it.

That said it is such a vast different substance from a psychoactive substance that the problems that arise will all be different.

If you reference it to the world and its inherent chaos it is an invention. If you reference it to a structure with labels and a finite number of alterations it is a discovery of a part of that structure

Well be can begin with defining leader. Can't you say that a leader is one element of the group who is more intuned to regulate the stress levels of the group, and by having one the group can operate more efficiently? Isn't it infact burden but limitied to a designated element? Not everyone needs to be a leader, isn't that the point of having one? It might just be a completely seperate characteristics from independence

More generally your goal should be not to let anything into your head unexamined.

I can accept this way of reasoning if 'unexamined' is not directly linked to attention. The brain consistently tries to automate thoughts/behaviours and with confidence comes relaxation in the attention muscle, as to say well defined areas will need less 'examination'.

On another note, there's a reason why conventions exist and it is not always the right path to opt for independence. Being able to relate to people is a huge blessing and should not be completely overruled if the object is piece of mind.

All in all an intresting article

I don’t know what speech tech will be good for, probably a lot of things, but typing I think will remain as the preferred mode of communication indefinitely. It is already the more sophisticated approach. Using speech is kind of trying to use a new kind of paint that only works on paper to also work on cave walls. Nevertheless we might discover something in the process.

I see an issue in the web industry that there is sometimes an economical incentive to maintain a solution with technical debt. Just ponder the idea that you hire a bunch of contractors to build you a house, and then you keep them on payroll to come back and fix every broken pipe that they installed to begin with. Even if they feel honor for their work the'll soon drift in to ugly insustainable work due to the nature of their incentives. We might need a proper system to hold engineers responsible insted of hiding behind a company, and in the long run be a solution that provides _space_ for engineers, plausibly.

Well you’d be lucky if you were able to define your goals as such that psychedelics or meditation were attributed as productive, instead of in many ways the polar opposite of amphetamines, I think.

The reason trivial tasks appears challenging is because on LSD you are trying to solve those tasks with different neural connections than usual. That can be incredibly confusing if you don’t introspect about it. Some tasks are difficult or pointless to try to master all new again, but if you find the right task to focus on you there’s a chance you’ll love these strange new connections being drawn. But it is not easy and not for everyone. Most notably for me personally is that it can let you forget habits, those habits that you are not even aware of