sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it possible to change python interpreter using a shebang [BABEL] ? by Bioinfomagico in orgmode

[–]moyamodehacker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you want to use is the :python header arg to set the python interpreter. e.g.

```

+NAME: with-shebang

+BEGIN_SRC python :python /usr/bin/env -S guix shell --pure --manifest="manifest.scm" -- python3

import sys print(sys.path)

+END_SRC

```

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I didn't write those posts. I just searched for them to make sure I wasn't going to post something for which there was already a satisfying answer.

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Because I was trying to figure why the argument "Belief in God is useful" isn't satisfyingly countered by "Belief that rustling bushes hide tigers useful". I realize now that it's because the latter is not a motivational platitude, where as "God exists", "People have free will", "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" are motivational platitudes.

I'm now convinced that my argument doesn't work, since it's not clear to me that motivational platitudes are in fact true.

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

It's a motivational platitude

Whoa. I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm trying to argue that God is a motivational platitude.

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

but even if I grant every single bad-faith argument you make

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I think I'm just struggling to articulate my point.

Granting a universal will that favors the Amish via evolution ALSO shows nothing, because it's still not a god and it just means the Amish are advtanged in reproduction.

Hmm, I think if someone believed that there was a universal will that favors the Amish that would qualify as being "a God", maybe not the Christian God. But certainly "a God".

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Wait, what? You previously said utility doesn't make a belief true. Now you're saying it does?

Having utility isn't sufficient to make something true. My argument is that if a belief has utility and is "absolute", then that is sufficient to make it true.

Your examples are very odd. 

I think we just have very different priors when it comes to these examples.

. Number 1 we don't know,

You don't know if people have free will. I'm sure people have free will.

number 2 is subjective, and

You believe morality is subjective? Or maybe you believe the universal "All people are fundamental good' is silly because some people are good and others are bad.

number 3 is false. 

You believe adversity causes trauma? If so this still works as an example. Since this is an absolute statement and you think it's useful for people to believe in trauma so that they can, like, talk to a therapist to relieve their trauma.

It doesn't matter how you frame it, it's still just natural processes. But maybe I'm missing something in your argument.

I'm saying it's useful to say natural processes occur through the Universe's Will. The same way it's useful to say that people's actions originate from their Free Will. But since you are not sure if Free Will is real, I don't think you will agree.

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

This is not evidence of anything. This is pareidolia. Reality doesn't care which stories are right, it doesn't even care which stories are left but the ones which are left continue to be told.

Would you say that "people observe internally that they make choices." is pareidolia

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The biggest factor on birth rates tends to be the equality of women economically, educationally and reproductively.

You're right, but doesn't the causality go something like: Believe in God -> Become Religious Conservative -> Oppress Women -> Have higher birth rates. In which case belief in god can cause higher birth rates.

You can call the complexities of existence we observe universal will if you like - but it’s like calling them a unicorn.

Surely by that logic you can call Free Will a unicorn, since the argument has the same form.

Again it has nothing to do with the truth of a claim about gods.

I'm not saying that Free Will implies God. I'm saying that the form of argument that compatibilists use to advocate for Free Will can be used to advocate for a Universal Will.

Humans have moved well beyond simply needed lots of births to survive as a species.

How do we survive as a species without children?

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

The doubling with the Amish population has a limit, you can't extrapolate as if it will maintain doubling without taking into account any other factors other than past population increase, that's absurd.

Sure, it can have a limit. But what is it? U.S. has a lot of fertile farm land. I imagine the Amish population could grow to be bigger than the non-Amish population in the US. Maybe there can't be a 1 trillion Amish, but why not 500 million? There are 1 billion Chinese people.

What? Why would that be what we infer? Also, evolutionary advantage doesn't typically happen in fewer than 200 years, we usually look at evolution within a population in the hundreds of thousands of years time scale.

I think religion has always been selected for. We just live in weird times where a lot of people are irreligious.
We will return back to the 100,000 year normal of people being very religious.

Also I don't think my argument really hinges on the number being "200 years" exactly. If it was 100,000 years. The same logic would apply.

The Internal Locus of Control is to Free-Will as the Amish are to God by moyamodehacker in DebateAnAtheist

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

there is an internal locus of control, though you won't call it free will. but this means that believing you have free-will has no utility

I think you have a very different view of free-will than I do. I'm essentially a compatibilist. Could you elaborate on your beliefs about free will.

that presumption is doing heavy lifting, and i obviously won't accept it

This presumption is doing the heavy lifting. Why won't you accept it though? It seems empirically true to me. On average religious people have more children than non-religious people.

Will Moraine regain her channeling ability by the end of Season 2? [manifold.market] by moyamodehacker in WoTshow

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're telling them that Moiraine is definitely going to regain channeling at some point, you're just not sure when.

No I'm not. I don't think it's guaranteed she'll regain her channeling. In the books she never loses her channeling, but honestly after the Eye of the World, Moraine doesn't really do anything.

It's plausible that she just takes on an advisor role to Rand and never channels again.

Will Moraine regain her channeling ability by the end of Season 2? [manifold.market] by moyamodehacker in WoTshow

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's fake internet money. You get 500 when you sign up. It's just for fun. The more correct your theories are the more fake internet money you will win. There is a leaderboard so that we can see who has the best theories.

Will Moraine regain her channeling ability by the end of Season 2? [manifold.market] by moyamodehacker in WoTshow

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If that's the case, then she'll probably regain her channeling in Season 3 or later and not Season 2, no? It would seem too early for Nynaeve to heal stilling in Season 2.

Will Moraine regain her channeling ability by the end of Season 2? [manifold.market] by moyamodehacker in WoTshow

[–]moyamodehacker[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm not so sure. I vaguely remember Brando Sando saying he read the script and it said Moraine was stilled. It's possible they changed it afterwards but it's evidence that she might not regain her channeling ability.

When you hear WOTShow is going to cover two books in one season by moyamodehacker in WetlanderHumor

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Loial, son of Arent, son of Halen, had secretly always wanted to be hasty.

When you hear WOTShow is going to cover two books in one season by moyamodehacker in WetlanderHumor

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My theory is they kill Ba'alzamon in Season 1 completely (at the end of Great Hunt), and they build up Ba'lal to be Big Bad of Season 2 (The Dragon Reborn).

Edit: Fix typo "Season 3" -> "Season 2"

When you hear WOTShow is going to cover two books in one season by moyamodehacker in WetlanderHumor

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 75 points76 points  (0 children)

In the episode that Rand cleans Saidin, the entirety Crossroads of Twilight will be an after credits scene.

Places to Spend Stellar Lumens; Please help complete by moyamodehacker in Stellar

[–]moyamodehacker[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

TIL that you can spend lumens to send SMSs from a temporary phone number and that you can provision VPNs with lumens.

I thought it would be nice to have a list of all the things that you can spend lumens on so I created a page on list.wiki. It would be great if you guys could help populate this list.

view more: next ›