They aspire to become the least intelligent person in that room.

If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room.

The more you think you know, the less you understand.

This doesn’t quite make sense to me.

That would suggest that my perceived knowledge about plumbing systems is a strong indicator that I don’t actually understand them - despite having done it professionally for over a decade.

What I think is true is that someone with a very basic level of knowledge simply doesn’t know what they don’t know - which explains the strong conviction and lack of nuance, for example. But I don’t think that the belief in one’s knowledge or abilities alone is an indicator of the opposite being true.

That’s why I said:

They might be more humble about all the things they realize they don’t know, but that’s a different thing.

This doesn’t mean they think they’re less intelligent than average. They just have a more accurate view of their actual skill level.

A person might be highly competent in their field and objectively well above average in knowledge, yet still remain acutely aware of how much more there is to know - stuff they didn’t even realize existed when they started.

That’s the thing. Many would say that declaring it out loud is already proof it’s not true, but I’m not sure that logic holds up.

I can totally imagine a person of below-average intelligence thinking they’re smart. But would a genuinely smart person conversely think they’re actually stupid? I don’t think so. They might be more humble about all the things they realize they don’t know, but that’s a different thing.

Also, being socially clumsy and saying stuff like that is exactly what I’d expect from a truly intelligent person. When I picture an actual genius, social skills aren’t the first thing that comes to mind.

Intelligence might be desireable but it can come with trade-offs. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum and may not thus be all good.

Oh indeed. I misread that. Yeah, score of 96 definitely counts as average.

Intelligence isn’t the important factor there - consciousness is. Does it feel like something to be those entities in the simulation? If yes, then I’d argue that ending the simulation is like killing a person painlessly in their sleep.

I personally don’t think ending the simulation is even the most troubling part. We could unintentionally create a simulation that’s effectively a hell and then populate it with entities that have subjective experiences we don’t realize exist. The only thing worse than ending a life is creating one just for it to suffer through its entire existence.

IQ is a measure of specific kind of intelligence but those terms are not synonymous. Also, 69 is nowhere near average - 100 is.

I haven’t really noticed any change whatsoever.

I didn’t replace mine with anything. I just stopped cutting it so now it turns into a field instead. The biodiversity grows by itself every year. You don’t really need to do anything to it - nature will take care of that.

If I’m a woman and the only women I see doing professional sports are equivalent to Shaq then why would I even bother trying unless I’m a genetical freak as well.

There’s also the concept of consciousness without memory. What’s that like? Being able to experience the current moment but having no memory of any past experiences - including your experience one second ago.

Or here’s a scary thought: what if general anesthesia doesn’t actually switch off consciousness but simply blocks new memories from forming? You could experience the full horror of being awake during surgery but remember none of it. From the perspective of “now,” that would be functionally the same as never having experienced it at all.

Then there are those extremely weird recordings from split-brain studies. Back when grand mal seizures were treated by cutting the corpus callosum - the bridge between the two brain hemispheres - to stop the “storm” from spreading. On the surface these patients seemed completely normal after the operation, but some really strange stuff shows up when you start testing them properly.

There’s a way you can communicate with each hemisphere independently without the other one knowing. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body, the right hemisphere the left side. You can flash text on the left side of the visual field (which only the right, non-verbal hemisphere sees), then hand them a pen and let the left hand (controlled by the right hemisphere) answer questions by writing. Turns out that the two halves often don’t agree on things. Ask the right hemisphere what it wants to do for a living and you’ll get a different answer than what the left hemisphere says out loud. Or you can give the right hemisphere a task - “go get a glass of water” - and when you ask the left hemisphere why it did that, it just makes up an explanation. “I was thirsty,” it’ll say, even though the researchers know that’s not true. It genuinely seems like there are two separate consciousnesses running in the same brain at the same time. The big question is: were they there all along, or does the second one only emerge once the connection between them is cut?

And yeah, this is all stuff I’ve absorbed from podcasts covering these topics - mostly from Sam Harris. I’m just naturally really curious about the human mind, and I’m pretty experienced with meditation as well, so I probably pay attention to my day-to-day conscious experiences about 1% more than the average person. I’m however not in any way expert on this. It’s not even remotely related to what I do for living.

As a man, I don’t really care if a woman comes into the same bathroom as me or faces me on the football field. Whatever “threat” they might pose to me, men already do that times five.

What I worry about is the reality it leads to. I’m afraid that in sports it ends up with only men’s teams, and the only women who qualify are genetic outliers that the vast majority of women in the world can’t relate to at all. It’s like me looking up to Shaq O’Neal and thinking someday I’m going to be like him - not going to happen.

Men have nothing to lose here, whereas women have everything to lose.

I can only assume a fetus likely has some faint level of consciousness while a rock has none, but again, this is all just speculation. I couldn’t possibly know for sure. Consciousness and qualia are entirely subjective experiences. There’s no evidence of them in the universe outside our own direct experience of it. If I wasn’t conscious myself, I wouldn’t even have any idea that such a thing exists.

What it is - I have no idea. If I had to bet, I’d say it’s an emergent feature of a sufficient level of information processing and therefore a physical process, but that’s just my speculation. Nobody actually knows.

Illusions are experiences. That’s why I say consciousness cannot be an illusion: the very fact that you’re experiencing the illusion proves that the space where that illusion appears exists - and that space is consciousness.

I’m also not talking about any human concepts we layer on top of feelings, nor the thoughts we have about those feelings. I’m only talking about the raw sensation itself that our brain then interprets as hot, wet, green, bitter, and so on. The fact of experience itself. If I were to switch places with a bat it would most likely still feel like something to be that bat but if I were to switch places with a rock it would be equivalent to dying. The lights would go out because there’s no consciousness. It’s like nothing to be a rock (probably).

The sense of self implies some kind of center of consciousness or thinker of thoughts. I don’t buy that. Thoughts just appear - nobody is authoring them. I speak of “me” or “I” as a being in the universe, but that’s just because it’s the only way I know how to refer to these things. I don’t know how accurate my view of the universe really is. Like I said: I could just be a mind living in a simulated universe. I don’t think I am, but it would be perfectly compatible with my experience.

I do that with eating meat. I can’t defend it but I keep doing it. At least I do it knowingly.

How can we know it’s like anything to be anything

Because it undeniably feels like something to be in this very moment from the perspective of my subjective experience. In fact, I’d even go as far as to claim that it’s the only thing in the entire universe that cannot be an illusion. I could be a mind living in a simulated universe on an alien supercomputer, with every person I’ve ever interacted with just being a convincing AI, or I could be a Boltzmann brain - but what remains true despite all that is that something seems to be happening.

I think the closest we can get to true unconsciousness that you can still come back from is general anesthesia. It’s nothing like sleep. It’s like that period of time doesn’t even exist. It’s like the time before you were born.

I don’t think it necessarily implies extremism. It just means someone holds themselves to their own standards even when it’s inconvenient or when no one’s looking.

“It’s not a principle if it doesn’t cost you anything”

I’ve wondered about the potenttial relationship to autism as well. I too like a rule-based and structured life.

Certain podcaster calls this kind of people “unreliable allies” from the perspective of the group because even if you know a few of their stances, you can’t reliably predict all the others.

Even bad principles are still principles.