>There are people who used to be into atheism/rationalism that chose to switch to "mysticism" / magical thinking
>There are people reading this right now who moved into less rational belief systems due to FEDORALORD memes.
Ever thought about this?
How well do we understand superstition beyond pseudo-scientific, non-falsifiable explanations?
For example,OCD can be looked at in terms of biochemistry.
>If OCD person leaves house without performing rituals, same person will experience a feeling of impending doom
>OCD person creates a physical, biochemical reaction in order to be able to feel ok leaving the house
It's almost like someone who is massively addicted to cigarettes / alcohol, and needs one of the two just to achieve a feeling of mental homeostasis.
The substance addict is doing the same thing as the OCD person, but the OCD person is using a mental narrative to perturb their own brain chemistry.
That which isn't falsifiable isn't necessarily wrong, but isn't useful in terms of consensus reality.
Do we have hope of ever living in a world, in which RATIONALITY will be the dominant model for consensus reality?
It seems like emotions trump rationality in any situation where the two are competing, and it's more common to just accept cognitive dissonance than ever admit to being wrong about something and changing a belief.
Is a population harder to control if people tend towards thinking rationally?
Is it rational to try to control other people if you take the self-interest of the controller out of the equation?
>There are people reading this right now who moved into less rational belief systems due to FEDORALORD memes.
Ever thought about this?
How well do we understand superstition beyond pseudo-scientific, non-falsifiable explanations?
For example,OCD can be looked at in terms of biochemistry.
>If OCD person leaves house without performing rituals, same person will experience a feeling of impending doom
>OCD person creates a physical, biochemical reaction in order to be able to feel ok leaving the house
It's almost like someone who is massively addicted to cigarettes / alcohol, and needs one of the two just to achieve a feeling of mental homeostasis.
The substance addict is doing the same thing as the OCD person, but the OCD person is using a mental narrative to perturb their own brain chemistry.
That which isn't falsifiable isn't necessarily wrong, but isn't useful in terms of consensus reality.
Do we have hope of ever living in a world, in which RATIONALITY will be the dominant model for consensus reality?
It seems like emotions trump rationality in any situation where the two are competing, and it's more common to just accept cognitive dissonance than ever admit to being wrong about something and changing a belief.
Is a population harder to control if people tend towards thinking rationally?
Is it rational to try to control other people if you take the self-interest of the controller out of the equation?