Where I am it really boils down to whether or not you start kissing the nearest girl in the club when drunk.
You could possibly explain this in the article then with the idea that intelligent people are more likely to be either really introverted or extroverted and that the introverted ones tend not to do this sort of thing, leaving just the extroverted of the smart people to get laid?
Sort of similar to the risk-aversion idea here, except with introversion. I do have smart friends who do this, they just happen to also be reasonably extroverted
Except that in open source software there are well known ways for splitting up work. In mathematics... thats not really the case (or at least, not to the same degree).
I'm a bit late here, but if you want to really smash the challenge, you can use Lisp style metaprogramming with my Hasp program. Something like this is possible (10 nodes):
def arc
with->>= name input
link "click here"
display++ "you said: " name
He sent a video to the GK encoded as text, told the GK how to convert it, and the video helped change the mental state of the GK to the point where it wasn't so difficult to be let out.
> due to initial assumptions that are much a matter of faith
Isn't it always the case that science is built on a matter of faith though? I have faith that I'm not in a matrix-like reality, and there's no real way to know if I was in one, so I just set it aside, and instead work within the model of reality I see.
And if you do assume that the this reality does hold consistently (you don't really have much choice to decide otherwise), surely you can learn and know about how stuff works within that reality. Or am I missing something?
Oh no I understand that we could now be in a matrix-like reality, which is what I meant by "setting the question aside", and I'm arguing that there's nothing wrong with trying to use science to find out stuff under a whole load of assumptions, because that is essentially what we are doing all the time, whether or not we are talking about something philosophical like free-will.
But when you think about it, under this reality, how could free will possibly exist? Everything I do is a direct consequence of the past, modulo some possible quantum randomness if you believe in that, but even the randomness wouldn't give me a free will.
Really simplistic answer, but should get you started: there is no single definable thing that is identifiably "you". If you lost a foot, would you still be you? At what point does the food you eat become a part of you? If you lost your memories, or changed your mind about something you believe deeply, or if you go to sleep, do you stop being you?
How many of the tags you use to idendify yourself are actually group membership tags... e.g. pythonista, founder, etc.?
How many of the activities you do only make sense in the context of people (productive member of society stuff)? Even more, how many of the things you do are because of the consequences for or from others (feed your family, help your friends, do something recognized as really cool)?
Where "me" stops and society begins is always a bit fuzzy.
"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." - Alan W. Watts
How do I know who I am? When I try a new food, what are my criteria for deciding whether or not I like it? If I wish to be a better person, why am I not already that better person?
You could possibly explain this in the article then with the idea that intelligent people are more likely to be either really introverted or extroverted and that the introverted ones tend not to do this sort of thing, leaving just the extroverted of the smart people to get laid?
Sort of similar to the risk-aversion idea here, except with introversion. I do have smart friends who do this, they just happen to also be reasonably extroverted