Vladimir_Nesov comments on The Twin Webs of Knowledge - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 28 August 2009 09:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (72)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 August 2009 06:49:55PM 0 points [-]

There is no ability to change human nature as yet.

Comment author: thomblake 28 August 2009 07:43:44PM 3 points [-]

What do you mean by 'human nature'? It seems like 'nature' is in general ill-defined in the first place. If you mean simply, "what it's like to be a human" then I think in many relevant ways we're changing that all the time.

Comment author: gwern 29 August 2009 01:45:37PM 0 points [-]

As the Nietzschean quip goes, if the human nature is to be in flux, then you can't change it by changing yourself or others.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 August 2009 06:47:32PM 1 point [-]

You can change it in 5 minutes with an icepick.

Comment author: ferrouswheel 28 August 2009 11:09:37PM 0 points [-]

Modafinil removes the urge to sleep pretty well - but as thomblake mentions, it depends on how you define that ill-defined concept.

Comment author: pjeby 29 August 2009 05:16:56PM 0 points [-]

There is no ability to change human nature as yet.

If you re-read the comment you're replying to, you'll see I was answering the part about "your own nature", not "human nature".

However, if you consider that most of what constitutes "human nature" is actually metaprogramming that drives the acquisition of our individual nature, then an enormous part of that nature is not actually hard-wired.

People who've not done any significant amount of mindhacking are horribly biased towards believing that aspects of their individual nature are in fact universal. (Actually, everyone is so biased, it's just that non-mindhackers are an order of magnitude worse, because they don't have the experience yet of seeing the consistent disconnect between their automatic thoughts and external reality.)

Stupid example: earlier this week I realized that I was choosing not to aggressively pursue certain goals because I felt the "rush" to complete them would be stressful. Then I realized that there was no intrinsic association between "rush" and "stress" -- that was a learned response, and a fairly specific one at that. (My mother always freaked out whenever she was late... which was virtually all the time.)

However, until I thought to question that specific assumption, I was not conscious of it being my individual nature - it was assumed to be part of human nature, or just the nature of the world itself. (i.e. "of course it's stressful to rush")

It's impractical to question every implicit association, though, and practical knowledge/experience is needed as a guide to know what assumptions to surface and question. (A good rule of thumb, though, is that anything that provokes a negative emotional reaction should be questioned thoroughly.)

Comment author: wedrifid 28 August 2009 07:32:49PM 0 points [-]

For the individual at least. Eugenics of course gives the ability to change human nature (albeit with a time scale and logistical difficulties that make it useless to most purposes).