For very long I've been caring a lot for the preferences of my past selves.
Rules I established in childhood became sacred, much like laws are (can't find post in the sequences in which Yudkowsky is amazed by the fact that some things are good just because they are old), and that caused interesting unusual life choices, such as not wearing formal shoes and suits.
I was spending more and more time doing what my previous selves thought I should, in a sense, I was composed mostly of something akin to what Anna Salomon and Steve Rayhawk called Cached Selves.
That meant more dedication to long term issues (Longevity, Cryonics, Immortality). More dedication to spacially vast issues (Singularity, X-risk, Transhumanism).
Less dedication to the parts of one's self that have a shorter life-span. Such as the instantaneous gratification of philosophical traditions of the east (buddhism, hinduism) and some hedonistic traditions of the west (psychedelism, selfish instantaneous hedonism, sex and masturbation-ism, drugs-isms, thrill-isms).
Also less dedication to time spans such as three months. Personal projects visible, completable and doable in such scales.
This process of letting your past decisions trump your current decisions/feelings/emotions/intuitions was very fruitful for me, and for very long I thought (and still think) it made my life greater than the life of most around me (schoolmates, university peers, theater friends etc... not necessarily the people I choose to hang out with, after all, I selected those!).
At some point more recently, and I'm afraid this might happen to the Effective Altruist community and the immortalist community of Less Wrong, I started feeling overwhelmed, a slave of "past me". Even though a lot of "past me" orders were along the lines of "maximize other people's utility, help everyone the most regardless of what those around you are doing".
Then the whole edifice crumbled, and I took 2 days off of all of life to go to a hotel in the woods and think/write alone to figure out what my current values are.
I wrote several pages, thought about a lot of things. More importantly, I quantified the importance I give to different time-spans of my self (say 30 points to life-goals, 16 points to instantaneous gratification, 23 points to 3MonthGoals etc...). I also quantified differently sized circles of altruism/empathy (X points for immediate family, Y points for extended family, Z points for near friends, T points for smart people around the globe, U points for the bottom billion, K points for aliens, A points for animals etc...).
Knowing my past commitment to past selves, I'd expect these new quantificatonal regulatory forces I had just created to take over me, and cause me to spend my time in proportion to their now known quantities. In other words, I allowed myself a major change, a rewriting which dug deeper into my source code than previous re-writings. And I expected the consequences to be of the same kind than those previous re-writings.
Seems I was wrong. I've become unstable. Trying to give an outside description the algorithm as it feels from the inside, it seems that the natural order of attention allocation which I had, like a blacksmith, annealed over the years, has crumbled. Instead, I find myself being prone to an evolutionary fight between several distinct desires of internal selves. A mix of George Ainslie's piconomics and plain neural darwinism/multiple drafts.
Such instability, if not for anything else, for hormonal reasons, is bound not to last long. But thus far it carried me into Existentialism audiobooks, considering Vagabonding lifestyle as an alternative to a Utilitarian lifestyle, and considering allowing a personality dissolution into whatever is left of one's personality when we "allow it" (emotionally) to dissolve and reforge itself.
The instability doesn't cause anxiety, sadness, fear or any negative emotion (though I'm at the extreme tail of the happiness setpoint, the equivalent in happiness of having an IQ 145, or three standard deviations). Contrarywise. It is refreshing and gives a sense of freedom and choice.
This post can be taken to be several distinct things for different readers.
1) A warning for utilitarian life-style people that allowing deep changes causes an instability which you don't want to let your future self do.
2) A tale of a self free of past enslavery (if only for a short period of time), who is feeling well and relieved and open to new experiences. That is, a kind of unusual suggestion for unusual people who are in an unusual time of their lives.
(Note: because of the unusual set-point thing, positive psychology advice should be discarded as a basis for arguments, I've already achieved ~0 marginal returns after 2000pgs of it)
3) This is the original intention of writing: I wanted to know the arguments in favor of a selfish vagabonding lifestyle, versus the arguments in favor of the Utilitarian lifestyle, because this is a particularly open-minded moment in my life, and I feel less biased than in most other times. For next semester, assume money is not an issue (both Vagabond and Utililtarian are cheap, as opposed to "you have a million dollars"). So, what are the arguments you'd use to decide that yourself?
Transhumanist altruism - e.g. the attempt to make life extension possible for everyone - burns out when you see that most people don't want this "help". In the beginning it's not a pure self-disinterested altruism anyway. It starts with individuals who want immortality for themselves and who want to share it with other people. Eventually it dawns on them that other people are living with a completely different sense of expectations and priorities; resigned to their finitude in the here and now, or just hoping to get their personal eternity handed to them by a higher power in another reality.
It sounds like this happened to you. Your values and your ideas of what's possible make you a member of an extreme cognitive minority, but you were living as if other people share those values and ideas, or would naturally adopt them once they were exposed to them. That hasn't happened, you've woken up to the fact that something doesn't add up, and you've become more conscious of yourself. What you haven't done yet is to "theorize" your own difference from other people - i.e. develop a model of the cognitive majorities around you, and how and why you are different from them. Are you just inherently different from them, and always will be, or are your differences more the result of unusual personal circumstances?
In what you write, I don't see much interest in that last issue yet. You're still coming to terms with the possibility of living just for yourself; you're detaching from ideas in which you have been fruitlessly invested, so that you can come to know your own mind again; the last thing you want to do right now is to become abstractly preoccupied with other people again. But in time, you may want to resume your old activities but on a bigger scale, if you are willing to take the step of being someone who plants new ideas and values in other people. 99+% of the human race doesn't seek longevity; 99+% of the human race doesn't spontaneously join the campaign for longevity when it appears; but if you were to seriously shoulder the burden of, say, being the founder of a Brazilian Longevity Party, then you would find allies, supporters, and followers.
The magnitude of your success would depend partly on how well you understood the facts of political life and of life in general. You could start something like that, and still have it end up as nothing but a political sect with a few dozen members, if it was pursued wrongly. But if it was grounded in realities that are happening anyway, like the discovery and diffusion of advanced medical techniques, and the general increase in life expectancy, then it would have much greater potential. Similarly, if you were concerned not just with longevity but with singularity, Brazil is a power, it has all the ingredients to eventually create a singularity itself even if the rest of the world disappeared. There is a technical elite in your country and you could engage with them; but it would require a willingness to also engage with their outlook of worldly patriotic selfishness, rather than effective transhumanist altruism.
Christian altruism - e.g. the attempt to make heaven possible for everyone - burns out when you see that most people don't want this "help". In the beginning it's not a pure self-disinterested altruism anyway. It starts with individuals who want immortality for themselves and who want to share it with other people. Eventually it dawns on them that other people are living with a completely different sense of expectations and priorities; resigned to their finitude in the here and now, or just hoping to get their personal eternity handed to them by ... (read more)