Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 26 July 2017 07:52:04PM 3 points [-]

The connection between neuroses and memories was something that made me think a lot. I've been trying to provoke myself into some kind of "transformation" for about 10 years, with some limited successes and a lot of failures for a want of insight. Information like this is really valuable so thank you for sharing your experience.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 26 July 2017 08:45:40AM 0 points [-]

Given that world GDP growth continues for at least another century, 100%. :)

In response to Is Altruism Selfish?
Comment author: eternal_neophyte 24 July 2017 09:09:40AM 1 point [-]

It is impossible for one to act on another's utility function (without first incorporating it into their own utility function).

This seems tautological and trivially so. Whatever utility function you act on becomes by virtue of that fact "your" utility function.

Comment author: turchin 23 July 2017 07:48:26PM 0 points [-]

One way to answer it is to turn to the solipsistic way - that is, there is no outside universe, but there are laws which convert one experience into the next one. I would not try to defend the point, as it has one clear weakness: it is not parsimonious, as it requires extremely complex laws to convert one experience in the next, and, more over, these laws are exactly the outside world, after some normalisation.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 23 July 2017 10:34:35PM 0 points [-]

these laws are exactly the outside world

That is my view precisely. One way out is to assert that there is at least one mind responsible for providing the percepts available to other minds, and from its perspective nothing is unknown and it fills the function of the "outside world".

Comment author: turchin 22 July 2017 10:56:36PM 3 points [-]

Ok, let's spend a minute to construct a rational theology. At first, we need to prove that God exists. There are several independent ways to prove it:

1) Simulation argument. We are most likely are living in the world created by some form Superintelligence. It may create miracles, afterlife, whatever, and prevent us from proving that we live in the simulation. If we accept simulation argument, we also should accept multilevel simulation model, with higherst possible superintelligence on the highest level.

2) Mathematical Universe Platonia. If all possible math objects exist, then most complex objects exist too, more over, complex objects are dominating by the number between all possible math objects (like large digit are dominating on smaller digits). Thus most complex superintelligent computer programs must dominate as pure mathematical objects (programs are mathematical objects). However, it contradicts observations: we see a rather simple world. Solution could be that each superintelligence in platonia create multilevel simulation, so most observers any ways are downstream of simulations.

3) All the hell break loose if we accept Platonia, because not only mathematical ideas must exist, but also any linguistically presentable ideas. Thus in Platonia idea of God is equal to the God existence.

4) Forget Platomia and Simulation. But anyway we are going to create benevolent superintelligence during AI self-improvement in the next decades. It will be indistinguishable from God. However, it will exist only future half of infinity.

5) Forget Superintelligence. If some exotic interpretations of QM are true, and consciousness cause collapse, we need one and only one instance of consciousness to do so for all possible universes. Surprisingly, it is me: I am the only consciousness being in the world, all others are p-zomby. (High danger of mania of grandiosity detected.)

6) The same way anthropic principle in its worst form says that all visible universe must exist only for me to be able to ask a question what the fuck I am doing here. It implies some form of the illusion of retrocausality. (High danger of mania of grandiosity detected.)

7) Fuck off anthropic principle and QM. Let's turn to qualia. There is only two solution to dualism: either qualia don't exist at all (and it contradicts my experience), or qualia is the only substance that actually exist. In the last case, we have some ocean of possible subjective experiences and Panpsychism rules.

Now we have too many proofs that God exist, and they are rather contradictory. Surely, if I spent more time, I could generate more ideas like this, and now it will be rather improbable that at least one of them is completely untrue.

In the next part, I may try steelmaning Christian theology.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 23 July 2017 06:47:04PM 1 point [-]

The panpsychism argument is probably the most compelling one among all of these. The problem with it is that if percepts are the basic substance of the universe howcome we have experiences that we cannot predict? It implies our future experiences are determined by something outside of our own minds.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 22 July 2017 01:06:31AM 1 point [-]

Well, I don't know a whole lot about physics or the other subjects he talks about. It just seems very well-argued to me. Would you care to elaborate on what you think is incoherent?

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 22 July 2017 08:12:21AM *  4 points [-]

I don't know a whole lot about physics or the other subjects he talks about. It just seems very well-argued to me.

These two facts are related.

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 21 July 2017 05:24:24PM *  1 point [-]

Nearly every link provides falsifiable claims, although some are difficult to test.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 21 July 2017 06:05:04PM 1 point [-]

Those are a lot of links to sift through though - can you give an example of just one? :)

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 21 July 2017 05:17:10PM 1 point [-]

Let's assume all the arguments linked are in fact sound. First obvious question is does he offer anything that resembles a falsifiability condition? If not then he doesn't present anything remarkable or particularly difficult to dispatch with since his is a scientific, material hypothesis.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 28 June 2017 08:42:52PM *  0 points [-]

A section of three dimensional space can be modelled as a cubic grid with nodes where the edges intersect, up to some limited resolution for a cube of finite volume ( and I suppose the same holds true with more than three dimensions ). It sounds as if you're proposing this graph basically be flattened - you take a fully connected regular polygon of n^3 angles, map the nodes in your cube to your polygon and then delete all edges in the connected polygon that don't correspond to an edge present in the cube.

I have further questions but they hinge on whether or not I've understood you correctly., Is the above so far a fair summary?

Comment author: adamzerner 03 May 2017 05:53:33PM 0 points [-]

My impression: a major issue is that other people get the idea that LessWrong comes from a few people preaching their ideas, when in reality, it's people who mostly preach the ideas that have been discovered by and are widely agreed upon by academic experts. Just saying, "it comes from academics" seems to not directly address this major issue directly enough.

That said, I see what you mean about "actually, X" being a pattern that may lead people to instinctively argue the other way. So I see that there is a cost, but my impression is that the cost doesn't outweigh the benefit that comes with directly addressing a major concern that others have. For most audiences; there are certainly some less charitable audiences who need to be approached more gently.

I'd consider my confidence in this to be moderate. Getting your data point has lead to me shift downwards a bit.

Comment author: eternal_neophyte 03 May 2017 05:58:54PM 0 points [-]

Hate to have to say this but directly addressing a concern is social confirmation of a form that the concern deserves to be addressed, and thus that it's based in something real. Imagine a Scientologist offering to explain to you why Scientology isn't a cult.

Of the people I know of who are outright hostile to LW, it's mostly because of basilisks and polyamory and other things that make LW both an easy and a fun target for derision. And we can't exactly say that those things don't exist.

View more: Next