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

Comment author: Viliam 17 May 2017 09:38:53AM *  3 points [-]

I suspect many people are doing things that are unsustainable or difficult to sustain in long run, such as:

  • dehydrating themselves (the easiest, but also completely stupid way to lose your first kilogram);
  • eating tasteless food (unsustainable unless you are willing to give up eating tasty food forever);
  • spending too much time on e.g. slow exercise or complicated calorie counting (when real life comes back, you will not afford doing 3 hours of yoga each day).

Which is why for myself I tried to (1) minimize the time spent exercising, which ultimately led to exercising with my own body weight at home, and (2) optimize also for the taste of the healthy food, even if it means letting an extra calorie in, as long as the outcome remains better than my previous food habits.

As a consequence, I was able to keep doing this for almost a year, even if real life keeps happening, because I like the taste of the new food (so I am not tempted to replace it with the old one), and if sometimes I only have 30 minutes of free time during the day, I can still do some meaningful exercise (as opposed to shrugging "well, no time for gym today").

Comment author: ingive 18 May 2017 04:49:07AM *  0 points [-]

Eating tasteless food might be useful in weight loss and health. Vegetables usually have phytonutrients, which evolved to be for example insect repellents. However many of these phytonutrients have, for example, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory mechanisms in our body, Sapiens. Like Curcumin and Sulforaphane. Since IQ goes down by age, though crystallized not so much, it might be worthwhile to try and include these foods. Curcumin can pass the blood brain barrier in certain instances.

You've read this? It's long, but if you CTRL+F for "taste" you'll see some obvious writings. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/

Not Relevant, Not written by Yvain (srs): "He pointed to Absolute Infinity and told Him, including himself. why Blind-Every-thing-No-thing God, don't you allow us to enjoy, Qualia:tetively, useful food, rather than processed food? Unless we can't eat enough calories to satisfy our leptin-VNM-feedback system with unprocessed food, it should not be done"

Maybe AGI and CRISPR can edit the genes to enjoy "useful" food, it's after all only food for our real purposes.

Comment author: madhatter 16 March 2017 11:58:32AM 0 points [-]

Well, suppose it increases awareness of the threat of AGI, if we can prove that consciousness is not some mystical, supernatural phenomenon. Because it would be more clear that intelligence is just about information processing.

Furthermore, the ethical debate about creating artificial consciousness in a computer (mindcrime issues, etc.) would very shortly become a mainstream issue, I would imagine.

Comment author: ingive 17 March 2017 08:44:35AM *  0 points [-]

I'm not sure if intelligence and consciousness are one and the same thing, and with your words, consciousness/intelligence is information processing. If you conclude that intelligence is information processing, then this might be an aspect of the body, an attribute, in roughly the same way as consciousness. Then that aspect of the body is evolving in machines, called artificial intelligence, independent of conscious experience.

Consciousness has such a wide variety of states, whether it be mystical, religious experiences, persistent non-symbolic experiences, nonduality or even ordinary states and so forth. It's fine that these states are seen from the perspective of neurons firing in the brain, but from the state of the beholder, it's well, you know... maybe unsatisfactory to conclude the source is the brain? William A. Richards[1], for example, have the view that the 'hard problem of consciousness' is a philosophical question, and I don't doubt many others who have experienced these states have a more open appreciation for this idea. [4]

But as a philosophical question, even with the assertion that consciousness is information processing, it could be this 'brain being a receiver or reducing valve' philosophical idea. Hence, creating conscious machines means inducing a reduction valve of Mind-At-Large or receiver, however you want to look at it.

Recent neuroimaging studies have sparked the light of Aldous Huxley's philosophical idea[2] that the brain is a reducing valve for Mind-At-Large, consciousness, by showing that reductions in blood flow to certain regions of the brain with for example psychedelics lead to a more intense experience.

"As you can see here, there was a negative correlation between the blood flow to these areas and the intensity of the subjective experience by the subjects, so the lower the blood flow, the more intense the subjective experience. " [3]

Probably the most efficient way to accelerate neuroscience research is with AGI and I wouldn't be surprised if DeepMind's coming AGI will be utilized for this purpose as for example Hassabis is a neuroscientist and been a strong proponent for AGI scientists.

1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/07/william-a-richards-psychedlics-entheogens-book

2] [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/327452-aldous-huxley-compared-the-brain-to-a-reducing-valve-in

3] [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/this-is-your-brain-on-psilocybin/

4] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201604/psychedelic-drugs-and-the-nature-personality-change

Comment author: ingive 14 March 2017 01:11:23AM 0 points [-]

Important insight which LessWrong can comment on: link

To me, it's a very concise summary of what we all know yet stupidly enough, ignore because of irrational societies and educational systems. I'm not saying that I am taking it in. That would be the equal excuse as of any other. What do you think?

Comment author: ingive 12 March 2017 08:04:34PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: ChristianKl 07 March 2017 05:09:58PM 1 point [-]

The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective.

What kind of evidence did convince them that the clicking stuff isn't effective? How did the decision process look like?

Comment author: ingive 08 March 2017 01:22:30AM *  0 points [-]

As an intervention, I suppose by the number of applicants. It's was mostly about changing one's essence or awareness rather than it changing itself by taking action, being responsible and not making excuses. Of course, 'clickers' can still apply but this is the new stuff, regarding non-clickers.

Bachir is taking application calls publicly and it's pretty fun (Here's a Scientology mention). https://www.twitch.tv/videos/127066455?t=01h07m10s

I'm thinking about applying in the future. First I am going to read the Sequences, deepen my practice of meditation, etc.

Comment author: ingive 06 March 2017 08:01:44PM 1 point [-]

MrMind now 'the singularity group' has changed focus, rather than making people change their awareness and thus do EA actions, they instead ask to do the right EA action in every single moment. So people who are interested can apply and go over, meditate, exercise work etc according to a schedule until the right action disciplined has transitioned to the EA awareness. I think 12 hours of work a day (of course not physical labor).

The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective. They are also going to go around universities and try and grow the movement. To be honest this seems exciting and the impact you were speculating of. Here you can see the application form: http://pastebin.com/PLc1r0J9

So the problem about our current day society seems like it's centered around, for example, entertainment and intellectual masturbation (hobbies) even though we know we can be fulfilled and in a state of flow doing, for example, the right action every single moment. There won't even be a future or a past then.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 March 2017 11:15:40PM 1 point [-]

if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

If that's a single someone, saying "he was wrong" is not quite correct.

However if a hundred someones gave these probabilities, it would be reasonable to say "forecasts were wrong" (note the plural).

Comment author: ingive 05 March 2017 02:49:56PM 0 points [-]

Yes, you are right on the point. I wanted to ask:

"If many forecasts say the probability is 80% that A will win, 20% that B will win, why do they say the forecasts were wrong if B wins?"

Wrong implies bivalence, binary thinking, duality: it implies right. A probability cannot be binary, it's infinite. My brain has a hard time understanding why it's reasonable... Kind of Orwellian.

So to my point. Forecasts were only wrong if they say A will win, but B wins. Is this not correct? Stating 80% in hindsight is equal to stating 0%, and even before that it's 0% or 100% or it's void, nothing, of no substance...

Comment author: ingive 04 March 2017 10:40:39PM *  0 points [-]

This is a stupid question, but if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

Would an accurate prediction be "100% that B will win"? If they say 99% they are losers either way. I really do not understand. Maybe I have a tumor and it's impacting my cognition, haha.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 March 2017 03:56:51PM 2 points [-]

eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight

This is not true.

Comment author: ingive 03 March 2017 11:36:31AM 0 points [-]

Yes, you are right. I'm sorry. The weight loss per day slows down over time. I wish I knew math so I could say what that curve is.

Comment author: MrMind 01 March 2017 10:45:28AM *  3 points [-]

This comment is just to vent some frustration at how hard it is to get thinner, a.k.a. steering system 1.
I was there, looking at the just finished, empty dish. The pasta was delicious, but I didn't need a second serving. Yet, like in a horror B-movie, I watched myself from the inside as I got up and loaded a second serving.

GAAAH!

Comment author: ingive 02 March 2017 03:51:48PM *  0 points [-]

If you want to be serious, buy a food scale and measure all of your food and eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight and then maintain. This means you'll have to keep it up forever. You can eat whatever you want as long as you hit the target. Processed food that has nutrition labels are also applicable to this method. In regards to not eat more, it depends where you eat. At home, you cook the amount you need, in processed restaurants with nutrition labels you order as much as you need.

Forget buffets and fancy restaurants. Unless if you maybe fast for 24 hours after or have a well-kept habit to keep this up. That means for example approximating how much you overate and subtract it from next days calories, you'll learn as you train by measuring food.

View more: Next