= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
As a cryonicist, I'm drafting out a text describing my revival preferences and requests, to be stored along with my other paperwork. (Oddly enough, this isn't a standard practice.) The current draft is here. I'm currently seeking suggestions for improvement, and a lot of the people around here seem to have good heads on their shoulders, so I thought I'd ask for comments here. Any thoughts?
In response to
Open thread, Sep. 19 - Sep. 25, 2016
Interesting idea! I guess you could add a 'when in doubt' for whether you'd rather be revived in an early period (eg, if resurrection is possible with a 80% success rate) or to be downprioritized until resurrection is very mature and safe.
In response to
A Weird Trick To Manage Your Identity
I don't think the term "weird" is very conductive to having a healthy self-esteem.
'eccentric'?
In response to
The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing
turchin, i just want to say that i really like these idea-catalog infographics.
In response to
Diaspora roundup thread, 23rd June 2016
[Meta]
Update: I've received feedback, and I won't be posting links to TFP in this thread, or others, on LW.
Would it be below the bar for no-politics to post one or more links in this thread from The Future Primaeval (TFP)? Some of their posts are more overtly political or controversial than others, and the only ones posts from the site I'd link here are ones which make more direct reference to, e.g., the rationality community, metacognition, strategic thinking, etc., rather than having something to do with sociopolitics. Note: I'd prefer if those hostile to TFP links of LW would reply to this comment rather than downvoting it, but, that stated, downvotes without clarification will be treated as a negative response to my above question.
Thank you for asking.
In response to
Revitalising Less Wrong is not a lost purpose
Something should definitely be tried about downvotes: It seems like the average value in many threads is below zero.
I should probably add that i'm looking for a positive and mutually-supporting LW-style community. But i'm sure other people would prefer a more brutally honest community. That's fine and ideally we'll all find sites that suit us in the end.
In response to
Revitalising Less Wrong is not a lost purpose
Something should definitely be tried about downvotes: It seems like the average value in many threads is below zero.
Libertarianism is an irrational, politically extremist position?
I think passive_fist was saying that they considered certain comments irrational, and that those fell into the (broad) category of libertarianism. That c is an element of set I and set L, not that L is a subset of I.
In response to
Meme: Valuable Vulnerability
From these comments i'm getting the impression that:
Being vulnerable here means some mix of being emotional, being compassionate, and being connected.
The idea is to be lightly vulnerable, or vulnerable within limits.
The name 'vulnerability' has the effect of emphasizing the paradox of desiring instability.
In response to
Meme: Valuable Vulnerability
Emotions usually have a use. Being emotionally "secure" means to choose your mental actions so to avoid possibility of negative emotions. If you allow yourself to be emotionally vulnerable you do not sensor your emotions and their usefullness away from you. That is you allow the state of the world to influence you and do not let your self identity to hijack your mental state.
I'm delighted by this perspective that the world and your self-identity are both external to your mental state.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Can you elaborate a bit on what exactly is your intention?
Specifically, is this meant to be a scale of severity categories with one example for each, or is it meant as an exhaustive list of all relevant apocalyptic scenarios put into a ranking?
A scale of roughly-ordered tiers. It's a shorthand for expressing the level of devastation in far-future failure modes.