All of C9AEA3E1's Comments + Replies

Seems similar enough to "Every part of your brain assumes that all the other surrounding parts work a certain way. The present brain is the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness for every individual piece of the present brain.

Start modifying the pieces in ways that seem like "good ideas"—making the frontal cortex larger, for example—and you start operating outside the ancestral box of parameter ranges. And then everything goes to hell.

So you'll forgive me if I am somewhat annoyed with people who run around saying, "I'd like to be a... (read more)

0CarlShulman
Well, OTOH, he also complains that messing around by trial and error is likely to cause unpredictable side effects, like nasty insanity, some of which may be too subtle to notice at first, or just tolerated.

Can someone recommend good Russian learning material? Preferably something that could be found online (books count).

0Yuu
Could you clarify, what do you want to learn, and for what reason? I think I may help you with specific book or manuals.
0juliawise
I bet a lot of medical terms are borrowed from Western European languages, so just learning the alphabet might get you a good way.

Yes, the current speculations in this field are of wildly varying quality. The argument about convergent evolution is sound.

Minor quibble about convergent evolution which doesn't change the conclusion much about there being other intelligent systems out there.

All organisms on Earth share some common points (though there might be shadow biospheres), like similar environmental conditions (a rocky planet with a moon, a certain span of temperatures, etc.), a certain biochemical basis (proteins, nucleic acids, water as a solvent, etc.). I'd distinguish converg... (read more)

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing quite like SIAI or lesswrong in continental western Europe. People aren't into AI as much as in the US, and if there's rationality thinking being done, it's mostly traditional rationality, skepticism, etc.

Atheism can score high in many countries, as a rule of thumb countries to the north are more atheistic, those to the south (Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc.) are more religious.

There are a few scattered transhumanist as well as a few life-extension organizations, which are loosely starting to cooperate together.

T... (read more)

4Cthulhoo
This is true, at least in Italy. Most of the concept of LW version of rationality are simply not known. While Spain and Italy are nominally quite religious (i.e. most people would classify themselves as christian), the majority of people are definitely not fervent believers . Nothing to do with what I understood is the situation in the U.S.: most people never go to church if not for weddings and funeral, and even fewer people follow the (catholic) religious orthodoxy. It's usually a classic case of belief in belief/cached thought: it has happened to me more than once to have a discussion with a "religious" person, only for her to realize in the end that she was more likely agnostic or mildly theist. Religion has still his enormous political and social weight, of course, but it's mostly inertia.
0Jesper_Ostman
In the scandinavian countries SIAI-style thinking seems at least as common to me as in the US (eg comparing Sweden to New York, which I believe is of similar size).
4DanArmak
Is that just the historical Catholic-Protestant divide?

Likely, few people read it, maybe just one voted, and that's just one, potentially biased opinion. The score isn't significant.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with your post. Its sustaining ideas seems similar to the Fermi paradox, and the berserker hypothesis. From which you derive that a great filter lies ahead of us, right?

1Bart119
Thank you so much for the reply! Simply tracing down the 'berserker hypothesis' and 'great filter' puts me in touch with thinking on this subject that I was not aware of. What I thought might be novel about what I wrote included the idea that independent evolution of traits was evidence that life should progress to intelligence a great deal of the time. When we look at the "great filter" possibilities, I am surprised that so many people think that our society's self-destruction is such a likely candidate. Intuitively, if there are thousands of societies, one would expect a high variability in social and political structures and outcomes. The next idea I read, that "no rational civilization would launch von Neuman probes" seems extremely unlikely because of that same variability. Where there would be far less variability is mundane constraints of energy and engineering to launch self-replicating spacecraft in a robust fashion. Problems there could easily stop every single one of our thousand candidate civilizations cold, with no variability.

Our bodies need to perform different roles as we age and mature. We'd also need different sets of skills depending on our current developmental phase. It would make sense for our brains to change too, that the developmental path of our brain is planned to make it undergo changes that'd make it more adapted to the tasks it'll have to tackle over different developmental phases.

It'd make sense for our brain to be more fine tuned for grabbing resources from family when we're a kid, to grow as fast as possible, then better tuned to search for sexual partners o... (read more)

-2[anonymous]
"...the majority of men and women do not officially report themselves as having low levels of sexual desire until they are 75 years old.[8] Many would attribute this lull to partner familiarity, alienation, or preoccupation with other non-sexual matters such as social, relational, and health concerns.[6]" -Wikipedia
2A1987dM
There could still be an evolutionary advantage in staying smart after you can reproduce if you can help your children and grandchildren survive.
4Bart119
These speculations are interesting. I think it's always worth wheeling evolutionary thought up to a problem to see what it says. However, surveying real people in our real, modern-day world seems far more direct. Evolution is constantly making trade-offs, and (last I knew) the reason our bodies fall apart was that evolution didn't have a strong incentive to keep them going. We last as long as we do because we take care of grandkids, maybe, and Jared Diamond suggested a reason for longevity was that an old person was a storehouse of knowledge.
-1John_Maxwell
It's really too bad, because it seems that rationally one would become less risk-averse as one got older, as one had less and less to lose.