LESSWRONG
LW

All of Elias711116's Comments + Replies

Learning Math in Time for Alignment
Elias71111610

Hi Issa, have you written anything on this elsewhere? I'm interested in reading learning related content.

Reply
3riceissa
I have, but my writings are pretty disorganized at the moment and probably hard for people to interpret without some sort of dialogue with me, which is probably why I invited Nicholas/Heather to message me (I no longer remember my exact thought process from a year ago when I wrote the grandparent comment). But regardless, here are some links that you can check out of learning-related content I have written (feel free to message me or reply to this comment if you want to talk more about this stuff): * https://issarice.com/things-i-wish-i-knew-earlier#learning-how-to-learn * https://learning.subwiki.org/wiki/Understanding_mathematical_definitions * https://learning.subwiki.org/wiki/String_replacements_of_code_words * https://wiki.issarice.com/wiki/Category:Spaced_repetition * https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/J3Edt2CLcXPHQYSXo/exposition-as-science-some-ideas-for-how-to-make-progress * https://issarice.com/anki * https://issarice.com/reflections-on-five-years-of-conceptual-anki 
What comes after Roam's renaissance?
Elias71111610

In hindsight, LW is all about the 0th step.

Reply
What comes after Roam's renaissance?
Elias71111610

Thank you for the response.

you mean augmenting adults using computer software.

Any physical or mental system meant to improve thinking and cognition for anyone right now. One obvious example is writing, which extends our capacity to think and remember. Another would be SRS, which helps solidify our memory.

But your reply points at the more important inner mental systems. Sadly, I don't know any simple, obvious way to do the 0th step.

Reply
1Elias711116
In hindsight, LW is all about the 0th step.
What comes after Roam's renaissance?
Elias71111610

I am interested in all the ways we could improve our thinking. It was my initial impression that Andy Matuschak's Tools for Thought seem to aim at this, and I was convinced by his Evergreen Notes thesis. You're probably already familiar with his work.

Can I get your input on why current note-taking systems fail at supporting at thinking and some alternatives? Or if note-taking itself is missing the point, how can we augment good thinking?

Reply
7TsviBT
That's a big question, like asking a doctor "how do you make people healthy", except I'm not a doctor and there's basically no medical science, metaphorically. My literal answer is "make smarter babies" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jTiSWHKAtnyA723LE/overview-of-strong-human-intelligence-amplification-methods , but I assume you mean augmenting adults using computer software. For the latter: the only thing I think I know is that you'd have to all of the following steps, in order: 1. Become really good at watching your own thinking processes, including/especially the murky / inexplicit / difficult / pretheoretic / learning-based parts. 2. Become really really good at thinking. Like, publish technical research that many people acknowledge is high quality, or something like that (maybe without the acknowledgement, but good luck self-grading). Apply 0. 3. Figure out what key processes from 1. could have been accelerated with software.
How to be skeptical about meditation/Buddhism
Elias71111610

It strikes me as false to equate low likelihood of factual validity, and any information in the scriptures is warped to the point of being false. Is this fallacious reasoning?

I think the arguments of the dissidents and contemporary critics would be warped by necessity, but their central arguments would still be expressed. A refutation cannot satisfy majority of the targeted audience if it doesn't contain enough of the proposition's truth.

Reply
How to be skeptical about meditation/Buddhism
Elias71111662

You were correct. Buddha didn't just believe in the supernatural, he argued for it against the skeptics and atheists, some of whom were early materialists and moral nihilists (Ajita Kesakambali completely rejected the notion of afterlife). It seems extremely unlikely that he wasn't believing in the supernatural.

I was interested in what LWers have to say about Buddhism. Recently, I've fallen into a rabbit hole of what seems the perfect religion with minimal negative parts. After reading this post, and reading your response I discovered that I deluded myself... (read more)

Reply
3Viliam
People changing their minds is exactly the kind of comments LW exists for. I had similar expectations about Buddhism as a "rational religion" in the past. I guess what helped me was seeing how Christianity is shown in anime, e.g. the Pope is a young guy riding a dragon, and then I started to suspect that our idea of Buddhism might be just as wrong, for similar reasons. Also, the statements about wonderful effects of meditation remind me of Silva Method that used to be popular here when I was a kid. I spent some time doing that, but didn't get any supernatural powers. Meditation doesn't seem much different.
2Mitchell_Porter
Wikipedia says it was over 400 years from the death of the Buddha, until the scriptures of the "Pali Canon" were written down. It would almost be miraculous if anything factual survived 400 years of being told and re-told by the spoken word alone. 
Viliam's Shortform
Elias71111610

Were there any applications of this idea?

Reply
2Viliam
I don't know about any.
How to be skeptical about meditation/Buddhism
Elias71111610

I interpret it as: "If you explain away the teachings and experiences using your system II, you will not ascent the plane of eternal suffering." Then again, that would be an overly generous understanding, so here are some additional probabilities:

1. The religious survival game favors blind faith in supernatural stories and concepts to compete t in the memetic environment. If you only teach meditation in a cold logical manner, the number of adherents to your school of thought will be limited to those who can achieve sufficient understanding, by consequence ... (read more)

Reply
4Viliam
It sounds a bit like all (or most of) the Buddhists are wrong about what Buddha meant, only you understand it correctly. While technically possible, it is suspiciously tailored to the modern Western audience. I think a more likely hypothesis is that the historical Buddha and his followers believed in supernatural. Almost all people in the history did. Do you have any evidence for Buddha not believing in supernatural, besides "it would make Buddhism more cool from our perspective"?
Superbabies: Putting The Pieces Together
Elias71111667

A skin cell is differentiated; it only makes stem cells.


I believe you meant to say: [...] it only makes skin cells?

Reply
2quiet_NaN
I thought this first too. I checked on Wikipedia: I am pretty sure that the thing a skin cell makes per default when it splits is more skin cells, so you are likely correct.