All of Nomad's Comments + Replies

Nomad10

I'm vaguely worried by the way 'elementalistic' structure and 'non-elementalistic' structure are separated in part A. It seems to have the connotation (I'm not sure if it was intended or not) that the elementalistic structures are better and the non-elementalistic structures are arbitrary. However, there's a reason why science - especially physics - have increasingly moved over towarda mathematical points of view and the sorts of language you've included under non-elementalistic. They really are better at describing the natural world: e.g. you lose out on ... (read more)

0Viliam
It seemed to me that Korzybski meant it the other way round. Elementalistic thinking is focusing on things separately; having a list of nouns and trying to assign adjectives to each of them independently. Non-elementalistic thinking is focusing on relations between things; because sometimes the meaningful explanation requires some interaction between them. That is, in elementalistic thinking we talk about space separately, and time separately, and we cannot invent the theory of relativity. Also we speak about intellect separately (creating the idea of "Vulcan rationality"), and emotions separately, etc. As long as we have "intellect" and "emotions" as separate concepts, we are able to produce wisdom like "well, intellect is important, but emotions are also very important" (i.e. both the noun "intellect" and the noun "emotion" have the attribute "important"). We are "handicapped by semantic blockages" that prevent us from speaking e.g. about rational and irrational emotions. I understood it as: our nervous system is capable of understanding the nature when using the language of math and physics (not just literally the equations, but generally the way the scientifically literate people speak), but we lose that capacity when using the inexact language of metaphors, or insisting on using concepts that don't correspond to the real world (such as Newton's absolute time).
Nomad70

John Green on human inability to instinctively appreciate large numbers and broad events:

My current number one goal in life is to someday be as excited about something as Cheez Doodles Guy is about Cheez Doodles. But its a weird facet of human brains that some thins cause that joyful excitement and others don't. Like today, the World Health Organisation announced that maternal death over the last twenty-five years has fallen 44% worldwide. This is amazing news (arguably even better news than discovering Cheez Doodles in Antarctica) and yet while I am enc

... (read more)
5Zubon
Related quote from July's thread:
Nomad20

There are people who really do enjoy woodworking. I can't picture a utopia where no one ever whittles.

That really expresses something I've been mulling over to myself for a while: that failed utopias in fiction, or at least a large class of such, only appear to work because they lack certain types of people. The Culture, ironically, has no transhumanists, people who look at the Minds and say, "I want to be one of those." Certain agrarian return-to-nature fantasies lack people like me, who couldn't psychologically survive outside of a city and ... (read more)

0MarsColony_in10years
Good point. It seems like we 1) value an incredibly diverse assortment of things, and 2) value our freedom to fixate on any particular one of those things. So, any future which lacks some option we now have will be lacking. Because at some point we have to choose one future over another, perhaps we will always have a tiny bit of nostalgia. (Assuming that the notion of removing that nostalgia from our minds is also abhorrent.) I'll also note that after a bit more contemplation, I've shifted my views from what I expressed in the second paragraph of my comment above. It seems plausible that certain classes of problems tickle a certain part of our brain. Visual stimuli excite our visual cortex, so maybe Rubik's Cubes excite the parts of our brain involved in spatial reasoning. It seems plausible, then, that we could add entire new modules to our minds for solving entire new classes of problems. Perhaps neuroplasticity allows us to already do this to a degree, but it also seems likely that a digital mind would be much less restricted in this regard.
Nomad30

So I guess the real lesson is "figuring out which ideas are true is hard."

The alt-text of this xkcd comic.

Nomad60

To me, that sounds suspiciously like "The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer than the power by which he is able to compel that obligation." It's gilded up so it sounds better, but that's how it was in practice.

2Richard_Kennaway
Whatever the practice of sovereignty may have been from place to place and from time to time, Hobbes is setting out a normative view of what constitutes legitimate sovereignty. He is plainly saying exactly what he is saying in the quoted fragment, viz. that obedience to a sovereign authority is undertaken in return for its protection, the agreement being void where the protection is wanting. As opposed, for example, to the theory of the king being set by God over his people, against whom rebellion is necessarily a sin, whatever the king's character and conduct; or the theory that all are masterless and owe obedience to none, for (Hobbes says) the result is a continual war of all against all in which none have the liberty which (he argues) it is the function of a sovereign authority to protect; or your observation, as of Athens to Melos, that the strong do what they will, while the weak bear what they must.
0[anonymous]
Whatever the practice of sovereignty may have been from place to place and from time to time, Hobbes is setting out a normative view of what constitutes legitimate sovereignty. He is plainly saying exactly what he is saying in the quoted fragment, viz. that obedience to a sovereign authority is undertaken in return for its protection, the agreement being void where the protection is wanting. As opposed, for example, to the theory of the king being set by God over his people, against whom rebellion is necessarily a sin, whatever the king's character and conduct; or the theory that all are masterless and owe obedience to none, for (Hobbes says) the result is a continual war of all against all in which none have the liberty which (he argues) it is the function of a sovereign authority to protect..
0[anonymous]
Whatever the practice of sovereignty may have been from place to place and from time to time, Hobbes is setting out a normative view of what constitutes legitimate sovereignty. He is plainly saying exactly what he is saying in the quoted fragment, viz. that obedience to a sovereign authority is undertaken in return for its protection, the agreement being void where the protection is wanting. As opposed, for example, to the theory of the king being set by God over his people, against whom rebellion is necessarily a sin, whatever the king's character and conduct; or the theory that all are masterless and owe obedience to none, for (Hobbes says) that results in a continual state of war of all against all in which none have the liberty which it is the function of a sovereign authority to protect..
Nomad70

That quote reminds me of this, so much.

4Jiro
Why would you need to go to a cemetery for that? "Hey, pencil on my desk, I'm a sentient being who can respond to its environment and you're not!"
1[anonymous]
That's really twisted.
2Richard_Kennaway
And on the same theme...
Nomad10

And just to be clear, the narrative being put forth above -- that everyone claiming to be poor is secretly rich -- is once more not something that anyone actually believes. Offer anyone saying it the chance to live in the public housing projects or trailer parks where these secretly rich welfare queens dwell and all you'll see is a cloud of dust and a tiny silhouette sprinting off into the horizon. But you don't need the majority to actually believe it, only to "believe" it.

Cracked pointing out the danger of belief in belief.

Jiro100

I don't think that people believe that everyone claiming to be poor is actually rich. They might, however, believe that many people (not everyone) claiming to be poor are secretly richer than they appear (which is probably not "rich" most of the time).

I am skeptical about attempts to analyze why one's political opponents believe things, because it's easy to strawman in this manner and generally use it as an excuse to treat one's opponents' claims as not worth addressing.

Nomad20

Any context? (e.g. what the suggestion is)

6gjm
A Google Books search for "positively refuted" yields the following:
Nomad20

Summary: The superheroes of Worm regularly fight against existential threats called Endbringers, and have to work together with villains (some of whom are neo-nazis) to do it. They've been able to set up rules to ensure the villains can co-operate (no arrests, no using villains as bait, everyone gets medical attention afterwards), without which the Endbringers would win. However, the linked chapter explains that they've failed to extend this to post-fight celebrations, since the public won't accept any form of moral equivalence. Since the public will protest if villains are honoured for their sacrifices, and the villains riot if heroes are honoured but villains are not, no-one gets honoured.

0Jiro
I think "petty things don't matter" connotes that the differences are small on an absolute scale and that working together demonstrates this, not that the differences are merely small in relation to the goal on which everyone works together. The latter is honoring Nazis for their sacrifices; the former is saying "the fact that Nazis can sacrifice shows that it's not important to oppose Naziism".
Nomad870

I've now got this horrifying idea that this has been Quirrell's plan all along: to escape from HPMOR to the real world by tempting you to simulate him until he takes over your mind.

3Algernoq
Worryingly, this sounds like a good deal -- getting skills for faster power/control increase, keeping continuity of consciousness, and increasing the odds of escaping from this reality into the next higher one...
9[anonymous]
But Quirrell didn't cause Eliezer to write HPMOR...
Vulture120

In retrospect, I'm kind of glad that my plan to make a Quirrell-tulpa never got off the ground.

Hmm, so the Fanfiction.net website is his horcrux?

Nomad70

I dunno. If the bet is for less money than a can of cider costs and you have a glass ready it might be worth it.

4philh
If it did, they wouldn't make the bet with you. On the other hand, I'd happily pay for the experience of losing that bet.
VAuroch130

I don't think I would drink cider that had been in my ear. Maybe you have cleaner ears.

Nomad00

One thing that might be worth changing/clarifying in the victory conditions is how a Friendly AI wins alongside its creator. At the moment, in order for a Creator/FAI team to win (assuming you're sticking with Diplomacy mechanics) they first have to collect 18 supply centres between them and then have the AI transfer all its control back to the human; I don't think even the friendliest of AIs would willingly rebox itself like that. Even worse, a friendly AI which has been given a lot of control might accidentally "win" by itself even though it d... (read more)

2kokotajlod
This is exactly what I had in mind. :) It should be harder for FAI to win than for UFAI to win, since FAI are more constrained. I think it is quite plausible that one of the safety measures people would try to implement in a FAI is "Whatever else you do, don't kill us all; keep us alive and give us control over you in the long run. No apocalypse-then-utopia for you! We don't trust you that much, and besides we are selfish." Hence the FAI having to protect the supply centers of the human, and give over its own supply centers to the human eventually. Why wouldn't it give over its supply centers to the human? It has to do that to win! I don't think it will hurt it too much, since it can make sure all the enemies are thoroughly trounced before beginning to cede supply centers.
Nomad50

I suppose the cycle of increasing prices could be broken in one of two ways in a purely economic way: 1) The increasing profits either increases the benefit for the the gas stations to break the truce and slightly lower prices again (or for a new competitor to do the same). 2) The vast majority of cars entering the town are not desperate for fuel (or at least not so desperate as to be extorted) but are merely considering getting fuel here. Without knowing it, the gas stations are actually in competition with the gas stations of neighbouring towns.

1Lumifer
This was a toy example, there is no context to it and so little opportunity to speculate on how could this situation develop further. Implicit collusion is not unheard of in real life and could be broken in a variety of ways (including government agents showing up and asking questions).

Finding out that you're stupid (or ignorant) is an important start. I don't recommend insulting people because they're started rather than continued the job, especially if they're young.

[anonymous]220

I don't see how that's any different from all the other age groups ;-).

Nomad10

It's probably worth mentioning that Guessers also have negative utility from refusing others requests, coming from a culture where requests are generally accepted. If the actors are ethical, then this gives a preference towards guessing. In particular, you can imagine strategy where an unethical Asker is skilled at pitching requests such that the cost to a Guesser is greater than the gain for the Asker, but less than the Guessers penalty for refusing. By doing this the Asker "coerces" Guessers into agreeing. Recognising this, an ethical agent in a society of mostly Guessers will likely also take a Guessing strategy.

Nomad90

For that matter, "being in the same worldview" does not mean consistent. Compartmentalisation is a wonderful thing.

Nomad40

Gotta agree with that. I live about 5 minutes away from 3 different supermarkets within metres of each other.

Nomad60

At first James thought they were joking because, "You know, Hidden Object Games". But then, after a moment, James realised they were absolutely right. Why hadn't we done a show on Hidden Object Games?

Extra Credits react to their surprise.

0gwern
I think there's some missing context here.
Nomad150

From the same article:

I do it because it's good for the brain. To do good work you need a brain that can go anywhere. And you especially need a brain that's in the habit of going where it's not supposed to.

3Vaniver
Also worthwhile from it: ("them" refers to labels like "x-ist" or "y-ic" used to tar positions by association, rather than demonstrating their falsity.)
Nomad440

We often like to think of World War II as a triumph of freedom over totalitarianism. We conveniently forget that the Soviet Union was also one of the winners.

Paul Graham

0dthunt
I'm not sure I'd call Russia winner in this war. It seems like having been unlucky enough to have been involved is already some flavor of losing. I respect the insight though, that Team A, characterized by quality a, defeating Team B, characterized by quality b, is not a story of a beats b, especially when you're wrong in the first place about Team A not also being characterized (in part) by quality b. I liken this kind of talk to "fall of the Roman Empire" talk - modern humans have an eerie tendency to try to explain the past in ways that support their current viewpoints, and wilfully ignore evidence that tells them their explanations are not very fit.
Nomad150

From the same article:

I do it because it's good for the brain. To do good work you need a brain that can go anywhere. And you especially need a brain that's in the habit of going where it's not supposed to.

Nomad30

I'm not convinced the whole thing is a decent rationality quote, as part of it seems to be Menelaus surrendering to the idea that "because Darwin discovered Natural Selection, he endorsed it".

On the other hand, "Some of his friends said you had to prick your finger with a pin to make the oath valid; and boys of particular boldness used a rusty pin, as if daring the Jihad plague to strike. Menelaus knew that was all nonsense: it was the willpower that decided oaths, nothing else. No pin would be as sharp as what he felt beating in his angry young heart." is brilliant: both understanding the inclination to irrationality, and also emphasising that rationality can be strengthened by emotion.

1Richard_Kennaway
It appears to me that within the story, his knowledge of exactly who Darwin was has been greatly garbled by the processes of history. That's just a detail of the setting. My reading of Menelaus' attitude to evolution is that he is expressing much the same idea as Eliezer's characterisation of it as a blind idiot god that we should overcome and replace.
Nomad290

The “I blundered and lost, but the refutation was lovely!” scenario is something lovers of truth and beauty can appreciate.

Jeremy Silman