All of Suh_Prance_Alot's Comments + Replies

Okay, yeah. I also found this recent video of his on "materialism and other views" clarifying. Still curious about whether he views the "self" in all senses of the word illusory (epistemic vs ontological for example), but I'm guessing he considers all of that irrelevant and is only interested in pragmatic liberation.

Nice one! Would you or anyone else mind sharing tips on how to cultivate emotional security?

3Chipmonk
basically memory reconsolidation. i write a lot more about this in the other posts on my blog

Could you elaborate on ways it could be/was better?

Is the Nordic model closer to Capitalism 2.0 ?

I also keep hearing China mentioned as the current paradigmatic Communist state ( or at least that it's on the way, if you disregard censorship, mass surveillance etc)

2abner_doon
I know I'm replying super late but just remembered this thread. I'd point to life expectancy metrics: Russia pre WWI/revolution was 33 (number from 1915) by 1965 it was 68 China pre revolution was 40 (number from 1950) by 1990 it was 69 Some of the biggest accomplishments of the 20th century IMO. Re: China, especially now, it's definitely not communism or socialism by any strict definition (more like state capitalism).  Socialism requires the abolition of privately owned productive property (raw materials, real estate, machinery, infrastructure).  The point being that instead of getting "one dollar one vote" shaping the economy, you get "one person one vote" shaping the economy.  The socialist vision is about continuously reshaping institutions to reinforce democracy, using that democracy to prune out projects people don't want, then reaping the benefits of an economy more aligned with human will.  The revolution can't stop, it's a continuous process of challenge that must be actively pursued, humanity in dialogue with itself. In any case, whatever China is doing is working better than the American model.  They win on many objective metrics (lifespan, infrastructure, homelessness, violent crime, prison population, killing people/exploiting other countries, etc.)  There are some scary policies, but I can't help but wonder what it would feel like to live in a country where things are actually getting better around you.

Interesting, I never made the connection to Moloch. I think the claim would be that it works better than capitalism at reducing inequality, not that it would work better than FAI (like Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever - YouTube this video).

4Viliam
It would be interesting to measure the actual inequality in various capitalist and socialist countries, in various decades. I am not sure how that would properly be done, though. A naive solution would be to compare how much money people have, but that would not reflect the reality correctly; in a command economy, money is relatively less useful. -- There is no point in having lots of money, if the shops are empty, and the things you want most are illegal anyway. On the other hand, if you are a Party boss, all your wishes get fulfilled immediately, often without any corresponding flow of money.

Sure. I just want a rationalist take on Marxism/Communism (preferably for the layperson, as I am not an economist or anything, just curious). 

An analogy I've heard is to compare mental training to physical training. It is generally useful, but if you have injuries or limitations of some sort (say, a busted knee), you should find ways to work around those.

What are the thoughts on safety?

I'm hoping someone who is experienced in both rationality and meditation can weigh in here, and also resolve any possible contradictions (especially around Insights gained).

Could you tell me why?

Has this post been deleted? I'm getting an error message.

3habryka
Yep, it's been deleted. Most posts by Conore Moreton have been.

Could you (or anyone interested) elaborate on why practices like Self Inquiry might be maladaptive?

Is it a Chesterton Fence around the fragility of values in general, or some specific value, as indicated here?

If so, it could be useful in moderation, or to some agents in specific situations. Examples: 1) Someone serving a life sentence in prison or solitary confinement in a way that their ability to create value both for themselves and others is limited could benefit from weakening the DMN.

2)A Google Design Ethicist might want to hold off on this kind of m... (read more)

| "I have no indication that directly trying to dissolve ego is a safe or fruitful goal"

Does Dzogchen practice (described in Sam Harris' book "Waking Up") contradict this? The sense of self is presented as a primary cause of suffering, and directly dissolving it (or noticing that it is already an illusion) as the antidote.

I have listened to that in audiobook form. I don't consider it to be strong evidence about my concerns. I don't find its view to be especially implausible, though.

Oh, that's right, thanks!

I think I misremembered/misunderstood Lotus and the concepts got jumbled together.

This triggered Valentine's Lotus for me. Are the concepts similar on a deeper level?

3[anonymous]
I think they're pretty different. My read on on Lotus Eating is basically "addictiveness is considered harmful and there's a bunch of things out there that can hijack your attention". My thoughts on Attractor Theory are more about "note the ways your preferences will change in response to actions you take and act accordingly". While this certainly often includes how certain activities can be spirals, I think it goes more breadth-wise and prescribes a more general strategy for which actions to take. Musings on Lotus Eating can get a lot deeper into the "whys" and "hows" of whether or not X counts as Lotus Eating, whether or not you could secretly benefit from X, etc. Attractor Theory just notes that getting spiraled in could be a consequence of certain actions, and you can take this into account.

I found this whole Sequence compelling and insightful so far. Any specific tips on how to break persistent habits that are context/cue independent? (eg: I twist my beard periodically, throughout the day, especially when engaged in some other activity, like say reading.)

3[anonymous]
Thanks! Alas, for cue independent habits, I'm not quite sure what would be effective. (The literature doesn't cover these well.) For a probably ineffective start, maybe consider intentionally substituting something else at the times where you notice yourself doing the thing the most?

Okay, firstly, thanks for the post and the response!

Are you saying that we can prefer judgement over non-judgement, it's just that NVC predicts that this will lead to ineffective communication and/or damage the relationship? ( I had conversations like this in mind when I asked about moral truth). I'm still confused about how it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but I get that they are both part of the map and not the territory (although the map exists within the territory).

2Elo
Evaluation and judgement are the same. What matters is how you communicate the thing. You don't have to like everyone but it's probably healthy to recognize your subjective judgement is not universal. "I think you are too tall for my liking" is my judgement. You don't have to agree. But it would probably be unreasonable to say "you are too tall." alone.

Does NVC undermine the concept of Moral Truth?

I know it distinguishes between evaluations and judgements, but does it implicitly judge non-judgement to be better than judgement, and thereby contradict itself?

2Elo
You can prefer one thing over another. And nvc does plenty of evaluation. You need to be able to evaluate your own needs and work out what you want to request from people. It can be thought of as a map and territory distinction. Judgement is in the map not the territory. So yes. My map says that I prefer A over B. But if I get B and not A the "sadness" is in the map and not the territory. The territory is not trying to spite me. It just is.

Are there any specific strategies/plans to get Rationalists into positions of socio-political power?

Could a targeted approach be used to reach people who are already in such positions, like say the pope, for a ripple effect?