Disclaimer: This text was written to reflect a state of mind with no other audience than myself in mind. Only later did I get the impulse to publish this. I would therefore like to emphasize, that this is not intended as a guide, a recommendation for behaviour, or anything like...
Can one of you tell me what happened to /tag/conspiracy_world ? I could not find it anywhere I looked online, as the only links lead to that page, which says that it couldn't find the content. I came to search it because of Eliezers "Final Words", 27th April, 2009. I...
"Would I be willing to publicly defend this as a situation in which unusually honest people should lie, if somebody posed it as a hypothetical?" Maybe that just gets turned into "It's permissible to lie so long as you'd be honest about whether you'd tell that lie if anyone asks you that exact question and remembers to say they're invoking the meta-honesty code," because people can't process the meta-part correctly.
Thank you for this direct contrast! It gave me the opportunity to understand why you added this part in the first place.
(The difference between the statements seemed obvious enough, but engaging with the difference, I think I now understand why you specifically say... (read more)
Somehow neither spoiler is working...
! :::spoiler Doesn't that run into the same issue as Harry in HPMoR with his experiment with time? Namely, that there are a lot of scenarios in which you never (get to) open the second box, easiest case: you died. But also probably any number of other results (it gets stolen, f.e.) :::
I notice, that your answer confuses me. My understanding is as follows:
Your choice doesn't change where you exist. In the situation which you describe, not opening the second box doesn't actually improve your situation (being simulated), and I would expect it to go the same way (being shut down).
I agree with the reasoning that you must be in a simulation, but I fail to see how your choice actually changes things, here.
You already exist in one reality (and potentially in a simulation), and you are only finding out in which one you are. So, isn't the only thing you are preserving by not opening the second box your lack of knowledge?
Opening the
In regards to the point you disagree on: As I understood it, (seemingly) linear relationships between the behaviour and the capabilities of a system don't need to stay that way. For example, I think that Robert Miles recently was featured in a video on Computerphile (YouTube), in which he described how the answers of LLMs to "What happens if you break a mirror" actually got worse with more capability.
As far as I understand it, you can have a system that behaves in a way which seems completely aligned, and which still hits a point of (... let's call it "power"...) power at which it starts behaving in a way that is not aligned. (And/Or... (read more)
Thank you for everything you did. My experience in this world has been a lot better since I discovered your writings, and while I agree with your assessment on the likely future, and I assume you have better things to spend your time doing than reading random comments, I still wanted to say that.
I'm curious to see what exactly the future brings. Whilst the result of the game may be certain, I can't predict the exact moves.
Enjoy it while it lasts, friends.
(Not saying give up, obviously.)
Thank you for pointing out the difference between breaking and stopping to peddle.
I read it, continued, then I got confused about you saying that your practice didn't leave "an empty silence".
I'm going to try what you described, because I may have gotten to that silence by breaking habitually when I was younger, instead of just not putting energy into it.
Might I ask what kind of recovery you were talking about? And how it came to be?
I can very much emphasize with having to loop thoughts to keep them, and if there's something that you did to improve your memory, I'd be extremely interested in trying it. Even accepting that I don't know if it will work for me, it's still way better than having no approach.
I'm glad that you got better!
Disclaimer: This text was written to reflect a state of mind with no other audience than myself in mind. Only later did I get the impulse to publish this. I would therefore like to emphasize, that this is not intended as a guide, a recommendation for behaviour, or anything like that.
Instead, the text is intended to evoke a specific frame of mind in the reader, which I found hard to communicate (even to myself) when I was not in this state of mind. But I have since heard, that some people were identifying strongly with this, so, this is to them then.
I’m falling when I wake. Soon after, I hit the ground.... (read 855 more words →)
Hi! Questions about volunteering follow:
"They will only be expected to work either before, after or during the event while joining sessions is still often feasible."
Could I get a rephrasing of that? I'm not certain, if the options of before/during/after are (or can be) exclusive, and I am also unclear on what is meant by "joining sessions is often feasible".
I am happy to help, but I would like to know how much of the time during the event (if any) would be, basically, not the event^^
Best regards
This sounds like a case of "wrong" perspective. (Whoa, what?! Yes, keep reading pls^^)
Like someone believing (to believe) in Nihilism. To Nihilism, I haven't thought of a good and correct counter-statement, except:
"You are simply wrong on all accounts, but by such a small amount that it's hard to point to, because it will sound like »You don't have a right to your own perspective«", (Of course, I also would not agree with disallowing personal opinions (as long as we ARE talking about opinions, not facts).)
Granted, I haven't tried to have that kind of discussion since I really started reading and applying the Sequences. But that may be due to my growing habit of not... (read 469 more words →)
Can one of you tell me what happened to /tag/conspiracy_world ? I could not find it anywhere I looked online, as the only links lead to that page, which says that it couldn't find the content.
I came to search it because of Eliezers "Final Words", 27th April, 2009. I would like to read the rest of it.
I think the issue is with the "get what I want" part. Isn't this treating people as a means to an end, instead of treating them as an end in and of itself?* (I think that Kant would not be happy - though I don't know of anything that has been written on lesswrong about this.)
If you are talking to another person and you are trying to convince them to adopt a certain view of you, that is not what I would call truth-oriented. So, whether you specifically lie, omit, or whatever; it's already secondary. If your goal is to have an honest interaction with another being, I don't think you can... (read more)