Edit: the below paragraphs are wrong. See the comments for an explanation. Some people believe that the consciousness currently in one's body is the "same" consciousness as the one that was in one's body in the past and the one that will be in it in the future, but a...
Standard methods of inferring knowledge about the world are based off premises that I don’t know the justifications for. Any justification (or a link to an article or book with one) for why these premises are true or should be assumed to be true would be appreciated. Here are the...
Immortality: A Practical Guide Introduction This article is about how to increase one’s own chances of living forever or, failing that, living for a long time. To be clear, this guide defines death as the long-term loss of one’s consciousness and defines immortality as never-ending life. For those who would...
True. Also, the Great Filter is more akin to an existential catastrophe than to existential risk, that is, the risk of an existential catastrophe.
Is there a term for a generalization of existential risk that includes the extinction of alien intelligences or the drastic decrease of their potential? Existential risk, that is, the extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the drastic decrease of its potential, does not sound nearly as harmful if there are alien civilizations that become sufficiently advanced in place of Earth-originating life. However, an existential risk sounds far more harmful if it compromises all intelligent life in the universe, or if there is no other intelligent life in the universe to begin with. Perhaps this would make physics experiments more concerning than other existential risks, as even if their chance of causing the extincion of Earth-originating life is much smaller than other existential risks, their chance of eliminating all life in the universe may be higher.
That sounds about right.
It's later, but, unless I am mistaken, the arrival of the intelligence explosion isn't that much later than when most people will retire, so I don't think that fully explains it.
People could vote for government officials who have FAI research on their agenda, but currently, I think few if any politicians even know what FAI is. Why is that?
Why do people spend much, much more time worrying about their retirement plans than the intelligence explosion if they are a similar distance in the future? I understand that people spend less time worrying about the intelligence explosion than what would be socially optimal because the vast majority of its benefits will be in the very far future, which people care little about. However, it seems probable that the intelligence explosion will still have a substantial effect on many people in the near-ish future (within the next 100 years). Yet, hardly anyone worries about it. Why?
I would like to improve my instrumental rationality and improve my epistemic rationality as a means to do so. Currently, my main goal is to obtain useful knowledge (mainly in college) in order to obtain resources (mainly money). I'm not entirely sure what I want to do after that, but whatever it is, resources will probably be useful for it.
Improving my rationality. Are you looking for something more specific?
How much should you use LW, and how? Should you consistently read the articles on Main? What about discussion? What about the comments? Or should a more case-by-case system be used?
Edit: the below paragraphs are wrong. See the comments for an explanation.
Some people believe that the consciousness currently in one's body is the "same" consciousness as the one that was in one's body in the past and the one that will be in it in the future, but a "different" consciousness from those in other bodies. In this post I dissolve the question.
The question is meaningless because the answer doesn't correspond to any physical state in the universe and in no way influences or is influenced by sensory experiences. If one's consciousness suddenly became a totally different one, we know of no quantum particles that would change. Furthermore, swapping consciousnesses... (read more)
Standard methods of inferring knowledge about the world are based off premises that I don’t know the justifications for. Any justification (or a link to an article or book with one) for why these premises are true or should be assumed to be true would be appreciated.
Here are the premises:
“One has knowledge of one’s own percepts.” Percepts are often given epistemic privileges, meaning that they need no justification to be known, but I see no justification for giving them epistemic privileges. It seems like the dark side of epistemology to me.
“One’s reasoning is trustworthy.” If one’s reasoning is untrustworthy, then one’s evaluation of the trustworthiness of one’s reasoning can’t be trusted, so I
Immortality: A Practical Guide
Introduction
This article is about how to increase one’s own chances of living forever or, failing that, living for a long time. To be clear, this guide defines death as the long-term loss of one’s consciousness and defines immortality as never-ending life. For those who would like less lengthy information on decreasing one’s risk of death, I recommend reading the sections “Can we become immortal,” “Should we try to become immortal,” and “Cryonics,” in this guide, along with the article Lifestyle Interventions to Increase Longevity.
This article does not discuss how to treat specific disease you may have. It is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of... (read 10545 more words →)
Panexistential risk is a good, intuitive, name.