All of h-H's Comments + Replies

h-H30

Gender relations = politics.

3Eugine_Nier
This seems like the noncentral fallacy.
h-H10

Not speaking of Lent specifically, but abstinence can restore enjoyment as much as teach impulse control. Take chocolate for example; overindulge and it'll lose it's appeal, so then take a month/40 days/etc break from it and you'll be able to eat it again. Or -more anecdotal- in Ramadan Muslims are supposed to abstain from food & sex during the day, this leads to a lot of 'feasting' once night falls as well as a marked increase in sex.

You don't have to do Lent or whatever, but such rituals are/can be quite useful.

h-H100

The idea that Christianity was born under a foreign military occupation and had to compromise with it & Islam didn't and went on to make it's own empire is correct.

But the author's assertion that Islam can be nothing but theocratic -"it lacks separation of church and state"- is far from accurate. In the first place, the first Muslim civil war was fought over the question of whether government was secular (Sunni's) or theocratic (Shi'a) and was resolved in favor of the secular side. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims past and ... (read more)

3Eugine_Nier
China had in a sense the opposite problem from the Islamic world, no concept of a legitimate institution independent of the central government. Careful, 20 years does not a historical trend make. The only reason it appears this way is that a European bubble is in the process of collapsing, whereas China's hasn't yet.
h-H10

hey gwern, I like your writings & have developed a taste for stuff like this, any more recommendations?

1gwern
http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/11004626-gwern
h-H00

"You can't reject absolutes without un-restraining certain particulars -that should remain just that- to replace it" is this a fair description of your position here Wei?

h-H20

"old dead guys" is mind kill, and it sounds immature/impolite.

On the post itself, it'd be awesome if SIAI starts this in-house, something along the lines of semester long CFAR boot camp.

h-H00

Thanks for the clear reply, and I agree with your points.

IMO the fact that Politics is a moderately functional substitute for direct bloodshed means that the 'rational' in any 'rational alternative' has little to do the masses becoming more rational, as opposed to careful grooming by an informed clique capable of long term planning.

That doesn't necessarily imply a shadowy cabal of super secret rationalists deftly maneuvering the public for it's own good. Rather, something as simple as spreading basic rationality skills is sufficient if we emphasize 'long t... (read more)

h-H-40

Wedrifid, I was disappointed that Eliezer so succinctly identified the problem then mostly left it hanging.

Now, your comment fundamentally missed the point I was making, furthermore you seem to be acting out a common politician's caricature, I don't see you making an actual argument here & tbh I'm slightly surprised as you usually do much better than that.

Either way. in the interest of preserving the sanity waterline I'll stop here.

3wedrifid
"Politics" is not the problem Eliezer identified and nor is "the thing that is the alternative to raiding and pillaging". (Never mind that the 'politics' that corrupts thinking applies just as much---or more---to the tribes who go around raiding and pillaging. It's about the internal politics within the tribe and the external conflicts come in to it as just more things the individuals can argue about in order to achieve personal gain, preferably at the expense of rivals.)
h-H-10

I was encouraging the reader not to identify with either raiders or victims.

3NancyLebovitz
Then I'm missing something. How were you doing that?
2JoshuaZ
Nancy did identify a serious problem with your comment, but I'm not sure modulo that issue that your comment should be downvoted as much as it is. To some extent, the point that we have politics as a way of resolving issues without bloodshed is valid: modern politics in many ways is an improvement over the alternatives. But that doesn't by itself make politics a good thing or make politics less of a mind-killer. To some extent, much political interaction resembles ritualized combat that occurs in many mammalian species (and sometimes in groups)- fatality is minimized, but the level of actual rational discourse is clearly still pretty low. To some extent, it may help to see politics as the mindkiller as a statement about how political discourse can be improved. In most of the West, politics doesn't result in people being killed often, but it still isn't a rational way of examining disagreements and resolving them in a way that appropriately balances conflicting goals. And it is very very easy for it to become outright tribalism that doesn't devolve into violence primarily because we have strong anti-violence taboos and respect taboos more than anything connected to the political process.

we'd raid each others' villages and steal the women and sheep instead

This pretty much implies that women aren't included in "we"-- hardly the only thing wrong with the statement, but an additional irritant.

3khafra
Taboo "politics." If we didn't have strongly felt affiliations with powerful groups that gain their power from our affiliation, but are too big to actually consider our preferences when using their power, we would...
8Jayson_Virissimo
Back when I was studying political science at university, warfare, terrorism, etc... were explicitly considered forms of politics ("politics by other means"). At risk of sounding simplistic, the alternative to non-unanimous decision procedures (the realm of political society) is unanimous decision procedures (the realm of civil society).
h-H00

I have a habit of editing a comment for a bit after replying, actually I didn't see your response until after editing, I don't see how this changes your response in this instance though?

I added that caveat since the former group might have members who originally suffered more from procrastination as per the model, but eventually learned to deal with it, this might skew results if not taken into account.

0TheOtherDave
It changes my response because while I kind of understand how to operationalize "group A procrastinates more than group B" I don't quite understand how to operationalize "group A needs to more actively combat procrastination than group B." Since what i was approving of was precisely the concreteness of the prediction, swapping it out for something I understand less concretely left me less approving.
h-H00

I'm happy you asked, I did need to make my argument more specific.

h-H00

Upvoted for good reasons for upvoting :)

For data, we could run a LW poll as a start and see. And out of curiosity, why would you be surprised?

0TheOtherDave
Hm. You seem to have edited the comment after I responded to it, in such a way that makes me want to take back my response. How would we tell whether the former group needs to more actively combat procrastination? I would be surprised because it's significantly at odds with my experience of the relationship between procrastination and insight.
h-H20

Yes & I'd modify that slightly to "the former group needs to more actively combat procrastination".

0TheOtherDave
Upvoted for not backing away from a concrete prediction. I would be very surprised by that result.
h-H10

Yes, and this is why I asked in the first place. To be more exact, I'm confused as to why Eliezer does not post a step-by-step detailing how he reached the particular confidence he currently holds as opposed to say, expecting it to be quite obvious.

I believe people like Holden especially would appreciate this; he gives an over 90% confidence to an unfavorable outcome, but doesn't explicitly state the concrete steps he took to reach such a confidence.

Maybe Holden had a gut feeling and threw a number, if so, isn't it more beneficial for Eliezer to detail how he personally reached the confidence level he has for a FAI scenario occurring than to bash Holden for being unclear?

0shokwave
I don't believe I can answer these questions correctly (as I'm not Eliezer and these questions are very much specific to him); I was already reaching a fair bit with my previous post.
h-H20

hmm, I have to ask, are you deliberately vague about this to sort for those who can grok your style of argument, in the belief that the sequences are enough for them to reach the same confidence you have about a FAI scenario?

4Eliezer Yudkowsky
Again, I've tried to share it already in e.g. CEV. I can't be maximally specific in every LW comment.
0Manfred
My unpacking, which may be different than intended: The "you can recurse on it" part is the important one. "Finite" just means it's possible to fill a hard drive with the solution. But if you don't know the solution, what are the good ways to get that hard drive? What skills are key? This is recursion level one. What's a good way to acquire the skills that seem necessary (as outlined in level one) to solve the problem? How can you test ideas about what's useful? That's recursion level two. And so on, with stuff like "how can we increase community involvement in level 2 problems?" which is a level 4 question (community involvement is a level 3 solution to the level 2 problems). Eventually you get to "How do I generate good ideas? How can I tell which ideas are good ones?" which is at that point unhelpful because it's the sort of thing you'd really like to already know so you can put it on a hard drive :D To solve problems by recursing on them, you start at level 0, which is "what is the solution?" If you know the answer, you are done. If you don't know the answer, you go up a level - "what is a good way to get the solution?" If you know the answer, you go down a level and use it. If you don't know the answer, you go up a level. So what happens is that you go up levels until you hit something you know how to do, and then you do it, and you start going back down.
5shokwave
Outside of postmodernism, people are almost never deliberately vague: they think they're over specifying, in painfully elaborate detail, but thank to the magic of inferential distance it comes across as less information than necessary to the listener. The listener then, of course, also expects short inferential distance, and assumes that the speaker is deliberately being vague, instead of noticing that actually there's just a lot more to explain.
h-H00

The Akrasia you refer to is actually a feature, not a bug. Just picture the opposite: Intelligent people rushing to conclusions and caring more about getting stuff done instead of forsaking the urge to go with first answers and actually think.

My point is, we decry procrastination so much but the fact is it is good that we procrastinate, if we didn't have this tendency we would be doers not thinkers. Not that I'm disparaging either, but you can't rush math, or more generally deep, insightful thought, that way lies politics and insanity.

In an nutshell, pe... (read more)

0TheOtherDave
It seems to follow from this model that if we measure the tendency towards procrastination in two groups, one of which is selected for their demonstrable capability for math, or more generally for deep, insightful thought, and the other of which is not, we should find that the former group procrastinates more than the latter group. Yes?
h-H20

I like this, source please?

2gwern
See http://eva.onegeek.org/pipermail/evangelion/2010-March/005990.html and for more recent info, http://www.gwern.net/otaku#eoe (search downwards for 'colonize').
h-H30

upvoted for empathy remark, but I don't know JoshuaZ, a "slow painful, agonizing death" for a mistake sounds too vengeful to me..

JoshuaZ110

Of course it does. There's no way that the driver deserved that in any sane moral system, or for that matter almost any moral system post the Middle Ages. It is a terribly vengeful, horrific desire. It scares me that I can have that sort of desire in me. I'm very much not in any way advocating that this is a good thing. The argument is solely that if one feels this way over a death from negligence what it must be like to respond to a death due to deliberate action?

h-H00

but isn't being presented with a to-do list or alternatively feeling hungry then finding food different than 'forming goals'?

to be more precise, maybe the 'survival instinct' that leads them to seek food is not located in their emotional centers so some goals might survive regardless. but yes, the assumption is untested AFAIK.

1AdeleneDawner
I don't think so, but that sounds like a question of semantics to me. If you want to use a definition of 'form goals' that doesn't include 'acquire food when hungry', it's up to you to draw a coherent dividing line for it, and then we can figure out if it's relevant here.
h-H20

very smart people have issues with CEV, example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2b7/hacking_the_cev_for_fun_and_profit/

and as far as I remember CEV was sort of abandoned a while ago by the community.

and yes, you value humans, others in the not so distant future might not given the possibility of body/brain modification. anyway, the gist of my argument is that CEV doesn't seem to work if there is not going to be much coherence of all of humanity's extrapolated volition's-a point that's already been made clear in previous threads by many people-what I'm trying to a... (read more)

h-H-10

without a body the brain won't 'work', the brain is very much linked to the rest of the body, the fiction that we only need the head to 'reanimate' a person back to normal is just that, fiction.

wei Dai:"rebuilding/simulating the body to the level of detail needed to support cognition" yes,but how complex is the nervous system? which wire connects to which, or is that not important? seems to me that you're oversimplifying..

5lsparrish
A significant data point here is that organ transplants -- including those of entire limbs -- have been made to work already. This indicates that the wiring in general cannot be so specific as to be impossible to replicate or regrow without originals.
3AlephNeil
Well, it might be a fiction in the sense that we never actually do it. (Personally, I doubt there will ever be star-trek style teleportation for macroscopic objects, even though it seems 'possible in principle'.) But I think the OP is asking about the possibility in principle of restoring a dead person such that their memories, personality and intellect remain intact. If a frozen body has 'enough information' then so does a frozen head, right? Seems pretty uncontroversial, but as the OP points out, there are people who disagree.
h-H00

I have to ask, how much do you know of 'Quranic studies'? as far as I know, the new testament and quran are structured quite differently, hence research-which I'm not aware of-would be different as well?

3lukeprog
Structured differently? Sure, but the fields are extremely similar in that they're both studying ancient religious texts about which we have very little evidence as to their actual course of development (as is the case with all ancient texts). But I didn't mean to assume any general similarity between Quranic studies and New Testament studies, anyway. The textual evidence for the Quran is much more recent, obviously, but the textual evidence for the NT is actually the best we have from the entire ancient world, by far. There are lots of other differences...
h-H30

I think tighter definitions are needed here, some theistic traditions consider all existence to be 'god' etc.

h-H40

I'm curious, have you used Wikipedia for non-scientific/technical stuff? it can be quite a biased source there..

2lessdazed
Reading the discussion pages there can help with this problem.
h-H00

it's good ..

you seem to be saying-implying?- that continuity of identity should be very important for minds greater than ours, see http://www.goertzel.org/new_essays/IllusionOfImmortality.htm

I 'knew' the idea presented in the link for a couple of years, but it simply clicked when I read the article, probably the writing style plus time did it for me.

h-H00

I've sometimes read romance novels, more a function of my reading appetite at the time, plus no books remained in the house except those, I've also read a couple of -video-game stories, including some vampire ones to be relevant for your example, I agree that they have mildly interesting twists, enough for guilt pleasure level.

I can't put a name to it, but it doesn't require such a leap to see the relation between reading things like tvtropes and then to an extent Twilight? on that note, what do you read for fiction generally?

h-H00

sounds like a good idea (though I'm not giving up on the Dark Arts class/sequence yet ..), given that OP does "encourage you to post your skills here anyway" I think bringing this up in the open thread or as a general call to candidates should be worthwhile, this can effectively and depending on the instructions make short work of most barriers to publishing an LW top level post, given relevant and interesting topics of course.

we have been experiencing a slump of late, I think this potentially helps in overcoming the slow stagnation that happens in all forums after the early 'glory days' are over.

h-H00

ok, so I'm considering that a discussion post at least should be made, any thoughts?

it could potentially be part of the sequences, although Eliezer and others do cover the Dark Arts I don't recall a dedicated thread. I found some good examples from a quick googling, like Yvain's Defense Against The Dark Arts: Case Study #1 or The Power of Positivist Thinking

what makes an irrational argument convincing is human biases, but what I think lacks is more focused treatment of things like good writing or effective signaling, I haven't read all of LW though so it... (read more)

1Perplexed
I'm a bit uncomfortable with calling this a "dark art" (perhaps because teaching dark arts seems to be such a dangerous occupation). But there is a "rainbow art" consisting of equal parts of attention-grabbing and persuasion; an art which is necessary even if it is a good argument that you are trying to propagate. I would like to learn something about that art. Ideally, by means of an online class. I can think of at least 5 different persuasion media that I would like to become skillful at. * Stand up lectures - like the TED lectures, for example * Powerpoint-style presentations with voiceovers. * Blog postings (and sequences of blog postings) * Publishable academic-style papers on technical topics. * Works of fiction with a didactic subtext - like HPMOR and Luminosity. I'd bet lots of other people would like to become skillful at these things too. I'd bet we have people here who are good enough at these things that they could lead a kind of online study group focused on learning and/or improving skills like these.
h-H00

I believe it does need modifying the utility function given technological constrains, consider for example if the simulated person's physical body was threatened and they were not be able to respond appropriately, This is one of the main reason I included suicide next to lobotomy, I wasn't really clear on that, but you make a much more interesting point.

now that I think about it-for a few minutes-I generally agree with you, attaching sensory and motor nerves for a simulated universe is in fact a form of wire heading. I wonder if my definition of full wire... (read more)

h-H10

precisely the reasons why we want better dark art skills just for the sake of countering them at least? I'm half tempted to start a thread on this, but I can't write as clearly as most here.

0bisserlis
I too feel like I lack the wherewithal to write top-level LessWrong posts, but since this is a topic I too am interested in, perhaps we could collaborate and produce something worthy between us. If your issue is not being able to write clearly, I would gladly proofread and comment on drafts.
h-H10

yeah, punishing agents for doing 'bad things' as a deterrence against other agents acting similarly is quite rational.

2Perplexed
It is a lot more important than just deterring similar acts. A failure to punish after having made a commitment to punish removes a big part of the deterrent effectiveness of all kinds of punishment for all kinds of 'bad things'. For that matter, it may decrease trust that the government/society will keep its other commitments - pension obligations, for example.
h-H00

rationality might have at some point evolved from the dark arts themselves, i.e. human propensity to make up reasons as they go might have lead to their being better minds at making up reasons and arguments-I read that in an article somewhere but can't remember where exactly.

The dark arts get too much mud slung at them and IMO warrant further study,careful dissection by wise men wearing all the necessary charms and offering appropriate sacrifices should be sufficient ..:)

1MartinB
I am somewhat afraid of the fact that convincing can be tought seperate from reasoned arguing, that not the best reason wins, but the most enthusiastic speaker, and the one who can best make his point in the eyes of the people. I am surprised on the spread of public debates and how many people change opinions during a debate. I still want to learn it, but I do not wish to persuade unreasoned. Notice the effects in charismatic leaders how they become inable to get good criticism of their ideas.
h-H00

ok, I was careless, I apologize, still the argument remains unanswered satisfactorily..

my-and others'-main argument against meditation as a rationality increasing tool is that the less than perfect brains we have are not sufficient at dealing with biases and so forth. I can see that you've pretty much said the same or close to it in your reply above, so that's that.

P.S disjointed sentences?

h-H00

this is tangential to the thread; but Nietzsche's writings frequently seem to be quite religious actually, take his Übermensch theme for e.g., which makes the absolute/divine/god/etc become part of man, a theme prevalent in Christianity as well.

0orthonormal
Well, he was going insane by the time of his later writings (especially by the point of Ecce Homo, which still contains some brilliance); and furthermore, Zarathustra (where some of the least rationalist quotes come from) was intentionally written in a religious style. But the point is otherwise well taken.
h-H00

but one can go back to being nihilistic if one chooses to, I think this does not strongly seem to be the case for wire heading.

1Rain
It seems like less of a choice than one might think. I'm starting to believe terminal values can have natural or provoked drift. Or perhaps they're conflicting and incompatible, gaining and losing strength over time. Or both.
h-H00

true- I usually go with cleaning my Bookmarks instead of physical books though-it helps a lot since not doing stuff or lacking enthusiasm for what I do are my main reasons for slipping into a nihilist mood.

h-H30

hmm, another positive reference to Buddhism.. I'm personally biased against in all of it's versions, more than I am of say christianity etc-IMO it does not deserve all the praise/advertisement it's been getting on LW of late, and my bias aganst it is confirmed by the ease with which it has suddenly creeped up LW.

as a rationalist-not technophile/libertarian etc but as one who seeks to be more rational, do you seriously believe in what Buddhism preaches? all of it?

if you're going to cherry pick then why call it Buddhism and praise it so? I fail to see this... (read more)

-2Will_Newsome
The fact that you ask this question is strong evidence you are being careless. You assume stupidity and are self-satisfied. You will never be a strong rationalist this way. You need to cultivate a sense that much more is possible. Did not praise. I know that you know that your assumptions are mostly rhetorical. Still dangerous. Carelessness. Not moving in harmony with the Bayes. Begging for confirmation, is this disposition of assumption. You will be pulled off course by this. These simple skills of rationality must be perfected if one is to build very strong rationality, with very complex skills. Necessary if you are to use all of your cognitive aspects and limitations to achieve all that is possible. Only possible to use limitation of affective thoughts for good after one is very consistently strong rationalist. Must be able to hold a very steady course in mindspace, in conceptspace, in identityspace, before one can try to use powerful attractors like affect to accelerate along that course. Less Wrong folk cannot do this consistently. Almost no one can. Enlightened people, mostly; maybe others from other disciplines that I know not. I cannot yet do so. Perhaps not far, though. Less Wrong is not really worth my time, except as providing a motivation to write. The epistemological gap between Less Wrong and me is growing too wide. Eliezer I may talk to next time he's around, I guess. The epistemological gap between Eliezer and me is growing narrower. Still many levels above me is Eliezer, but I think only 2.2 levels or so. Easily surmountable with recursive self-improvement. We do not live in Gautama's time. Almost all of Theravada is true, but most is not relevant for rationalists of my caliber. * Virtues that he preached, we mostly have now. Smart people are cultured enough to have these virtues and understand their motivations. Evolutionary psychology and cultivated compassion. So virtue part of Buddhism, not as important, I think. * Community part of Buddh
h-H00

a reaction to cuteness more than anything else?

0Kaj_Sotala
That's quite possible, though I also like the other songs on that album. Not as much as that one, though.
h-H00

to put it mildly I don't believe anyone can address that objection satisfactorily, as wedrifid put it eloquently, the math is part of the map, not territory.

if the math of QM does describe reality to some degree or other -- then that's >enough for the quantum tests of particle identity to work exactly.

agreed, that was partially my point a couple of posts ago. for practical reasons it's good enough that the math works to a degree.

h-H00

good point about the map/territory distinction, that was what I intended to say but couldn't put into so few words, thanks :)

and no, it seems that not even Frog can escape this, I'm not sure about it's significance here though?

h-H00

I noticed, but there was a clear difference that I felt was necessary to point out regardless.

h-H00

yes, I had that specific post in mind when I presented the atom example. you're correct here though, I should have said particles,I shouldn't write so late after midnight I guess..

now I admit that my understanding of quantum mechanics is not that much above a lay persons', so maybe I just need to apply myslef more and It'll click, but let's consider my arguement first:- here's what EY said in reply to a post in that thread-emphasis mine: "There can be properties of the particles we don't know about yet, but our existing experiments already show thos... (read more)

0pengvado
I don't have any arguments that weren't discussed in that post; so far as I can tell, it already adequately addressed your objection: QM doesn't have to be the end of the road. If QM is a good approximation of reality on the scales it claims to predict in the situations we have already tested it in -- if the math of QM does describe reality to some degree or other -- then that's enough for the quantum tests of particle identity to work exactly.
h-H10

numbers are quite useful, so we don't/shouldn't do away with them, but the math is never a complete substitute for the observable universe.

writing down '20 sheep' doesn't physically equal 20 sheep, rather it's a method we use for simplicity. as it stands, no two sheep are alike to every last detail as far as anyone can tell, yet we still have a category called 'sheep'. this is so given the observed recurrence of 'sheep' like entities, similar enough for us to categorize them for practicality's sake, but that doesn't mean they're physically all alike to ... (read more)

2Perplexed
Uhmm. I hate to explain my own jokes, but ... You did notice the formal similarity between my "we shouldn't concern ourselves" comment and its great grandparent, right?
0wedrifid
True (only) in the sense that our numbers are part of our map and not the territory. In the same sense we have no way of actually knowing there are patterns in the universe appropriately named Oxygen. Or Frog.
3pengvado
No Individual Particles. The fact that measurements of their mass/charge/etc have always come out the same, is not the only evidence we have for all particles of a given type being identical. (A whole oxygen atom is a bad example, though. Atoms have degrees of freedom beyond the types of particles they're made of.)
h-H10

thanks, that's actually what I wanted to know.

h-H00

a belated reply:

now, as a generality your first statement is correct, but after searching for some years I've concluded the easiest method is in fact mild support for a partisan anti war website, reason being; on average wars are more destructive than no-wars, and definitely inductive of irrationality.

a note about the particular partisan site, it's not a single source by any means-I believe this is the cause of contention?- it's actually an aggregation of 'anti war' news from multiple sources including mainstream channels and others. as such the 'single so... (read more)

1JoshuaZ
What do you mean by support? In the context of your earlier remarks, "support" seems to mean "use as sole newsource." I don't see how even if one accepted your premises one would get that as a conclusion. This makes no difference. For purposes of getting relevant data and avoiding mind-killing, a partisan aggregator will be functionally identical to a partisan single source. In regards to the connection between science and politics, I'm not sure I can parse what you are saying and in so far as I can parse it, it seems like you have a problematic attitude. Not everything is about simple ideological support or not, and your response above seems to almost be an indication of Mindkilling spreading from politics to science. This is precisely why I gave the example of ITER and whether or not it should be funded and if so by how much. Science impacts policy. And it isn't anything as simple as "oh, we should support this but not support that. Stem cells, yay! People who don't like stem cells cells, booh!" To use your example of stem cells, how much resources should go into stem cell research is quite complicated. The standard reaction against theistic arguments against embryonic stem cell research is to conclude that we should have massive amounts of research into stem cells. But that's not necessarily the case. We have a limited amount of resources that is going to go to biological and medical research. How much of that should go to stem cells? That should be the question that you should ask and not come away with some general notion of "support." You are missing the point. The change that crypto brings (and for that matter is actually bringing) is the benefits it brings to the little guy, the decentralized individuals, not the warlord. The person leaking documents or the resistance fighter/terrorist/guerrilla/etc are the types who benefit from having strong crypto. This is why for a long time the US classified cryptography as munitions for export purposes. And saying t
h-H00

true, but there are no 'negative sheep', only numbers arbitrarily representing them.

2Perplexed
but we shouldn't concern ourselves with numbers if they aren't part of our observed universe.
h-H00

agreed, it's not like scientific analysis requires the laws of physics to have no quantum randomness source etc, rather it is satisfied with finding the logical necessities between what is used to describe the observable universe.

Load More