I'm not sure if intelligence and consciousness are one and the same thing, and with your words, consciousness/intelligence is information processing. If you conclude that intelligence is information processing, then this might be an aspect of the body, an attribute, in roughly the same way as consciousness. Then that aspect of the body is evolving in machines, called artificial intelligence, independent of conscious experience.
Consciousness has such a wide variety of states, whether it be mystical, religious experiences, persistent non-symbolic experiences...
Important insight which LessWrong can comment on: link
To me, it's a very concise summary of what we all know yet stupidly enough, ignore because of irrational societies and educational systems. I'm not saying that I am taking it in. That would be the equal excuse as of any other. What do you think?
The Marlet Protestors crash Effective Altruism debate
As an intervention, I suppose by the number of applicants. It's was mostly about changing one's essence or awareness rather than it changing itself by taking action, being responsible and not making excuses. Of course, 'clickers' can still apply but this is the new stuff, regarding non-clickers.
Bachir is taking application calls publicly and it's pretty fun (Here's a Scientology mention). https://www.twitch.tv/videos/127066455?t=01h07m10s
I'm thinking about applying in the future. First I am going to read the Sequences, deepen my practice of meditation, etc.
MrMind now 'the singularity group' has changed focus, rather than making people change their awareness and thus do EA actions, they instead ask to do the right EA action in every single moment. So people who are interested can apply and go over, meditate, exercise work etc according to a schedule until the right action disciplined has transitioned to the EA awareness. I think 12 hours of work a day (of course not physical labor).
The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective. They are also going to go ar...
Yes, you are right on the point. I wanted to ask:
"If many forecasts say the probability is 80% that A will win, 20% that B will win, why do they say the forecasts were wrong if B wins?"
Wrong implies bivalence, binary thinking, duality: it implies right. A probability cannot be binary, it's infinite. My brain has a hard time understanding why it's reasonable... Kind of Orwellian.
So to my point. Forecasts were only wrong if they say A will win, but B wins. Is this not correct? Stating 80% in hindsight is equal to stating 0%, and even before that it's 0% or 100% or it's void, nothing, of no substance...
This is a stupid question, but if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?
Would an accurate prediction be "100% that B will win"? If they say 99% they are losers either way. I really do not understand. Maybe I have a tumor and it's impacting my cognition, haha.
Yes, you are right. I'm sorry. The weight loss per day slows down over time. I wish I knew math so I could say what that curve is.
If you want to be serious, buy a food scale and measure all of your food and eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight and then maintain. This means you'll have to keep it up forever. You can eat whatever you want as long as you hit the target. Processed food that has nutrition labels are also applicable to this method. In regards to not eat more, it depends where you eat. At home, you cook the amount you need, in processed restaurants with nutrition labels you order as much as you need.
Forget buffets ...
My wishing for the world is intellectual masturbation, so my practical actions in this consensus reality matter the most (instrumental rationality). But if thinking stops (epistemic rationality by persistent non-symbolic experiences) I do not care in a sense, I go insane in relation to the consensus reality but sane to the non-symbolic way of being.
So the way to solve this is to have a good system to remember me of my chores, goals, and choices which we would call rationality in the consensus reality. Otherwise, I might simply no longer be efficient from w...
Meditation is supposed to be fun, something you do practice being here and now. That doesn't mean you can't meditate while using the computer or other activities. In fact, when meditators are asked to start meditating while scientists are doing an MRI scan, they might laugh that -they are always meditating-.
But nonetheless, a hypertrophied muscle from exercise is used in daily life, so the spurt of activity to induce the change is necessary. Have a groove with the now - that's the point. Observe your thinking, do not run with every thought, return to the b...
MrMind, and the LessWrong community, it seems as I was wrong on many things as you said, by hearing more about the productivity of the people at the house. I'm not sure if you have yet started to compile information on it.
I admit that I was wrong in my prediction and that 'what is' 'ought to be' seems to yet be unresolved and that the group does have some cultish behavior. The leader is very charismatic and made some very bold predictions. What I thought then was that I had discovered the ultimate key to human behavior, that everyone could be quantified do...
What about an hour meditation and 30 min in assistance of this practice? If you have time, watch this video about self-inquiry I'm sorry there is no transcript available.
I've had the overall impression that the older you become the stronger you hold your beliefs, a metaphor can be the hardening of neural networks. I am making a relation right now between that and the part of the personality known as 'openness' which according to Roland R. Griffiths decrease as people become older.
“Normally, if anything, openness tends to decrease as people get older,” says study leader Roland R. Griffiths, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Non-iodized sea salt is trendy everywhere, I blame partly the TV cooks using it in the iconic "grab a pinch"-fashion. I'm not sure sea salt should be mandatory iodized, but areas affected more by IQ loss probably eat processed food which is iodized anyway compared to the new age health crowd.
There are a lot of other interventions worthwhile alongside pushing iodized sea salt to 'new health' crowds, like breastfeeding and peaceful parenting. The latter two probably more important in certain areas.
Rather than forcing people to undergo an alteration of, for example, their genes, you can simply make it a requirement to receiving funding. For example in welfare states (or in a libertarian society, private charities). Other enhancements can be done in a similar fashion, or voluntarily obviously.
If you heap scorn on 'stupid' people or by attribute whatsoever, it's great to note the cause, many times it is probably psychological projection with an underlying anxiety of not being up to part to one's standards.
You seem to imply that my comment is a cost but not to which extent. I acknowledge that I am not a writer which is able to facilitate this to you in the LW-lingo and better English. But, it also matters to a cost to what and benefit to who? I'm not writing with my brain wired from the perspective of the community of lesswrong. But, frankly, I have seen it very strongly in its users like you. It might seem like I am confronting you but then I offer you the opportunity to see it in another way.
The way which is bigger than all of us and epistemic/instrumental...
There is a lot of wishing with what I wish for the world, so then I understand that the best option for me is to figure out the best course action over my lifetime, as that's what I have access to (indirectly via bandwidth to a keyboard-computer-internet-etc-you) but at the same time disconnecting from this belief. Because wishing isn't the best option, neither is the best course of action. Realizing that it's useful practically sometimes to attach to thinking, but not for the majority of the time. (p.s I made an excuse for my attachment to my thinking lol...
I'm sorry if I don't understand, but multiplying my debt with a greater debt leads to no debt. It is true as the mathematics show. If we say to the bank, check account A debt and multiply with account B debt, account A will have no debt. It is independent on how you want to phrase it.
What does each operation in your equation represent? "Removing two $2 debts is equal to adding $4"
It is true because the mathematics has to stay consistent, it is based on primordial choices. That's my point, we choose it this way.
...There are elements of math and sym
And -2 * $-1 = $-2, yes.
I think you meant (-2 * -1 = $2) I meant, multiply by a negative count of debt and not itself. So a debt multiplied by a negative count of debts leads to no debt at all, a positive. I'm not sure how you can have a negative count of debts.
$2 debt squared does make sense, though, it is $4 and no debt. So by our mathematics, I could call the bank and ask them to multiply my debt with yours, I would return a positive.
The point I am making is that we've made it this way because have chosen to. It says to me that mathematics is more ...
Consistency in Arithmetic
Double the debt: 2 -1 = -2 *Ok
But: -2 -1 = 2 *Ok?
Who will allow you to multiple your debt with another's debt to get rid of it?
2 -1 + -2 - 1 = (2 - 2) -1 = 0 -1 = 0
But...
2 -1 + -2 -1 = -2 + -2 * -1 = 0
Therefore...
-2 * -1 = 2
Ian Stewart, Professor Stewart’s Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities, Profile Books, 2008, pages 37-38;
So mathematics is mentally-created, it looks objective because of primordial choices we have made? As a form of a subconscious of the Species and we've created computers because we think that way ...
That's interesting. You haven't simply pointed out my errors in my thought processes. I have yet to see you simply point them out, rather than arguing with assumptions that I can refute with basic reasoning. It's cute that you, for example, assume I don't have an answer to your hypothetical scenarios because I simply point out that it's a waste of time. Hypotheticals are intellectual entertainment. But it might've been a better choice to answer your questions from the mindset I was speculating of.
I just watched The Master which was an aesthetically pleasin...
What?
Because Hume thought the universe is without taking in consideration that it ought to be different because of probabilistic nature (one interpretation) of it all.
Not sure what this means. If "Just align with reality!" is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn't return answers to ethical questions, it is useless.
It does return answers for ethical questions. In fact I think it will for all.
...Naw, we're naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely d
In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream "oops!" and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard.
I'm glad that it's clarified, indeed it relies on the universe not being deterministic. However, I do think that a belief in a deterministic universe has an easier time for its agents to go against their utility so my philosophy might boil down more to one's emotions, probably what eve...
With that interpretation, not Copenhagen. I'm unsure, because inherently, can we really be certain of absolutes because of our lack of understanding of the human brain? I think that how memory storage and how the brain works shows us that we can't be certain of our own knowledge.
If you are right with that the universe is deterministic then what ought to be is what is. But if you ought to do the opposite from what 'is' tell us, what are you doing then? You are not allowed to have a goal which is not aligned with what is because that goes against what yo
If someone wins the Nobel prize you heard it here first.
The is-ought problem implies that the universe is deterministic, which is incorrect, it's an infinite range of possibilities or probabilities which are consistent but can never be certain. Humes beliefs about is-ought came from his own understanding of his emotions and those around him's emotions. He correctly presumed that it is what drives us and that logic and rationality could not (thus not ought to be in any way because things are) and thought the universe is deterministic (without the knowledge ...
I think then you should ask what can you do about it (or do the most effective action).
You're welcome to explain why this isn't the case. I'm thinking mostly about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. It tells us everything.
I agree. Now I'd like the password for username2.
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.
-niceguyanon
It's unlikely that it's not the same person, or people on average utilize shared accounts to try and share their suffering (by that I mean have a specific attitude) in a negative way. It would be interesting to compare shared accounts with other accounts by for example IBM Watson personality insights. In a large scale analysis.
I would just ban them from the site. I'd rather see a troll spend time creating new accounts and people noticing the sign-up dates. Relevant: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
By the way, I was not consciously ...
What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn't meant for you to take seriously.
Because a few words tell a large story when they also decided it was worth their time to write it. I wrote in my post and explained for example what type of viewpoints it implies and that it's stupid (in the sense inefficient and not aligned with reality).
Probably not at all.
I will update my probabilities then as I gain more feedback.
No, you don't. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You're assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as ph...
a
You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics,
You forgot to say that you think that. But for username 2's point, you had to reiterate that you think.
because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.
That's unfortunate if it is the case if ideas which are outside their echo chamber create such fear, then what I say might be of use in the first place, if we all...
that's at least on the right side of the is-ought gap.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.
Accepting facts fully is EA/Utilitarian ideas. There is no 'ought' to be. 'leads' was the incorrect word choice.
Replace all humans with machines.
Changing human behavior is probably more efficient than to build machines, to align more with reality. It's a question whether a means is a goal for you? If not, you would base your operations on the most effective action, probably changing behavior (because you could change the behavior of one, to equal the impact of your robot building, but probably more). I don't think replacing all humans with machines is a smart idea anyway. Merging biology with technology would be a smarter approach from my view as I deem life to b...
Yeah, it's also called 'Enlightenment' in theological traditions. You can read the testimonies here. MrMind has, for example, read them, but he's waiting a bit longer to contact these people on Reddit to see if it sticks around. I think the audio can work really well with a good pair of headphones and playing it as FLAC.
I agree.
These are the steps I did to have identity death: link to steps I also meditated on the 48 min hypnosis track youtube If you are interested in where I got my ideas from and if you want to try it yourself. It's of course up to you but you have a strong identity and ego issues and I think it will help "you"(and me).
This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself.
No, it's not.
Other people want things contrary to what I want.
What does that have to do with helping yourself, thus other people?
Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me.
Yeah, but 'me' is used practically.
The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself.
I said your neural activity includes you and y...
Indeed, this is true in the sense that it's most likely that this is the case based on the available evidence.
I'm glad that you're aligned with reality on this certain point, there's not many that are, but I wonder, why do you claim that helping others is not helping yourself, excluding practicality of semantics? It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.
But, you claimed earlier that none of this is actually factual would you like to elaborate on that? That these are my interpret...
"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense"
In a technical sense.
"but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."
The relevant sense here is your emotions.
Technically you understand that self and environment is one and the same, but you don't emotionally resonate with that idea [you don't emotionally resonate with facts].
Otherwise, what do you mean with:
"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each...
You say you're not, yet you're contradicting your previous statement where scientific facts are irrelevant to your other senses [emotions]. Which you completely omitted in responding to. Please explain. Is it a blind spot?
This is just not a very interesting or useful line of thinking.
I'm unsure why accepting facts to the extent where falsehoods by other senses are overwritten, is uninteresting or not useful.
...I (and most people on this forum) already try to live as rationalists, and where your proposal implies any deviation in from that framework, you
What am I supposedly believing that is false, that is contradicted by science? What specific scientific findings are you implying that I have got wrong?
This is what you said:
"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."
You're believing that you and your environment are separate based on "relevant" senses. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to your some of your senses, it is technical. If...
Science does not actually know how emotions work to the degree of accuracy you are implying. Your statement that using emotional commitment rather than Bayesian epistemology leads to better alignment with reality is a hypothesis that you believe, not a fact that has been proven. If you become a very successful person by following the prescription you advocate, that would be evidence in favor of your hypothesis, but even that would not be very strong evidence by itself.
I don't know, that's why I wanted to raise an investigation into it, but empirically y...
I should only "submit" to any particular belief in accordance with my assessment of its likelihood, and can never justify submitting to some belief 100%. Indeed, doing so would be a form of irrational fundamentalism.
Not necessarily, because the submitting is a means rather than the goal, and you will always never be certain. It's important to recognize empirically how your emotions work in contrary to a Bayesian epistemology, how using its mechanisms paradoxically lead to something which is more aligned with reality. It's not done with Bayesia...
I see that the problem in your reasoning is that you've already presumed what it entails, what you have missed out on is understanding ourselves. Science and reasoning already tell us that we share neural activity, are a social species thus each of us could be considered to be a cell in a brain. It's not as much if every cell decides to push the limits of its rationality, rather the whole collective as long as the expected value is positive. But to do that the first cells have to be U(figure this out).
It's not either perfect or non-perfect, that's absolute...
A scientific mindset has a lower probability of being positive expected value because there is more than one value when it comes to making decisions, sometimes in conflict with each other. This can lead to cognitive dissonance in daily life. It's because science is a tool, the best one we got. Aligning with reality has a higher probability as it's an emotional heuristic, with only one value necessary.
Aligning with reality means submitting yourself emotionally, similar to how a religious person submits to God, but in this case, our true creator: To logic, w...
Eating tasteless food might be useful in weight loss and health. Vegetables usually have phytonutrients, which evolved to be for example insect repellents. However many of these phytonutrients have, for example, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory mechanisms in our body, Sapiens. Like Curcumin and Sulforaphane. Since IQ goes down by age, though crystallized not so much, it might be worthwhile to try and include these foods. Curcumin can pass the blood brain barrier in certain instances.
You've read this? It's long, but if you CTRL+F for "taste" you'll ... (read more)