All of jefallbright's Comments + Replies

As evolved—and evolving—agents, we would benefit from increasing awareness of (1) our values, hierarchical and fine-grained, and (2) our methods for promoting those present but evolving values in the world around us, with perceived consequences feeding back and selected for increasing coherence over increasing context of meaning-making (values) and increasing scope of instrumental effectiveness (methods). Lather, rinse, repeat…

As inherently perspectival agents acting to express our present but evolving nature within the bounds of our presently perceived e... (read more)

As agents embedded and evolving within our (ancestral) environment of interaction, our concepts of "morality" tend toward choices which, in principle, exploited synergies and thus tended to persist, for our ancestors.

For an individual agent, isolated from ongoing or anticipated interaction, there is no "moral", but only "good" relative to the agent's present values.

For agents interacting within groups (and groups of groups, …) actions perceived as "moral", or right-in-principle, are those actions assessed as (1) promoting an increasing context of increasin... (read more)

Yes, I think evolutionary processes are the only generator of meaningful novelty, and this is also key to the nearly always neglected question of "hypothesis generation" in discussions of "the" scientific method.

Significantly, your examples are all within the domain of analytical—and I would suggest, reductive—mathematics-science-coding. In my experience, it is often the case that one who has ascended this ladder is quite blind to, and unable to conceive of the importance of, context and perspective to meaning-making.

Apropos, there was a period during my childhood when I tried to question my elders regarding my observation that entropy, probability, and meaning were inherently subjective—meaningless without reference to an observer. Similar to the misnomer of Sh... (read more)

1Jay Molstad
If one person is talking analytically and the other is talking about meaning-making, then you're each trying to have different conversations.  One of you is talking about how to do something and the other is talking about how to motivate people to do something.  If at all possible you should let the first person lead; if they're diligently working on the problem then they're motivated enough.   To consider your support team example: they seem to be assuming that if their product works well, customers will be satisfied.  That's not a terrible strategy, and it puts the focus on something they can control (the product).  If you could point to something else about the customer experience that's causing customer dissatisfaction, they would probably understand the problem and deal with it.  But if there's nothing specific that needs addressing otherwise, it's probably best just to let them focus on getting the instrument to work as well as possible. And of course, maximizing customer satisfaction is itself a strategy toward achieving your real goal, which is profit.  Companies don't give their flagship products away for free*, no matter how much it would please the customers. *With the exception of some loss leaders that are carefully calculated to grow revenues over the long term.
2lsusr
Similar ladders exist in other domains—drawing, for example. But I have not observed such hard ceilings on one's performance in drawing. Effective training seems far more important. The same goes for routine physics, entrepreneurship and foreign languages. I like where you are going with #10. Perhaps it could condensed into "informatic creativity".

What could it possibly mean, to say that something is "better", except from some perspective, within some context? What could it possibly mean to say that something is "right" (in principle), other than from some larger perspective, within a larger context?

It's always perspectival--the illusion of objectivity arises because you share your values, fine-grained and deeply hierarchical, due to your place as a twig on a branch on a tree rooted in the mists of a common physics and with a common evolutionary trajectory. Of course you share values with your neig

... (read more)

Oh, and a short, possibly more direct response:

Values (within context) lead to preferences; preferences (within context) lead to actions; and actions (within context) lead to consequences.

Lather, rinse, repeat, updating your models of what matters and what works as you go.

I argued repeatedly and at length on the Extropian and Transhumanist discussion lists from 2004 to about 2010 for a metaethics based on the idea that actions assessed as increasingly "moral" (right in principle) are those actions assessed as promoting (1) values, hierarchical and fine-grained, increasingly coherent over an increasing context of meaning-making, via (2) instrumental methods, increasingly effective in principle, over increasing scope of consequences. Lather, rinse, repeat, with consequences tending to select for values, and methods for thei

... (read more)
1jefallbright
Oh, and a short, possibly more direct response: Values (within context) lead to preferences; preferences (within context) lead to actions; and actions (within context) lead to consequences. Lather, rinse, repeat, updating your models of what matters and what works as you go.

“Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.” - Zen koan

What does that mean you cryptic bastards! If enlightenment is so great then give me some step by step directions to it!

Here's another, slightly more informative quote:

The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin [Seigen Ishin]

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters.

... (read more)
2Elo
Yes. Everything helps. My relationship with Zen koans has been ongoing... http://bearlamp.com.au/zen-koans/ It seems that I got koans before and then for many of them. I just keep getting them and getting them again, despite knowing and getting them already. Fwiw I haven't seen the self/non in many koans yet, but I have a strange relationship with the self "problem" where it's hard to grasp to see it as anything. I'm caught in the middle of unclear of self.

The most insidious of these misguiding heuristics have, apparently due to their transparency (like water to a fish), gone unmentioned so far in this thread.

Typical game play shares much in common with typical schooling. Children are inculcated with impressions of a world of levels that can (and should) be ascended through mastery of skills corresponding to challenges presented to them at each level, with right action leading to convergence on right answers, within an effectively fixed and ultimately knowable context.

Contrast this with the "real worl... (read more)