I appreciate the thoughtful response and that you seem to take the ideas seriously.
That is a fundamental aspect of how experience works now. That's also a result of evolution wiring us to pay more attention to bad things than good things.
I do think it's a fundamental aspect of how experience works, independently of how our brains are disposed to thinking about it, however I definitely think it's possible to prophylactically shield or consciousness against the depths of suffering by modifying the substrate. I can't tell whether we're disagreeing or not.
I don't know exactly how to phrase It, but I think a fundamental aspect of the universe is that as suffering increases in... (read more)
We're in a Pascal’s mugging situation, but from a negative point of view, where the trade-off is between potential infinite years of suffering and suicide in order to avoid them for sure.
In the past I've struggled deeply with this thought process and I have reasoned my way out of that conclusion. It's not necessarily a more hopeful conclusion but it takes away the idea that I need to make a decision, which I find very comforting.
Ultimately it comes down to the illusory nature of identity.
A super powerful entity would have the power to create bespoke conscious entities for the purpose of inducing suffering.
The suffering of "Future you" is no more or less... (read more)
Does this assume there is some symmetry between the unimaginably bad outcomes and the unimaginably good outcomes?
It seems very clear to me that the worst outcomes are just so much more negative than the best outcomes are positive. I think that is just a fundamental aspect of how experience works.
Would you be able to specify a scenario in which the general term for love would lead to dysfunction?
I think generally if people want to signal how they feel about someone they're typically able to do so.
A lot of dysfunction is caused by people being intentionally ambiguous about the extent and quality and conditions of their feelings. In that way people may hide behind the ambiguity of the word love. Communication helps but I'm not sure if the imprecise nature of the word love is a significant barrier to communication.
Have you ever used Obsidian? Sounds similar to the method you're describing. If so, what do you think of it? Especially with respect to your preferred workflow?
On the lab grown meat section
For those who are instead principled libertarians who genuinely wouldn’t turn this around on a moment’s notice, well, I am sorry that others have ruined this and so many other principled stands.
I am not sure if I understand what is meant by this, but I'm interpreting it to imply that principled libertarians should be against a ban on meat derived from animals.
I think anyone claiming that ought to also provide a justification as to why non-human animals shouldn't be afforded some basic negative rights within libertarian principles?
To argue that one conscious being should be granted full license to do whatever they want with another conscious being doesn't really strike me a pro freedom stance.
Unless you have a reason why it's okay to have an out-group for whom you deny freedoms in order to maximize the freedoms of the in-group? Are libertarian principles just "might makes right" privileging the smallest number of individuals you can get away with?
It's my understanding that the controversy is mostly manufactured by industries with large financial interests in selling foods with added sodium. They pay for misleading/inaccurate studies to be done in order to introduce uncertainty and doubt. Whereas it's my understanding there is a near consensus towards low sodium amongst scientists without direct/indirect industry ties.
I do think there are probably some cases where increasing salt beyond natural levels can be the healthier thing to do given specific health concerns.
That one sounds good!
It wouldn't work for me personally because I have a pathological relationship with refined sugar so the only equilibrium which works for me is cutting it out entirely (which has been successful and rewarding though initially very difficult).
Thanks!
Oh that's a good one! I mostly follow that one already although I do find value in some unsweetened teas and smoothies. I find personally that the immediate trade-offs to consuming alcohol are enough to ensure I only really drink when it's actually aligned with my interests.
Although I do have a rule for alcohol which is "don't consume any alcohol unless people who you're currently being social with are already drinking," I'm not sure exactly how much that rule has helped me because I've followed it all my life and I don't really like alcohol that much, but maybe that's partially because of the rule.
But yes I think the rule you gave... (read more)
I'm looking for personal rules one might live by which adhere to a specific criteria outlined below, following an example.
I have a personal rule I've been following which is "No looking at screens in the bed where I sleep" I find this to be an extremely helpful and successful rule despite being someone who struggles to impose rules on myself.
I think one main reason it's successful for me is there aren't really any meaningful tradeoffs I'm making. If I'm feeling a need/compulsion to comfortably self soothe on my phone I can use another piece of furniture.
This rule doesn't ever result in bargaining with myself until I concede to breaking the rule, even... (read 184 more words →)
Thanks! No pressure to respond
Basically I think within the space of all possible varieties and extents of conscious experience, suffering starts to become less and less Commensurable with positive experience the further you go towards the extremes.
If option (A) is to experience the worst possible suffering for 100 years, prior to experiencing the greatest possible pleasure for N number of years, and option (B) is non existence, I would choose option (B), regardless of the value of N.
... (read more)