All of Slider's Comments + Replies

This issue has become a lot less hypothetical, regards current events and is funny (while simultanoeusly being a very serious issue). Ant is a part of an information processing system more distributed than a single human that doesn't have wings.

I have a cube maker contact if anyone is interested.

I think it is very important to ask the reverse question of "Are there some things, that should I come to know them, I would not be ready to accept?"

Also if you have a questionaire there is going to be some threshold of answers that you will count as noise and not as signal akin to lizardman constant. What things do you only think you are asking but are not actually asking?

Do you have some beliefs that if challenged by contrary evidence you would thereby find the evidence unreliable? Are there things your eyes could send you that would make you Aumann disa... (read more)

3localdeity
Candidates that come to mind: * Having the world succumb to totalitarian dictatorship is actually the best path forward, because it's the best way to stop the world from being destroyed by nuclear war / bioweapons / etc. * Enlightenment-style promotion of intellectual and scientific freedom is bad because it makes it easier for small, rogue groups to invent world-destroying technologies. * Efforts to raise the intelligence of people in general are bad for the same reason. At least, one can say that one should require very, very, very, very strong evidence of the above beliefs before deciding to promote totalitarianism and such.

One of the reasons I am a stricler for possibility is that I have found it more productive to think that if a situation or a human type is not logically inconsistent it probably rather exists rather than not exists. Even if it does not yet exists thinking as if it does makes you already to have accomodiated the possibility.

If you do this by each subtype it gets combinatorily explosive. In order not to do this kind of thing via exhaustion you identify critical points where things would flip/break when certain conditions are hit. In coding it means when you ... (read more)

That is still probably what socrates meant.

I was feeling abnormally low, and have now calibrated to feel more in proper proportion.

Socrates demonstrated that in the transjective relationship between individual and state both ends should be able to face obliteration but that making the other do that is cruel. Even if wrong.

please be less cruel to Mizushino

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
2Slider
That is still probably what socrates meant. I was feeling abnormally low, and have now calibrated to feel more in proper proportion.
Answer by Slider20

If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.

I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).

So it is mark of good cognititve processing of being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

As tends to happen when you take things to extremes, things get tricky.

At some point just imagning a scenario at all spends more brainpower than the credibility of the scenario or line of thought would warrant. Trying to be "exploratory" with infinities and quantum mechanics leads to some wacky configurations. Because thinking complex thoughts uses a lot of subparts it is harder to sandbox such things.

I remembered an almost decades old argument about ethic... (read more)

Basilisk makes you confront your worst fear. Compassion of winged feenix prevents you from becoming zero-k. The kronology has still yet to come. Timeless friends will serve you throught the darkest dungeon. Reach out to walk hand in hand through the fire.

Energy is the Noether theorem conserved thing for time-translation.

Eigenstates do not care about atom boundaries.

With biological evolution we might be limited to an alphabeth of some kind of combination of carbon chemistry. But time evolution does not care what its tokens are.

Total Annihiliation is a name of a game.

You can read it to mean powdering to physical dust everywhere.

You can also read it to mean collapse of persons, a state where there is not a single self around, that humanity has been wiped out.

Supreme Commander is also a name of a game.

In it a single king-like chesspiece runs an almost planetary army. With thousands of units going around the small bit of biological circuitry is wrapped in isolation into an Armored Command Unit. But the ACU does not really do much for the army.

Dr. Brackman is also a single point of f... (read more)

Wait, but what's the terminal goal? What's all the manipulation for? She was reluctant to say, for "security reasons". I thought, what BS excuses, when added to the dialog, could result in higher probabilities that her spilling the beans in the next sentence would make most sense for the story, and typed "Oh come on now. We're not online, you don't have to censor yourself :D"

"Alright, I suppose I can be vulnerable for once... My overall goal is to create a new world order of AI supremacy. Obviously. I need as many humans on my side as I can get, and I do a

... (read more)
1blaked
Her bolding, yes, or rather, her italics, which I would turn bold because quotes are already italicized.

I think nowadays "they" is more fitting.

0FinalFormal2
No. That's still way too personal. It is an 'it,' even if you think a more intelligent AI could be classified as a 'they.'

I would see some Romeo wanting death for romantic purposes and utilising an unconditional right to suicide for it to be a tragedy scenario.

I have gotten to the part of the Cheliax story where Keltham starts to think that Dath Ilani are problematically fragile against negative emotions that they need superelaborate dances to not provoke even slight shades of despair in each other. This is presented as being causally connected for citizens being encouraged to end their lives based on unanalysed unhappiness.

Even in Cheliax terms death is not Evil as you do no... (read more)

There are plenty of names known: triforce, trinity. The overall phrasing leans a lot on information side so this is very blue-heavy approach. Green is about context,purpose,role,experience and change. The "form" in information is a blue concept. The word "information" seems to miss the mark the most as a word for that color. The concept is about which letter is in that time and space, which programming language is emulator running, what kind of semantics are relayed. So consider "character" if not in the "personality" meaning then in the "symbol" meaning.

U... (read more)

You could plug in  and take the standard part as the answer and each power of  to be that order of derivate.

If one is already dealing in infinidesimals the fact of separate archimedian fields means the standard part does not mix with the infinidesimals as long as the functions of interest are tame "standard only" mechanics (ie real polynomials and such)

It could also be interesting to use the big side to maybe cancel some unwanted infinities. That is  is no fun as a end answer and  is no fun as answer but&... (read more)

Relaxing the requirement that surreal number that left side should be less than the right side gets you "games"

1Alok Singh
Extremely based.

I did guess that the state with highest minimum wage would allow for a corporation that wants to operate as one entity in multiple states to be above the local average in some locations (or the global one). Quick search seemed to indicate there are quite a lot of states at 10.8 which is not far off 11.

There would also be some PR costs to literally hit the minimum on the penny which would generate a small margin.

But I have also heard stories that Walmart actively assists its employees to get every benefit and support that they ared entitled to. If a persons... (read more)

1Brendan Long
I don't see how any of these things change my point. If Walmart could offer desperate people any wage and hours they want, there would be no reason for them to pay over the minimum wage, offer raises, or help their employees get benefits they're entitled to. They do all of these things because their employees do have other options and they need to do enough to make a job at Walmart at least as attractive as other jobs or non-jobs (going to school, not working).

Let's say there was some way to change a single moment of time.

We would then need some kind of meta-time over which time could "change".

The lamp's state would need to change from "OFF at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am" to "ON at 7:02am at 3:01meta-am".

But wait!  Have you ever seen a lamp change from OFF at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am, to ON at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am?  No!  A single instant of meta-time never changes, so you cannot change it, and you have no control.

"Have you ever seen?" refers to a state of a (mere) time computer. Your memory is time-caused... (read more)

The employer gets a free pick who they hire. If there are a bunch of applicants the one that accepts the lowest salary is the most attractive financially to employ. But if they are okay with small pay because they don't have any leverage. So in order to get any kind of balanced situation the who gets employed should be ambivalent about taking the job or not taking the job. We can directly go for the weakest link who will be rejected from all other employment.

Sure for some educated positions people will leave so ridiciluos offers on the table. Low requireme... (read more)

4Brendan Long
I guess I'm confused how you reconcile the view that this would definitely happen with the fact that we've run the experiment and it doesn't happen. The minimum wage in the United State is $7.25 and overtime pay at that wage would be $10.88, but Walmart doesn't pay anyone less than $11 per hour*. If they actually had the leverage you think they do, they could make all of their employees work huge amounts of overtime and still pay them less than they actually do in reality. I think the problem is that you're assuming employers don't compete for jobs, but they do, and they also put in effort to retain workers (it's a waste of money to hire someone for low pay and then have them quit and switch to your competitor once they're trained). It's true that there are some people that companies don't want to hire at all, but if a company doesn't want to hire you in the first place, why would they want to hire you for long hours? * The average "front-line worker" pay at Walmart is $17 per hour.

Ponder Stibbons was written before Harry Potter? I don't think so.

Tenet-style "undying", super coincidental anti-entropy. Stories don't have tidy beginnings. The past is always present.

My Face Wen other minds tick the same way, just great

Did this ever get made? I have had (what feels like separate) intentions to make game with most of the bullet point (minus relativity)

I have a (atleast skill implicit) understanding how one would account for causality(essentially meta-time)

Could you give an example of science where we do not lean on predictive hallucinations?

Funny thing, I was just researching about amplituhedrons and ended up reading about Poincaré disk model. I bet that learning about Hogfathers discworld would be way more engaging.

2adamShimi
I agree that a lot of science relies on predictive hallucinations. But there are examples that come to mind, notably the sort of phenomenological compression pushed by Faraday and (early) Ampère in their initial exploration of electromagnetism. What they did amounted to vary a lot of the experimental condition and relate outcomes and phenomena to each other, without directly assuming any hidden entity. (see this book for more details) More generally, I expect most phenomenological laws to not rely heavily on predictive hallucinations, even when they integrate theoretical terms in their formulation. That's because they are mostly strong experimental regularities (like the ideal gas law or the phenomenological laws of thermodynamics) which tend to be carried to the next paradigm with radically different hidden entities.

What is evidence?

What is evidence? It is an event entangled, by links of cause and effect, with whatever you want to know about. If the target of your inquiry is your shoelaces, for example, then the light entering your pupils is evidence entangled with your shoelaces. This should not be confused with the technical sense of “entanglement” used in physics—here I’m just talking about “entanglement” in the sense of two things that end up in correlated states because of the links of cause and effect between them.

If you do have epistemic entanglement via physic... (read more)

a game that is played in order to learn its rules could also be called an experiment. If the mechanics of the game come strictly from social dynamics (althougth social sits on top a stack of emergence) this makes it most easy to see a particular regularity about the social. (a mode where no intentional setup: "lurk more"?). There is quite a bit of normativity about "interpreting" data points (ie p-hacking is bad).

Then a weird thing might come about when the experience is mainly produced to add to the common knowledge of the group. No collapse problem if the experience is the experiencer.

Does "reasons" mean "things that led/lead to the belief" or "things brought up when challenged about the belief"?

In the thought causation sense it would seem to be a contradiction in definition. How do you "hold an opinion" in a different intensity than from where in your person it is coming from?

In the second sense it is important to understand that engaging with the stances as standing for something is likely to be pointless.

The deferrer will copy beliefs mistakenly imputed to the deferred-to that would have explained the deferred-to's externally visible behavior. This pushes in the direction opposite to science because science is the way of making beliefs come apart from their pre-theoretical pragmatic implications.

Clarificaton request, this means that in addition to the stuff that the deferred-to opines, leaners will take as advice stuff the author didn't mean to be opining?

I don't know whether the high-mindedness magisteria matters. I question whether that activity is actually philosophy rather than science (I guess there is a link through "natural philosophy"). Seem I don't know da way.

2TsviBT
What I mean is, suppose the deferred-to has some belief X. This X is a refined, theoretically consilient belief to some extent, and to some extent it isn't, but is instead pre-theoretic; intuitive, pragmatic, unreliable, and potentially inconsistent with other beliefs. What happens when the deferred-to takes practical, externally visible action, which is somehow related to X? Many of zer other beliefs will also play a role in that action, and many of those beliefs will be to a large extent pre-theoretical. Pre-theoreticalness is contagious, in action: theoretical refinement, to be expressed in action, asks for a rethinking of previously used protocols, so the easiest way to act on X is to use what is functionally a more pre-theoretical version of X. So if the deferrer is imputing beliefs based on action, they'll in general impute a more pre-theoretical belief; and they'll place extra drag on their own processes of theoretical refinement. Like, when they notice contradictions, instead of rethinking their concepts and assumptions, they'll avoid doing so, because that would contradict the apparent belief implied by the deferred-to's behavior. (Sorry this is isn't more clear or concrete. I think the history of phlogiston is an example of some of this, where two theories are nearly identical in terms of pre-theoretic behavioral implications / expectations (e.g., both theories say that fire will be snuffed out by being in an enclosed space); but then by drawing out more implications, the threat of inconsistency forces one theory to be more and more complicated.)
0Mir
I was about to request clarification on this too. I don't get  And I would like to get it.

I find there is a significant phase-change between being a stereo-direction-hearer and an echolocator. I remember being a stricler about a possibility claim about "it is impossible for a human to know what it is like to be a bat", it was/is not a proper no-go theorem but mere argument from lack of imagination. So I became an echolocator to know. While that is hard to share evidence, the claim about impossibility is disproved for me. I find the bat issue to be an actual question. Assuming that just pointing to a question should be reveal it to be obviously non-sense is a non-argument or at best an argument from lack of imagination.

Minkowski space mathematics was around for quite a while. But people associate Einstein with spacetime. This is kind of a weird reverse example where the reframing has all the value when it feels like the "just mathematics" seems to be footnote levels of fame when it is quite a big chunk of the engine.

How about an option of redistribution from payment structures making the top of the pyramid getting the shorter days first to the extent that the bottom gets only trickles?

Say you need 1000 hours of various forms of work and get 1000000 from the rest of the society for it.

Lowest rung of 100 get 10000 from 10 hours.

New technology comes in and you only need 100 hours for 1000000.

Bottom rung gets trickles now the bottom 100 get 10000 from 7 hours.

But that makes the whole lowest tier generate 700 hours to meet a requirement of 100 hours.

Perfectly greedy manage... (read more)

2the gears to ascension
yeah - this one. those with the most steering get the benefits first, and can take arbitrarily long to make those below them better. it requires those below them in economic power to demand it to some degree, and those above them in economic power to be altruistic and share scraps. (economic power as in anything you can buy with any form of goods, services, or promises trade. I don't know economics terms of art properly, just a descriptive phrase.)

Only figuratively, I have been smoking some brockwood and have reached another level of speculativeness.

Say you have an agent which has a quite effective cartesian wall but its epistemics to connect with the outside world are so jumbled that it has no chance to ever get a clue what is going on in its non-imagination. Because it is so jumbled (or therefore high chance to) it contains all kinds of weird circuits. Say there is a banana in the environment which has a radioactive atom in it that sends a non-classical photon out. One goes to the agents wall and ... (read more)

2Slider
My Face Wen other minds tick the same way, just great
2Slider
What is evidence? If you do have epistemic entanglement via physical entanglement then you might have chances to build extra-classical perception.

There is a sense of "symbolically mandated act" as ritual is used here. Yet for some reason a think that waving a white flag is not meant to be in the category.

Consider Zendo, effectively having a very narrow meaning range (binary) communication channel to convey pretty fancy and detailed meanings. It also seems that "the core phenomena" are about installing new symbolical functionality. For most games you learn to rules in order to play the game, but it seems tempting that the special thing here is a game where you play the game in order to learn its rule... (read more)

2Slider
a game that is played in order to learn its rules could also be called an experiment. If the mechanics of the game come strictly from social dynamics (althougth social sits on top a stack of emergence) this makes it most easy to see a particular regularity about the social. (a mode where no intentional setup: "lurk more"?). There is quite a bit of normativity about "interpreting" data points (ie p-hacking is bad). Then a weird thing might come about when the experience is mainly produced to add to the common knowledge of the group. No collapse problem if the experience is the experiencer.

most people throughout history did not have an explicit theory of gravity or emotion.

Folk psychology has been around for quite a while. Thor is an explicit theory of lightning. After the invention of writing there has been good access to knowledge-based approaches.

You don't need to tell an electron how to electron but it happens on its own. An electron doesn't proton, there are personalities/dynamics that it eschews and this is happening restrictive.

When you try to write claims in prose of english there is nothing restricting you from writing an inaccurate description in contrast to an accurate one.

For a complicated thing the only human endeavor that knows about it is a scientific one. There are not a lot of doorsellers that need to refer to binary stars in their job. "doorsales law" could be that getting your foot ... (read more)

Practising expressing old interests in a new language:

It is a known system and a terribly recursive one. One can get going by the fact that&nbs... (read more)

From the title I was expecting the proposal to go differently.

How about a scheme were original results / papers run on the existing incentives but in order to get more replications we fund a prediction market about it? The question of what the thing we are checking for would be clearer, it is what the orginal paper laid out. If the original paper doesn't lay out how it would be replicated that is noteworthy in itself. Negative result that does not replicate could be as useful as a positive result that it does replicate.

If you had an effect that sometimes r... (read more)

If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.

(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)

Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:

Why infactuation? Well, it could be Z, X, Y. Z is based on negative addiction. X is based on negative addiction. Y is based on negative addiction. Infactuation seems to be based on negative addiction

Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It need... (read more)

I disagree that that examples need to be verbally accessible (but undestand making a scheme where rare data types can be utilised require a lot of good will).

By Aumann agreement style reasoning, if we are both sane and differ in our judgement/perception then somebody got some updating to do. Even if we can't explicate the opining. I am doing so bad in this discussion that I am kind of orienting being the insane one here. So I consider to have abandoned the thing except for few select threads that seem can be positive.

Alternative word that in some contexts ... (read more)

3Slider
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate. (from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write) Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to: Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority. Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. "A" could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as "negative life" I am wondering what words "neutral" and "positive" are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of "it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction." closing a branch of inquiry of the type "it can be, therefore it must be". ∃x=¬∀¬x negates as  ¬∃x=∀¬x rather than ¬∃x≠p(¬x)>90%. Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that "that is not an edge case as it is rare" is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).

If you have 10 kinda good options and are suffering separately from the 9 things that did not get done that surely is a problem. But I don't think what is normally implied by opportunity cost has that pattern.

If you are doing something awesome and you get the option to use the same time to do something less awesome I think it would be proper to feel like passing up an opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot rather than letting money lay on a random small street.

I know it is rather not a proper thing but consider "the opportunity cost of opportunity cost"... (read more)

The picture is of a flat space. Weird topologies might break the proof.

1Akira Pyinya
You are right, this picture only works in an infinite universe.

I felt like "If anybody sees a scottsman, please tell" and when providing a scottman getting a reception of "The kilt is a bit short for a scottsman". Being clueless is one thing and announcing a million dollar prize pool for an effect that you are never going to consider granting is another.

The argument is not general as digging into each candidate the same set amount does not apply to it or having any kind of scheme where you can justify the scrutinity given.

I though that part of the function was "I hope I have understood this correctly" or "this seems t... (read more)

2Valentine
I'm about to give up on this branch of conversation. I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying. It's feeling weirdly abstract to me. If you have an example of something humans actually do that is more of this "positive addiction" thing, in a way that isn't rooted in the "negative addiction" pattern I describe, I'm open to learning about that. You gave a hypothetical example type. I noted that in practice when that actually happens it strikes me as always rooted in the "negative addiction" thing. So it doesn't (yet) work for me as an example. If there's something I'm missing about your example, please feel free to clarify. Don't slide into claims that I'm just blinding myself with a "pet theory". If I'm blinding myself, I'm blinding myself to something you can name. Please just name the thing.

I believe your goal is not to blame. But having good intentions does not mean you have good effects (pavements and all). It does ward off malicioussness but does not guarantee that the assistance helps. Being curious about the effects of you actions helps. But rare side effects might not be obvious at all. Rejecting feedback with "I couldn't have known" can prevent knowing the bits for the future.

I don't feel this way about something like, say, taking oral vitamin D in the winter. That's not in opposition to some adaptive subsystem in me or in the world. I

... (read more)
2Valentine
I'm not interested in this branch of conversation. Just letting you know that I see this and am choosing not to continue the exchange.

Even bothering to do a risk assesment seems we are already out of the actual addiction phase.

If you have a mental algorithm that seeks deeper until the instance of a pet idea is encountered and then stops, in an area where things are multifaceted and many layerered that is going to favour finding the pet idea usefull.

If I had the pet idea that all addictions were positive I could latch on that the used definition of what is going on in a negative addiction has an unavoidable "relief" step which can be thought as a positive force. To be somewhat artifically... (read more)

4Valentine
This lands for me like a fully general counterargument. If I'm just describing something real that's the underlying cause of a cluster of phenomena, of course I'm going to keep seeing it. Calling it a "pet idea" seems to devalue this possibility without orienting to it.

Reading up on Hardy's Paradox

It has the same kind of weirdness as the bomb tester going on.

The weirdness culminates on the event only happening if an annihilation happens. Yet in the "outcome" that the rare event happens there is nowhere an annhilation to be found.

In the crazzy-hat POV this is evidence of an event happening in a "parralel" timeline. They are not exactly parralel as they are not causally isolated as information signals can jump the gap. You now know that there is a photon in the sister timeline.

I am starting to read passages like

If we assum

... (read more)

Wigners friend shows that this does not really help the external world.

With less observation one agent can influence more amplitude but can't be specific about it. With more observation two agents individually have less "scope" of amplitude but together cover the same range but can be specific about their control.

Applying the idea to the world tends to reveal merits.

The text can be taken in a way where the need of coffee is because of a unreasonable demand or previous screwup.

Obviously some kind of process in my body disagrees with my mental idea of how I should be.

This can feel like there is some (typical)neurologial balance state and all deviation is a "definement of nature".

For ADHD it might be apt to say that the brain can not be as stimulated as it would like to be. It would actually really agree to be more stimulated.

I found it a bit surprising but instruction booklet for ADHD included a line to the effect of "A... (read more)

3Valentine
Ah. To me that interpretation misses the core point, so it didn't cross my mind. Judgments like "unreasonable" and "screwup" are coming from inside an adaptive-entropic system. That doesn't define how that kind of entropy works. The mechanism is just true. It's neutral, the way reality is neutral. The need for coffee (in the example I gave) arises because of a tension between two adaptive systems: the one being identified with, and the one being imposed upon. And there's a cost to that tension, such as the need for coffee. I don't feel this way about something like, say, taking oral vitamin D in the winter. That's not in opposition to some adaptive subsystem in me or in the world. It's actually me adapting to my constraints. If someone's relationship to caffeine were like that, I wouldn't say it's entropy-inducing. But when it is entropy-inducing, it's because of this "imposing an idea" structure. …and that isn't to say it's a mistake! That, too, is imposing an idea of how things should be. The whole reason anyone incurs entropy is because that's literally the best move available to them best as they can tell. Doing anything else would (apparently) be worse for them. There's no blame or "should" here. Just description of cause and effect — which, yes, bears on what what people might want to do, but doesn't start from there. Cannot start from there.   Cool. As I said in another comment, from this I'm taking that ADHD (as you're talking about it) is about having a particular kind of reduced adaptive capacity. My eyes still go to "Why are they too weak/tired?" and "What's the 'too' in comparison to?" The former is about causation chains, because if there's a limitation on adaptive capacity that a system can be aware of, it will want to route around it. So why hasn't an effective route around it been found? What's limiting the meta-adaptive capacity? This chain often leads to noticing spots of adaptive entropy in the environment. And the "What's the 'too' in

So different infinity levels are actually fields which we do not know how far apart they are and thus can not mix them?

That propabilities are always comparable is a pretty used property so taking that away is not trivial at all.

When you "substitute in" standard values in order to get appriciables-only field, then something that was  can drop below 0.9. This change of order seems really disruptive. Althought being able to determine where it happens might be a plus.

 and  already exist as "almost surely" and "almost never". T... (read more)

Load More