Interesting. Is there an obvious way to do that for toy examples like P(1 = 2 | 7 = 11), or something like that

Not to be dissuading, but probably a lot of people who can do relevant work know English pretty well anyway? Speaking from experience, I guess, most students knew English well enough and consumed English content when i was in university. Especially the most productive ones. So, this still can be interesting project, but not like, very important and/or worth your time.

https://dynomight.net/consciousness/

^this is a pretty nice post exploring the consciousness from very closely related angle. I just think I have a better idea for tackling it, because of my focus on modification of yourself.

Well, let's reason step by step. I certainly never died before*. This post proposes that i will never die in the future. But i certainly experienced quite bad states, really really repulsive ones. Not sure about happy ones, i think don't actually endorse pulling myself towards any state such described? I kinda want normal, neutral state. Like, it's as if i have states i strongly want to avoid, but no states i want to go into.

Alsooo, this post kind of doesn't explain why there is time or my apparent non existence in my past. Or what is the measure of me or why it's should be compelling to preserve it/expand it. Or maybe it's a force that should be a consideration in all tradeoffs, like, you want to be happy? But this thing pulling you towards to be smeared over large amount of branches. Or something. So you should think how it affects or trades off again things you want.

It's all really confusing and i don't put much credence on recommendations to actions coming from this framework

*maybe except for sleeping? and then got resurrected in my waking body?

https://x.com/jeffreycider/status/1648407808440778755

(I'm writing a post on cognitohazards, the perceptual inputs that hurt you. So, i have this post conveniently referenced in my draft lol)

E.g. choose (1% death, 99% totally fine) action instead of (0.1% paralyzed and in pain, 99.9% totally fine) action. Or something like that, your bad outcomes become not death but entrapment in suffering.

So, what's up with my apparent nonexistence in my past? It seems slightly weird that I had some starting point but wouldn't have ending point. Also I'm really confused by, like, subjective time being a thing, if you assume this post is correct description of the universe.

Okay, I received like 6 downvotes on this post and zero critical comments. Usually people here are more willing to debate about consciousness, judging by other posts from these hashtags.

So, can someone articulate what exactly you disliked about this post? Is it too weird or is it not weird enough? Maybe it's sloppy stylistically or epistemically? Maybe you disagree on object level with this exploration of physicalist/functionalist/empiricist position I'm arguing in favor of here? Maybe you like dualism or quantum brain hypothesis? Maybe you think I'm arguing badly in favor of your own position?

Yeah, it kind of looks like all the unhappy people die by 50 and then average goes up. Conditioning on the figure being right in the first place. 

[EDIT] looks like approximately 12% - 20% of people are dead by 50. Probably should not be that large of an effect on average? idk. Maybe I'm wrong.

It ignores the is-ought discrepancy by assuming that the way morals seem to have evolved is the "truth" of moral reasoning

No? Not sure how do you got that from my post. Like, my point is that morals are backed in solutions to coordination problems between agents with different wants and power levels. Backed into people's goal systems. Just as "loving your kids" is a desire that was backed in from reproductive fitness pressure. But instead of brains it works on a level of culture. I.e. Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers

  I also think it's tactically unsound - the most common human-group reaction to something that looks like a threat and isn't already powerful enough to hurt us is extermination. 

Eh. I think it's one of the considerations. Like, it will probably not be that. It's either ban on everything even remotely related or some chaos when different regulatory systems trying to do stuff.