Do you know if Plato was claiming Euclidean geometry was physically true in that sense? Doesn't sound like something he would say.
I'd like to see how this would compare to a human organization. Suppose individual workers or individual worker-interactions are all highly faithful in a tech company. Naturally, though, the entire tech company will begin exhibiting misalignment, tend towards blind profit seeking, etc. Despite the faithfulness of its individual parts.
Is that the kind of situation you're thinking of here? Is that why having mind-reading equipment that forced all the workers to dump their inner monologue wouldn't actually be of much use towards aligning the overall system, because the real problem is something like the aggregate or "emergent" behavior of the system, rather than the faithfulness of the individual parts?
What do you mean by "over the world"? Are you including human coordination problems in this?
Did you end up writing the list of interventions? I'd like to try some of them. (I also don't want to commit to doing 3 hours a day for two weeks until I know what the interventions are.)
It's very surprising to me that he would think there's a real chance of all humans collectively deciding to not build AGI, and successfully enforcing the ban indefinitely.
Patternism is usually defined as a belief about the metaphysics of consciousness, but that boils down to incoherence, so it's better defined as a property of a utility function of agents not minding being subjected to major discontinuities in functionality, ie, being frozen, deconstructed, reduced to a pattern of information, reconstructed in another time and place, and resumed.
That still sounds like a metaphysical belief, and less empirical since consciousness experience isn't involved in it (instead it sounds like it's just about personal identity).
1Any suggestions for password management?
Because it's an individualized approach that is a WIP and if I just write it down 99% of people will execute it badly.
Why is that a problem? Do you mean this in the sense of "if I do this, it will lead to people making false claims that my experiment doesn't replicate" or "if I do this, nothing good will come of it so it's not even worth the effort of writing".
I'm confused whether:
- the point of this article is that the IQ tests are broken, because some trivial life improvements (like doing yoga and eating blueberries) will raise your IQ score or whether:
- the point of this article is that you actually raised your "g" by doing trivial life improvements, and we should be excited by how easy it is to become more intelligent
Skimming it again I'm pretty sure you mean (2).
The existence of God and Free Will feel like religious problems that philosophers took interest in, and good riddance to them.
Whether the experience of suffering/pain is fictional or not is a hot topic in some circles, but both sides are quite insistent about being good church-going "materialists" (whatever that means).
As for "knowledge", I agree that question falls apart into a million little subproblems. But it took the work of analytic philosophers to pull it apart, and after much labor. You're currently reaping the rewards of that work and the simplicity of hindsight.