bdelloidea
18
6
bdelloidea has not written any posts yet.
bdelloidea has not written any posts yet.
Starting your introduction with
A few million years ago, something very strange happened.
seems likely to turn away roughly 40% of the US population, along with any leaders who need the goodwill of that 40% to keep their positions.
The point I understand you to be making (tripling the brain size of a chimp gives more than triple the impact) could be easily made without this sentence to introduce it. Given the importance of the US in addressing the existential threat of AI, and assuming one of the goals of this article is to be a general call to action, potentially alienating nearly half the target audience seems counterproductive.
This definitely helps clarify, thank you very much. I suspect it will take me some time to fully understand your ideas, but my current best stab at a (probably overcompressed) summary would be:
... (read more)Our usual state of mind consists of experiencing a profusion of thoughts and inner sensations. These thoughts interact with each other, and generate further thoughts. We may experience a causal connection between thoughts, leading to the experience of “trains of thought”. This experience of causal connection may or may not accurately reflect the causal process giving rise to the thoughts. Individual thoughts or trains of thought compete for attention. It is this welter of activity that is Noise.
The absence of
Yes, this feels much clearer now, thank you.
Really enjoyed this article! Your comment here was also helpful, but left me with a couple questions.
The concept of goals gets pretty slippery as you do this because being takes precedence over doing.
How do you see motivation working once you start abandoning the concept of goals?
What if something you "terminally" desire in the world isn't a fit for reality? Would you rather discover that and grieve, or not look and keep trying?
Could you give a specific example of a terminal value failing to fit reality, and what abandoning it/changing it to fit reality would look like?
I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what an answer of "such a probability does not exist" means in this context. Assuming we both were subjected to the same experiment, but I then assigned a 50% probability to being the Original, how would our future behaviour differ? In what concrete scenario (other than answering questions about the probability we were the Original) would you predict us to act differently as a result of this specific difference in belief?
Thingspace is a set of points, in the example
(Sunny, Cool, Weekday)is a point.Conceptspace is a set of sets of points from Thingspace, so
{ (Sunny, Cool, Weekday), (Sunny, Cool, Weekend) }is a concept.In general, if your Thingspace has
npoints, the corresponding Conceptspace will have2^nconcepts. To keep things a little simpler, let's use a smaller Thingspace with only four points, which we'll just label with numbers:{1, 2, 3, 4}. So{1}would be a concept, as would{1,2}and{2, 4}.Some concepts include others:
{1}is a subset of{1, 2}, capturing the idea of one concept being an abstraction (superset) of another.This makes Conceptspace a... (read more)