From the inside, we really didn't have the clarity to see what we were repressing. The reason the inversion worked was that it didn't require us to actually know what all was being hidden away. That also makes inversion a fairly risky and high-variance strategy, because we had no idea what the person who came out of that inversion was going to be like, or what they would be willing to do. We just knew that what we were doing wasn't working, and while you can't invert stupidity to get intelligence, you can invert your way out of a morality trap you set for ... (read more)
If I had to propose a model for this here, it's something like:Ziz believes in the power of what you might call "Woke Twitter Leftism" as a force that will one day come to completely dominate society and sees her own ideological principles as the natural evolution/convergence point of those ideas. If you're a Woke Twitter Leftist and you legitimately believe the principles of Woke Twitter Leftism in your soul, you'll naturally come to embrace her ethical positions over time. She thinks that since "Cthulu swims left" her faction will gradually grow to domin... (read more)
In case anyone is confused, I temporarily pulled this post to make some minor edits and when I re-published it on my blog it created a duplicate post here on LW. That post was up for a few hours before I realized what happened, did the edits on the LW version of the original post, and moved the repost into my drafts. I copied over all the comments from the repost into this thread except for the ones asking why there was the repost and everything should be fixed now.
Pattern Replied:'How do you know X isn't lying' is an isolated demand for rigor.Raven Replied to Pattern:I don't think so, ziz kind of has a reputation as a manipulator and lying tends to go hand in hand with that. It seems like a reasonable question to me.
Pattern Replied:How does one go about making everyone vegan?
When I get home from work I'm going to fix the original post and delete this one, so this will just be up temporarily, if anyone makes new comments that aren't reposts from the old thread I'll copy them over before deleting.
That was an accident that has to do with the way it parses updates from WordPress. I had been asked to modify a few things for privacy protection so I moved the post on WordPress to private and moved the post here to my drafts pending edits, I edited the WordPress file on a break at work and moved it back to public and that apparently caused the LW RSS crawler to repost it.
I actually ran directly into this after I'd been on soylent for about a month and a half. I found myself feeling consistently awful in a way that had slowly built over time and when I bought myself something to eat that wasn't soylent I felt so much immensely better I just started crying in relief and from that I pretty much immediately knew I had done something to mess up my diet. I backed off the soylent pretty substantially after that.
Not all filk is derived from existing folk songs, filk just means "science fiction folk" as far as I know.
I strongly disagree.
As long as we can include a link back to the original blog post, sure.
I was considering something like a bike 'assistance'
A bike is a form of mechanical leverage assistance that allows us to reach speeds we would not otherwise be able to with the human body. Similarly, hang glider wings and the like are a form of mechanical leverage that allows us to fly when we would not otherwise be able to with the human body. Humans are kind of pathetic without technology, we can't do so much as push a nail into a piece of wood without some form of mechanical assistance.
I can see the basis of arguments that ethics could not be solved with hard science, I disagree with them but they at least have some basis. But psychology? Really? Are human beings not part of reality? Are human brains just magical boxes beyond our mortal comprehension? The hard problems of consciousness will be solved eventually. Cognitive neuroscience is making strong strides. Once we have a map of the connectome we'll be well on our way to really understanding how brains work. Psychology should absolutely be treated as a hard science.
" it's obvious that designing a society also involves solving questions outside the hard sciences"
these questions should not be outside the hard sciences, that's the point Alfred Korzybski was making all the way back in 1921. There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to treat ethics and psychology like hard sciences.
I'm actually working on a post for that, but writing it has been rather hard.
Not since I've updated around keeping my identity small. I intend to but my writing queue is quite long at this point.
These are sufficiently good questions that I want to research them and I'll get back to you.
I think what I'm describing here is a bit more advanced in terms of internal rearrangement than "simple mental parts"
There's two ways to do tulpas. There's the right way, and the way most people do it.
The right way is to do it from a place of noself/keeping your identity small. Don't treat your tulpa like a separate person any more than you would treat your internal sense of self like a separate person. Treat them like a handle for manipulating and interacting with a particular module/thought structure/part of your mind, taking unconscious and automatic things and shining a bit of Sys2 light on them. Basically using the tulpa as a label for a particular t... (read more)
Did I actually do the right thing here? I honestly couldn’t tell you. There’s certainly an argument that could be made that I didn’t fully think through the consequences of my actions or what effect they would have on me. There’s also an argument that could be made that my defiance was rather pointless since the olive bar is still open, and if I was going to do something that crazy, I should have saved it for when I knew it would make a difference.
The problem is that barring near-omniscience you can’t really kno... (read more)
Yeah I'll PM it to you, I didn't want to list it on the blog because it has my legal name attached to it.
Shorter definitely seems better. Ideally I think there'd be a version that was less than a hundred pages. Something as short and concise as possible. Do we really need to list every cognitive bias to explain rationality? How much is really necessary and how much can be cut?
Thank you so much for pointing this out, this is what I get for skimping on research in places, the next drafts of this post will be edited to change this.
My blog is about the only thing I have going for me at the moment, so I'd really prefer to keep my essays on my own site where I could theoretically make a little money off of them.
There is presently no list of posts by date, however the sidebar should have all of the essays (aside from the two most recent ones I haven't added yet).
It's worth noting as well, a lot of my older posts aren't very good and a lot of them I don't fully endorse anymore. Sometime over the next few months I intend to go through and do a review of all my old content, find everything I no longer endorse and indicate that I've updated away from it. For now though, just be aware that everything from before the summer of 2018 is not going to be as good as the stuff that comes later, since that was prior to my major identity death and rebirth event.
Sure! I'd be willing to do that.
How would I set that up, and is there anything I would need to change retroactively?
There have been a bunch of different potential names thrown around for this phenomena, and narrativemancy always seemed like the weakest contender out of them. The Thing definitely involves narratives, don't get me wrong, but narrativemancy is just...unaesthetic, and I feel like it misses something? I generally refer to this idea as metamancy. I do also feel as if your approach, while solid, tends to overgeneralize, and there are times where it is instrumentally useful to temporarily believe in things that don't cleave to reality at all.
Oh hey look. Also, we have an account here now, wew.