All of hunterglenn's Comments + Replies

I'm looking for a rationalist-adjacent blog post about someone doing anti-meditative exercises. They didn't like the results of their meditation practice, so they were doing exercises to see things as separate and dual and categorized and that kind of thing.

1the gears to ascension4mo
categorization is good but soul duality is more accurately described as movement versus shape rather than consciousness versus substrate.
There's some advice in this thread [] on Dharma Overground:
I'd be interested in reading that. Second-hand anecdote: I heard from someone that a spiritual teacher of theirs suggested as a meditation exercise to take some ordinary object in one's hand, say a mug, and contemplate the simple truth [] that "this is a mug". He recommended it as an antidote to floating off to woo-woo land. The link is anachronistic, this was long before LessWrong existed.

Maybe we should see if, out of the population of those that need to coordinate, we can convince several of them to try to pair up and coorindate with one other in the same population. It's a small start, but it's a start

What are those risks? Or if you can't say, how did you come to know about them?

The "Wife" can refer to one's years AS a wife or one's years of HAVING a wife

I'm finding lots of useful stuff in this. Trying it out now, thank you!

Thank you for your post, it's great to see people getting excited about TEAM therapy and you are rekindling my interest in it! I was listening to many episodes of this podcast as well, and I bought Dr. Burns's new book, Feeling Great. 

However, I've been having trouble finding a comprehensive anatomy of a standard therapy session. Have you come across anything like that, which shows step-by-step a session from beginning to end?

I'm glad I managed to rekindle your interest in TEAM therapy! Unless you have heard them already, I think the first 15-20 episodes give a pretty good overview of the structure and motivation of TEAM. The episodes with Mark, 29-35, also provide quite a good breakdown of the structure, since they stop and comment on each section before proceeding.

Isn't this just "Humans are adaptation-executors, not utility-maximizers", but applied to AI to say that an AI using heuristics that successfully hit a target in environment X may not continue that target if the environment changes?

What's that SSC post where Scott talks about how he didn't think he terminally valued punishment, but then he was able to think of some sufficiently bad actions, and then he felt what seemed like a terminal value for the punishment of the bad actors?

I went through the titles of his posts over the last year and googled around a bit, but couldn't find it.

The Whole City is Center []:

Litany of Gendlin

"What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.

"And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it."

There are a few problems with the litanies, but in this case, it's just embarrassing. We have a straightforward equivocation fallacy here, no frills, no subtle twists. Just unclear thinking.

People are already enduring the... (read more)

Yeah, I get annoyed by the false equivalence in the litany of gendlin too. It steps you through a sometimes-useful reasoning process but stealths over its most contentious assumption: that knowledge can cause only positive or at worst no change in your ability to improve the situation. Info hazards totally exist. Note that you're also making a reasoning error too, in your examples. Deciding whether it's worth arguing with someone is not actually the same question as whether they would be better off believing something else. Telling or persuading someone of the truth is a particular action under your consideration, which may lead to them changing beliefs. It's not the same thing as them seeking an honest understanding. Of all the actions you could take to help a person in those mentioned straits, it's not a very efficient one; I'd feel compelled to slap anyone who wasted the opportunity cost like that. See also Raemon's post on this subject: link to issues with gendlin post []
Your examples are mostly cases where 1 doesn't exactly hold, so 2 not following in those scenarios doesn't seem like an invalidation. (If someone argues "If A is true then B is true." and you argue that 'there are cases where A isn't true that B isn't true' that doesn't really address the argument.) (1) A conjecture is "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". On what basis is this a conclusion based on information? (In context if you said it was an incorrect statement that would make sense. Claims about the process by which it was generated require evidence, and are beside the point, which is whether it is correct or incorrect.) (2) What fallacy? (3) You have already stated there is evidence - narrow enough it does not fit the conclusion in full, but that is different from "no evidence for". (Unless you think there's no evidence for gravity.) (4) Most of your "disproofs" are the same. Aside from its logic, you are arguing as if some divine authority might force the truth upon everyone if we accept this Litany, or some diabolical force might do so only in the worst possible cases. The Litany does not say that seeking out all knowledge should be your first priority - you would die of starvation before proving the primality (or compositeness) of every positive integer.

There are two kinds of great writing.

One is the type where as you work your way through its palatial paragraphs, you find yourself thinking and feeling over and over, "Wow, this is great writing."
Interestingly, the simultaneous sentiment seems always to be "Wow, I read really great writing," which comes accompanied with the sensual pleasure that the beautiful enjoy in mirrors. The pleasure in having arrayed before you the evidence of your greatness. That alone justifies a mirror, and it justifies reading the kind of writing that proves ... (read more)

I'm curious, do you have examples in mind of each?

When you are in a situation, there are too many true facts about that situation for you to think about all of them at the same time. Whether you do it on purpose or not, you will inevitably end up thinking about some truths more than others.

From a truth measure, this is fine, so long as you stick to true statements. From a truth perspective, you could also change which true facts you are thinking about, without sacrificing any truth. Truth doesn't care.

But happiness cares, and utility cares. Which truths you happen to focus on may not affect how true ... (read more)

This was a beautiful read, thank you hunterglenn []. Much of what you wrote I hold really close. Truths which are at the forefront of my mind. Once you get rid of falsehoods; you need to move on to choose truths. That is an awesome thing everyone should feel. That's how deep the rabbit hole goes, deep truth hides in that; the nihilism, the ‘nada’ is easy to have! Not worth it.