All of ingive's Comments + Replies

Open thread, May 15 - May 21, 2017

Eating tasteless food might be useful in weight loss and health. Vegetables usually have phytonutrients, which evolved to be for example insect repellents. However many of these phytonutrients have, for example, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory mechanisms in our body, Sapiens. Like Curcumin and Sulforaphane. Since IQ goes down by age, though crystallized not so much, it might be worthwhile to try and include these foods. Curcumin can pass the blood brain barrier in certain instances.

You've read this? It's long, but if you CTRL+F for "taste" you'll ... (read more)

Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017

I'm not sure if intelligence and consciousness are one and the same thing, and with your words, consciousness/intelligence is information processing. If you conclude that intelligence is information processing, then this might be an aspect of the body, an attribute, in roughly the same way as consciousness. Then that aspect of the body is evolving in machines, called artificial intelligence, independent of conscious experience.

Consciousness has such a wide variety of states, whether it be mystical, religious experiences, persistent non-symbolic experiences... (read more)

Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017

Important insight which LessWrong can comment on: link

To me, it's a very concise summary of what we all know yet stupidly enough, ignore because of irrational societies and educational systems. I'm not saying that I am taking it in. That would be the equal excuse as of any other. What do you think?

1MrMind5y
My 2 cents: it's a heap of unproved assumptions, told as if they were Reality 101. It's very clear that it was written with an aim in mind, it meanders and misinterprets until it arrives at the desired conclusion. It's very far from an honest discussion of fundamentals.
Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017

As an intervention, I suppose by the number of applicants. It's was mostly about changing one's essence or awareness rather than it changing itself by taking action, being responsible and not making excuses. Of course, 'clickers' can still apply but this is the new stuff, regarding non-clickers.

Bachir is taking application calls publicly and it's pretty fun (Here's a Scientology mention). https://www.twitch.tv/videos/127066455?t=01h07m10s

I'm thinking about applying in the future. First I am going to read the Sequences, deepen my practice of meditation, etc.

Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017

MrMind now 'the singularity group' has changed focus, rather than making people change their awareness and thus do EA actions, they instead ask to do the right EA action in every single moment. So people who are interested can apply and go over, meditate, exercise work etc according to a schedule until the right action disciplined has transitioned to the EA awareness. I think 12 hours of work a day (of course not physical labor).

The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective. They are also going to go ar... (read more)

2ChristianKl5y
What kind of evidence did convince them that the clicking stuff isn't effective? How did the decision process look like?
2MrMind5y
Nope. My speculation was: It was an easy prediction.
6Lumifer5y
You mean they weren't sufficiently cultish, so they fixed that?
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

Yes, you are right on the point. I wanted to ask:

"If many forecasts say the probability is 80% that A will win, 20% that B will win, why do they say the forecasts were wrong if B wins?"

Wrong implies bivalence, binary thinking, duality: it implies right. A probability cannot be binary, it's infinite. My brain has a hard time understanding why it's reasonable... Kind of Orwellian.

So to my point. Forecasts were only wrong if they say A will win, but B wins. Is this not correct? Stating 80% in hindsight is equal to stating 0%, and even before that it's 0% or 100% or it's void, nothing, of no substance...

0Lumifer5y
Well, think about it this way. You have a certain stable process that generates forecasts. You generate a forecast: 80% for A, 20% for B. B happens. You generate another forecast: 80% for C, 20% for D. D happens. You generate another forecast... If events that you forecast at 20% keep happening and events you forecast at 80% keep not happening, how many forecasts do you need to recognize that your forecast-generating process is wrong?
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

This is a stupid question, but if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

Would an accurate prediction be "100% that B will win"? If they say 99% they are losers either way. I really do not understand. Maybe I have a tumor and it's impacting my cognition, haha.

0Lumifer5y
If that's a single someone, saying "he was wrong" is not quite correct. However if a hundred someones gave these probabilities, it would be reasonable to say "forecasts were wrong" (note the plural).
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

Yes, you are right. I'm sorry. The weight loss per day slows down over time. I wish I knew math so I could say what that curve is.

2HungryHippo5y
Under the assumption that your daily energy expenditure is a constant proportional to your bodyweight, the resulting curve is similar to exponential decay, ~exp(-c*t). Think radioactive material, except that instead of decaying all the way towards zero atoms, one's weightloss would stop at a bodyweight consistent with an energy expenditure equal to the energy input from the diet. Note that this is a pretty bold assumption with many caveats.
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

If you want to be serious, buy a food scale and measure all of your food and eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight and then maintain. This means you'll have to keep it up forever. You can eat whatever you want as long as you hit the target. Processed food that has nutrition labels are also applicable to this method. In regards to not eat more, it depends where you eat. At home, you cook the amount you need, in processed restaurants with nutrition labels you order as much as you need.

Forget buffets ... (read more)

0MrMind5y
Such method is for me unfeasible, it would mean basically retire from social life: I eat at home 3 times a week on average.
4Lumifer5y
This is not true.
Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017

My wishing for the world is intellectual masturbation, so my practical actions in this consensus reality matter the most (instrumental rationality). But if thinking stops (epistemic rationality by persistent non-symbolic experiences) I do not care in a sense, I go insane in relation to the consensus reality but sane to the non-symbolic way of being.

So the way to solve this is to have a good system to remember me of my chores, goals, and choices which we would call rationality in the consensus reality. Otherwise, I might simply no longer be efficient from w... (read more)

0Strangeattractor5y
You say "intellectual masturbation" like it's a bad thing. :)
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

Meditation is supposed to be fun, something you do practice being here and now. That doesn't mean you can't meditate while using the computer or other activities. In fact, when meditators are asked to start meditating while scientists are doing an MRI scan, they might laugh that -they are always meditating-.

But nonetheless, a hypertrophied muscle from exercise is used in daily life, so the spurt of activity to induce the change is necessary. Have a groove with the now - that's the point. Observe your thinking, do not run with every thought, return to the b... (read more)

Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

MrMind, and the LessWrong community, it seems as I was wrong on many things as you said, by hearing more about the productivity of the people at the house. I'm not sure if you have yet started to compile information on it.

I admit that I was wrong in my prediction and that 'what is' 'ought to be' seems to yet be unresolved and that the group does have some cultish behavior. The leader is very charismatic and made some very bold predictions. What I thought then was that I had discovered the ultimate key to human behavior, that everyone could be quantified do... (read more)

0Viliam5y
Much respect for being able to update on a topic that obviously means so much to you. Also, thanks for sharing the news.
0MrMind5y
I don't like the word cult, having had some direct and indirect experiences I know how much things can become impacting, so I won't use the word in the context of the community you're talking about. That said, most of the pseudoscientific groups that coalesce around a charismatic figure undergo, sooner or later, an evaporative cooling. This is a term first applied to communities by Yudkowsky, intended to mean that whenever reality disproves the leader, some member will leave, but the most fervent follower will remain with stronger beliefs. The more life disproves the common core identity of the group, the more those remain will be hardened into believing it despite all the contrary evidence. It has happened for your group much sooner than I anticipated, but still I salute your spark of scepticism.
Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017

What about an hour meditation and 30 min in assistance of this practice? If you have time, watch this video about self-inquiry I'm sorry there is no transcript available.

Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017

I've had the overall impression that the older you become the stronger you hold your beliefs, a metaphor can be the hardening of neural networks. I am making a relation right now between that and the part of the personality known as 'openness' which according to Roland R. Griffiths decrease as people become older.

“Normally, if anything, openness tends to decrease as people get older,” says study leader Roland R. Griffiths, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org... (read more)

Stupidity as a mental illness

Non-iodized sea salt is trendy everywhere, I blame partly the TV cooks using it in the iconic "grab a pinch"-fashion. I'm not sure sea salt should be mandatory iodized, but areas affected more by IQ loss probably eat processed food which is iodized anyway compared to the new age health crowd.

There are a lot of other interventions worthwhile alongside pushing iodized sea salt to 'new health' crowds, like breastfeeding and peaceful parenting. The latter two probably more important in certain areas.

2Elo5y
It's okay, in Australia we have iodine in bread and used to be milk too.
Stupidity as a mental illness

Rather than forcing people to undergo an alteration of, for example, their genes, you can simply make it a requirement to receiving funding. For example in welfare states (or in a libertarian society, private charities). Other enhancements can be done in a similar fashion, or voluntarily obviously.

If you heap scorn on 'stupid' people or by attribute whatsoever, it's great to note the cause, many times it is probably psychological projection with an underlying anxiety of not being up to part to one's standards.

Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017

You seem to imply that my comment is a cost but not to which extent. I acknowledge that I am not a writer which is able to facilitate this to you in the LW-lingo and better English. But, it also matters to a cost to what and benefit to who? I'm not writing with my brain wired from the perspective of the community of lesswrong. But, frankly, I have seen it very strongly in its users like you. It might seem like I am confronting you but then I offer you the opportunity to see it in another way.

The way which is bigger than all of us and epistemic/instrumental... (read more)

0Luke_A_Somers5y
Your first sentence, for example, has a lot of parts, and uses terms in unusual ways, and there are multiple possible interpretations of several parts. The end effect is that we don't know what you're saying. I suspect that what you're saying could make sense if presented more clearly, and it would not seem deep or mysterious. This would be a feature, not a bug.
Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017

There is a lot of wishing with what I wish for the world, so then I understand that the best option for me is to figure out the best course action over my lifetime, as that's what I have access to (indirectly via bandwidth to a keyboard-computer-internet-etc-you) but at the same time disconnecting from this belief. Because wishing isn't the best option, neither is the best course of action. Realizing that it's useful practically sometimes to attach to thinking, but not for the majority of the time. (p.s I made an excuse for my attachment to my thinking lol... (read more)

8gjm5y
In case anyone's wondering what we lost by turning off downvotes: We lost the ability to downvote this sort of stuff into oblivion. (Still a net-positive tradeoff, I think, but certainly far from cost-free.)
Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017

I'm sorry if I don't understand, but multiplying my debt with a greater debt leads to no debt. It is true as the mathematics show. If we say to the bank, check account A debt and multiply with account B debt, account A will have no debt. It is independent on how you want to phrase it.

What does each operation in your equation represent? "Removing two $2 debts is equal to adding $4"

It is true because the mathematics has to stay consistent, it is based on primordial choices. That's my point, we choose it this way.

There are elements of math and sym

... (read more)
3Viliam5y
You keep ignoring the issue of units. Multiplying dollars by dollars would lead to square dollars, which is a mistake (and not just because dollars are actually rectangular in shape). It is "-2 × $-2", not "$-2 × $-2". Money are not multiplied by money. Money are mutliplied by... number of accounts, or number of repetitions, or other dimensionless numbers.
Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017

And -2 * $-1 = $-2, yes.

I think you meant (-2 * -1 = $2) I meant, multiply by a negative count of debt and not itself. So a debt multiplied by a negative count of debts leads to no debt at all, a positive. I'm not sure how you can have a negative count of debts.

$2 debt squared does make sense, though, it is $4 and no debt. So by our mathematics, I could call the bank and ask them to multiply my debt with yours, I would return a positive.

The point I am making is that we've made it this way because have chosen to. It says to me that mathematics is more ... (read more)

3roystgnr5y
No, it is $$4. If that's what you meant to write, and it's also obvious to you that you could have written 40000¢¢ instead and still been completely accurate, then I'd love to know if you have any ideas of how this computation could map to anything in the real world. I would have thought that "kilogram meters squared per second cubed" was utter nonsense if anyone had just tried to show me the arithmetic without explaining what it really meant. If that's not what you meant to write, or if it takes a second to figure out why $$4 isn't 400¢¢ instead of 40000¢¢, then you've just got the illusion of sense going on. And yes, I just noticed that pun and it wasn't intentional.
0Dagon5y
thanks, corrected. A negative count maps well into my understanding of physical reality. Positive count is adding multiple similar things, negative count is removing those things. Removing 2 debts is the same as adding 2 of the values of the debts. Thus -2 * $-2 = $4. Removing two $2 debts is equal to adding $4. There are elements of math and symbolic reasoning that don't map to reality, fine. But those parts which DO map well, are pretty strong, and are empirically correct in addition to being symbolically/conventionally well-formed. Mathematics is a mental creation, but that doesn't make it unrelated to reality - it's a pretty good and well-tested model of our universe. As to that picture, the water goes neither up nor down - it's a still drawing.
Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017

Consistency in Arithmetic

Double the debt: 2 -1 = -2 *Ok

But: -2 -1 = 2 *Ok?

Who will allow you to multiple your debt with another's debt to get rid of it?

2 -1 + -2 - 1 = (2 - 2) -1 = 0 -1 = 0

But...

2 -1 + -2 -1 = -2 + -2 * -1 = 0

Therefore...

-2 * -1 = 2

Ian Stewart, Professor Stewart’s Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities, Profile Books, 2008, pages 37-38;

So mathematics is mentally-created, it looks objective because of primordial choices we have made? As a form of a subconscious of the Species and we've created computers because we think that way ... (read more)

9Dagon5y
Units would help a lot in your debt example. 2 $-1 = $2, two instances of $1 debt is $2 of debt. The multiplier and multiplicands are DIFFERENT - the multiplicand is dollars of debt and the multiplier is a count of debts. And -2 $-1 = $2, yes. If you have negative two debts of $1 (that is, you remove two of them), you have a net of positive $2. Never do you multiply a debt by another debt - that would give you square dollars, which makes no sense. edit: fix typo
Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

Maybe it was DID in the original studies. Consciousness is certainly an interesting phenomenon.

Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

That's interesting. You haven't simply pointed out my errors in my thought processes. I have yet to see you simply point them out, rather than arguing with assumptions that I can refute with basic reasoning. It's cute that you, for example, assume I don't have an answer to your hypothetical scenarios because I simply point out that it's a waste of time. Hypotheticals are intellectual entertainment. But it might've been a better choice to answer your questions from the mindset I was speculating of.

I just watched The Master which was an aesthetically pleasin... (read more)

Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

What?

Because Hume thought the universe is without taking in consideration that it ought to be different because of probabilistic nature (one interpretation) of it all.

Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

Not sure what this means. If "Just align with reality!" is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn't return answers to ethical questions, it is useless.

It does return answers for ethical questions. In fact I think it will for all.

Naw, we're naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely d

... (read more)
2moridinamael5y
ingive, I made it an experiment this last few days to interact with you much more than I would normally be inclined to. I had previously noticed my own tendency to disengage with people online when I suspected that my interactions with them would not lead anywhere useful. I thought there was a possibility that my default tendency was to disengage prematurely, and that I might be missing out on opportunities to learn, or test myself in various other ways. What I have learned is that my initial instinct to not engage with you was correct, and that my initial impression of you as essentially a member of a cult was accurate. I had thought there was a chance that I was missing something, or failing that, there was a chance that I could actually break through to you by simply pointing out the errors in your thought processes. I thought maybe I could spare you some confusion and pain in your life. I think that neither of those outcomes have come to pass. All I've learned is that I should trust my instincts and remain reserved and cautious in my online persona.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream "oops!" and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard.

I'm glad that it's clarified, indeed it relies on the universe not being deterministic. However, I do think that a belief in a deterministic universe has an easier time for its agents to go against their utility so my philosophy might boil down more to one's emotions, probably what eve... (read more)

1moridinamael5y
Not sure what this means. If "Just align with reality!" is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn't return answers to ethical questions, it is useless. Naw, we're naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely doesn't require "clicking". Sufficiently wealthy and secure 21st century Westerners sometimes conclude that they should try to alleviate the suffering of others, for a complex variety of reasons. This also doesn't require or "clicking". By the way, you seem to have surrendered on several key points along the way without acknowledging or perhaps realizing it. I think it might be time for you to consider whether your position is worth arguing for at all.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
  1. With that interpretation, not Copenhagen. I'm unsure, because inherently, can we really be certain of absolutes because of our lack of understanding of the human brain? I think that how memory storage and how the brain works shows us that we can't be certain of our own knowledge.

  2. If you are right with that the universe is deterministic then what ought to be is what is. But if you ought to do the opposite from what 'is' tell us, what are you doing then? You are not allowed to have a goal which is not aligned with what is because that goes against what yo

... (read more)
1moridinamael5y
If reasonable people can disagree regarding Copenhagen vs. Many Worlds, then reasonable people can disagree on whether the universe is deterministic. In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream "oops!" and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard. Also: How could 'is' ever tell you what to do? An innocent is murdered. That 'is'. So it's okay? You learn that an innocent is going to be murdered. That 'is', so what force compels you to intervene? The universe is full of suffering. That 'is'. So you ought to spread and cause suffering? If not, what is your basis for saying so?
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

If someone wins the Nobel prize you heard it here first.

The is-ought problem implies that the universe is deterministic, which is incorrect, it's an infinite range of possibilities or probabilities which are consistent but can never be certain. Humes beliefs about is-ought came from his own understanding of his emotions and those around him's emotions. He correctly presumed that it is what drives us and that logic and rationality could not (thus not ought to be in any way because things are) and thought the universe is deterministic (without the knowledge ... (read more)

0plethora5y
What?
1moridinamael5y
1. The universe is deterministic [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation]. 2. You seem to be misunderstanding is-ought. The point is that you cannot conclude what ought to be, or what you ought to do, from what is. You can conclude what you ought to do in order to achieve some specific goal, but you cannot infer "evolutionary biology, therefor effective altruism". You are inserting your own predisposition into that chain and pretending it is a logical consequence.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

I think then you should ask what can you do about it (or do the most effective action).

2chaosmage5y
You could give this answer to literally anything.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

You're welcome to explain why this isn't the case. I'm thinking mostly about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. It tells us everything.

1moridinamael5y
Is-ought divide [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]. If you have solved this problem, mainstream philosophy wants to know.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

I agree. Now I'd like the password for username2.

You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.

-niceguyanon

0username25y
The password is a Schelling point, the most likely candidate for an account named 'username'. Consider it a right of passage to guess... (and don't post it when you discover it).
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

It's unlikely that it's not the same person, or people on average utilize shared accounts to try and share their suffering (by that I mean have a specific attitude) in a negative way. It would be interesting to compare shared accounts with other accounts by for example IBM Watson personality insights. In a large scale analysis.

I would just ban them from the site. I'd rather see a troll spend time creating new accounts and people noticing the sign-up dates. Relevant: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists

By the way, I was not consciously ... (read more)

0username25y
The username2 account exists for a reason. Anonymous speech does have a role in any free debate, and it is virtuous to protect the ability to speak anonymously.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn't meant for you to take seriously.

Because a few words tell a large story when they also decided it was worth their time to write it. I wrote in my post and explained for example what type of viewpoints it implies and that it's stupid (in the sense inefficient and not aligned with reality).

Probably not at all.

I will update my probabilities then as I gain more feedback.

Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

No, you don't. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You're assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as ph... (read more)

0niceguyanon5y
If I remember correctly username2 is a shared account, so the person are talking to now might not be whom you have had previously conversed with. Just thought you should know because I don't want you to mistake the account with a static person.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

a

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics,

You forgot to say that you think that. But for username 2's point, you had to reiterate that you think.

because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.

That's unfortunate if it is the case if ideas which are outside their echo chamber create such fear, then what I say might be of use in the first place, if we all... (read more)

0niceguyanon5y
What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn't meant for you to take seriously. Probably not at all.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

that's at least on the right side of the is-ought gap.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.

Accepting facts fully is EA/Utilitarian ideas. There is no 'ought' to be. 'leads' was the incorrect word choice.

2plethora5y
No. Accepting facts fully does not lead to utilitarian ideas. This has been a solved problem since Hume, FFS.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

Replace all humans with machines.

Changing human behavior is probably more efficient than to build machines, to align more with reality. It's a question whether a means is a goal for you? If not, you would base your operations on the most effective action, probably changing behavior (because you could change the behavior of one, to equal the impact of your robot building, but probably more). I don't think replacing all humans with machines is a smart idea anyway. Merging biology with technology would be a smarter approach from my view as I deem life to b... (read more)

0niceguyanon5y
Why I think people are not engaging you. But don't take this as a criticism of your ideas or questions. * You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place. * I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short. * Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren't engaging with this question because it's too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won't get many responses.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

Yeah, it's also called 'Enlightenment' in theological traditions. You can read the testimonies here. MrMind has, for example, read them, but he's waiting a bit longer to contact these people on Reddit to see if it sticks around. I think the audio can work really well with a good pair of headphones and playing it as FLAC.

Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

I agree.

These are the steps I did to have identity death: link to steps I also meditated on the 48 min hypnosis track youtube If you are interested in where I got my ideas from and if you want to try it yourself. It's of course up to you but you have a strong identity and ego issues and I think it will help "you"(and me).

0moridinamael5y
You've had people complete these steps and report that the "What will happen after you make the click" section actually happens?
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself.

No, it's not.

Other people want things contrary to what I want.

What does that have to do with helping yourself, thus other people?

Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me.

Yeah, but 'me' is used practically.

The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself.

I said your neural activity includes you and y... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
It doesn't look like there's anywhere to go from here. It looks like you are acknowledging that where your positions are strong, they are not novel, and where they are novel, they are not strong. If you enjoy drawing the boundaries of your self in unusual places or emotionally associating your identity with certain ideas, go for it. Just don't expect anybody else to find those ideas compelling without evidence.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

Indeed, this is true in the sense that it's most likely that this is the case based on the available evidence.

I'm glad that you're aligned with reality on this certain point, there's not many that are, but I wonder, why do you claim that helping others is not helping yourself, excluding practicality of semantics? It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.

But, you claimed earlier that none of this is actually factual would you like to elaborate on that? That these are my interpret... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
Not really, I've been practicing various forms of Buddhist meditation for several years and have pretty low attachment to my identity. This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself. Other people want things contrary to what I want. I am not helping myself if I help them. Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me. The rest of your post, which I'm not going to quote, is just mixing up lots of different things. I'm not sure if you're not aware of it or if you are aware of it and you're trying to obfuscate this discussion, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will untangle the mess. You said: Then I said, Since I have now grasped the source of your confusion with my word choice, I will reengage. You specifically say: This is a pure non sequitur. The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself. Again, if a person wants to kill me, I'm not helping myself if I hand him a gun. If you model human agents the way Dennis Hoffman's character does in I Heart Huckabees you're going to end up repeatedly confused and stymied by reality. This is also just not factual. You're making an outlandish and totally unsupported claim when you say that "emotionally accepting reality" causes the annihilation of the self. The only known things that can make the identity and self vanish are * high dose psychotropic compounds * extremely long and intense meditation of particular forms that do not look much like what you're talking about and even these are only true for certain circumscribed senses of the word "self". So let's review: I don't object to the naturalistic philosophy that you seem to enjoy. That's all cool and good. We're all about naturalistic science around here. The problem is statements like and These are pseudo-religious woo, not supported by science anywh
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense"

In a technical sense.

"but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."

The relevant sense here is your emotions.

Technically you understand that self and environment is one and the same, but you don't emotionally resonate with that idea [you don't emotionally resonate with facts].

Otherwise, what do you mean with:

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
Thanks, this is clarifying. You're reading way too much into word choice things and projecting onto me a mentality that I don't hold. Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true. This is also true. Whether or not that particular atom is there or is magically whisked away, it's not going to change where I decide to eat lunch today. The activity of that atom is not relevant to my decision making process. That's it. What part of this is supposed to be in error?
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

You say you're not, yet you're contradicting your previous statement where scientific facts are irrelevant to your other senses [emotions]. Which you completely omitted in responding to. Please explain. Is it a blind spot?

This is just not a very interesting or useful line of thinking.

I'm unsure why accepting facts to the extent where falsehoods by other senses are overwritten, is uninteresting or not useful.

I (and most people on this forum) already try to live as rationalists, and where your proposal implies any deviation in from that framework, you

... (read more)
0moridinamael5y
Where did I say scientific facts are irrelevant to my emotions? Please remind me or re-highlight where this flaw/contradiction happened. I did not notice you pointing it out before and cannot ascertain what you're referring to. I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but I suspect that you don't. Your thinking is not clear. By using different words, you will force yourself to interrogate your own understanding of what you're putting forth. Is this what you're talking about where you say I'm making an error in reasoning? If so it seems like you just misunderstood me. The gravitational pull of a distant atom is causally present but practically irrelevant to any conceivable choice that I make. This is not a statement that I feel is particularly controversial. It is obviously true.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

What am I supposedly believing that is false, that is contradicted by science? What specific scientific findings are you implying that I have got wrong?

This is what you said:

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."

You're believing that you and your environment are separate based on "relevant" senses. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to your some of your senses, it is technical. If... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
No, I'm not. This is just not a very interesting or useful line of thinking. I (and most people on this forum) already try to live as rationalists [http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/], and where your proposal implies any deviation in from that framework, your deviations are inferior to simply doing what we are already doing. Furthermore, you consistently rely on buzzwords of your own invention ("aligning with reality", "emotionally submitting") which greatly inhibit your attempts at clarifying what you're trying to say. Perhaps if you read the essays as I suggest, you could provide substantive criticisms/improvements that did not rely on your own idiosyncratic terminology.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

Science does not actually know how emotions work to the degree of accuracy you are implying. Your statement that using emotional commitment rather than Bayesian epistemology leads to better alignment with reality is a hypothesis that you believe, not a fact that has been proven. If you become a very successful person by following the prescription you advocate, that would be evidence in favor of your hypothesis, but even that would not be very strong evidence by itself.

I don't know, that's why I wanted to raise an investigation into it, but empirically y... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
There is a narrow technical sense in which my actions are dependent on the gravitational pull of some particular atom in a random star in a distant galaxy. That atom is having a physical effect on me. This is true and indisputable. In a more relevant sense, that atom is not having any effect on me that I should bother with considering. If a magical genie intervened and screened off the gravitational field of that atom, it would change none of my choices in any way that could be observed. What am I supposedly believing that is false, that is contradicted by science? What specific scientific findings are you implying that I have got wrong? ... Let me back way up. You are saying a lot of really uncontroversial things that nobody here particularly cares to argue about, like "Occam's razor is good" and "we are not causally separate from the universe at large" and "living life as a human requires a constant balancing and negotiation between the emotional/sensing/feeling and rational/deliberative/calculating parts of the human mind". These ideas are all old hat around here. They go all the way back to Eliezer's original essays, and he got those ideas from much older sources. Then you're jumping forward and making quasi-religious statements about "aligning with reality" and "emotionally submitting" and talking about how your "sense of self disappears". All that stuff is your own unsupported extrapolations. This is the reason you're having trouble communicating here.
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

I should only "submit" to any particular belief in accordance with my assessment of its likelihood, and can never justify submitting to some belief 100%. Indeed, doing so would be a form of irrational fundamentalism.

Not necessarily, because the submitting is a means rather than the goal, and you will always never be certain. It's important to recognize empirically how your emotions work in contrary to a Bayesian epistemology, how using its mechanisms paradoxically lead to something which is more aligned with reality. It's not done with Bayesia... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
Science does not actually know how emotions work to the degree of accuracy you are implying. Your statement that using emotional commitment rather than Bayesian epistemology leads to better alignment with reality is a hypothesis that you believe, not a fact that has been proven. If you become a very successful person by following the prescription you advocate, that would be evidence in favor of your hypothesis, but even that would not be very strong evidence by itself. I am not sure what you're saying here. "Cognitive dissonance" is not the same thing as observing that a phenomenon can be framed in two different mutually contradictory ways. I do not have an experience of dissonance when I say, "From one point of view we're inseparable from the universe, from a different point of view we can be considered independent agents." These are merely different interpretative paradigms and neither are right or wrong. I am trying to say nicely that Eliezer's writings comprehensively invalidate what you're saying. The reason you're getting pushback from Less Wrong is that we collectively see the mistakes that you're making because we have a shared bag of epistemic tools that are superior to yours, not because you have access to powerful knowledge and insights that we don't have. You would really benefit in a lot of ways from reading the essays I linked before you continue proselytizing on Less Wrong. We would love to have you as a member of the community, but in order to really join the community you will need to be willing to criticize yourself and your own ideas with detachment and rigor. I'm not arguing that changing perspective from default modes of human cognition is bad. I'm arguing that your particular brand of improved thinking is not particularly compelling, and is very far from being proven superior to what I'm already doing as a committed rationalist. I would actually suggest that you stop using the phrase "aligning with reality" because it does not seem to conve
Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

I see that the problem in your reasoning is that you've already presumed what it entails, what you have missed out on is understanding ourselves. Science and reasoning already tell us that we share neural activity, are a social species thus each of us could be considered to be a cell in a brain. It's not as much if every cell decides to push the limits of its rationality, rather the whole collective as long as the expected value is positive. But to do that the first cells have to be U(figure this out).

It's not either perfect or non-perfect, that's absolute... (read more)

Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

A scientific mindset has a lower probability of being positive expected value because there is more than one value when it comes to making decisions, sometimes in conflict with each other. This can lead to cognitive dissonance in daily life. It's because science is a tool, the best one we got. Aligning with reality has a higher probability as it's an emotional heuristic, with only one value necessary.

Aligning with reality means submitting yourself emotionally, similar to how a religious person submits to God, but in this case, our true creator: To logic, w... (read more)

0moridinamael5y
I think there is an irreconcilable tension between your statement that one should completely emotionally submit to and align with facts, and that one should use a Bayesian epistemology to manage beliefs. There are many things in life and in science that I'm very certain about, but by the laws of probability I can never be 100% certain. There are many more things that I am less than certain about, and hold a cloud of possible explanations, the most likely of which may only be 20% probable in my estimation. I should only "submit" to any particular belief in accordance with my assessment of its likelihood, and can never justify submitting to some belief 100%. Indeed, doing so would be a form of irrational fundamentalism. I feel it might help you to know that none of this is actually factual. These are your interpretations of really vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas, ideas about which very smart and well-read people can and do disagree. For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses. The same could be said for the idea that helping another is helping yourself. That's not true if the other I'm helping is trying to murder me -- and if I can refute the generality with one example that I came up with in half a second of thought, it's not a very useful generality. I suspect that you haven't read through all of Eliezer's blog posts [https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Original_sequences]. His writings cover all the things you're talking about, but do it in a way that is grounded in much sturdier foundations than you appear to be using. It also seems that you are very much in love with this idea of Logic as being the One Final Solution to Everything, and that is always a huge danger sign in human thinking. Just thinking probablistically, the odds that the true Final Solution to Everything has been discovered and that
Load More