Martin Čelko

Wiki Contributions


I  started writing down things I am tracking.

I actually never realized I am tracking so many things.

The problem and issue is, I rarely remember or know what to do with the tracked information.

Lets say I am trying to be engaging and have a discussion.

There could be a number of things to track, from motives, meanings, or specific reasons something is said.

Other thing to track is filling in the gaps. Lets say someone says something incomplete, one should when engaged fill in the gaps and ask question or find a way to follow up.

Another thing is to know you are actually communicating the things you think you are communicating.

Or further when you track your words whether they actually are understood or misinterpreted while maybe simultaneously trying to get feedback form the person, be it verbal or non verbal reaction.

For me big part is also facial expression, or being properly engaged. 

Lets say I have a good focus and aim to do this.

Well realistically this will have no real impact as its a massive number of tasks. 

Not to mention being self conscious in the moment about the various errors. 

The other key factor for me is keep track of communication to know that whatever I said or made clear, is actually inline with my intent. 

I also have to track what not to say or do. Which depends on context and that can be rather trick to figure in the moment now.

On account of sounding dumb, but needing to point out, progress is set by baseline of some sort.

However qualitatively our society does live differently in many ways.

Most things in the past required huge time investment, there was low security for life, and generally the product be it crops, or food, were small compared to these days.

So the constraints people dealt with were huge.

Its fallacy though to think we don't have the exact same issues in today's world.

We have washing machines and microwaves and tools that speed things up so we can do the more progressive things so to speak. 

The problem is we are subject to biological evolution and therefore progress needs more than quantity.

For instance dinosaurs are extinct yet I bet most dinosaurs would boast that they are huge and bigger than other dinosaurs therefore they made more progress and therefore are the bestests of all. 

Human evolution can be the same issue. 

On scale of evolution the danger we face is not that we are so good at adaptation and use of tools and changing environments.

We face the problem of change.

All change leads to extinction of some sort. Change is dangerous, but we live in a world were change is becoming a constant variable. 

And there is no amount of progress that protects humans from this tricky problem.

If not today 1000 years from now, we might be just as extinct as dinosaurs and from the wood works will crawl out some weird creature of tiny stature like mammals did. 

We should therefore not assume the fallacy that bit of fossil fuels, and combustion engines or rocketry will make us better at surviving. 

We have better chance of surviving today as individuals, but the behemoth civilization became, is by far something that has never existed before. 

Its also not something humans ever did on this mass world wide scale with such pacing and such incredible complex balance of activity. 

So yes once people overcame certain constraints that were constant we grew. 

So as with all things considering something new, you need lots of trail and error to know what works. 

In this sense nature does not have friends or good side. 

Nature can kill off anything, and there were creatures that lived for millions of years and went in way of dodo in a single instance as if they never existed. 

We have to understand that progress in many ways is limited in certain dimensions for all people. 

We as humans are extremely good at predicting certain catastrophic scenarios, but we should not think for one second that nature cannot do more than we can imagine. 

We have funny things like bees dying off.

A single species could end our civilization.

And this assuming bees are the only species. 

Who knows what other species could die off and kill humanity in basically few years.

So my basic question is what progress really is? 

If its survival we made some progress, but we added a layer of problems that never threatened humanity.

If its number of humans on this planet and their long life, that is progress, but it comes at a cost. 

Cost we will have to pay back at some point in worlds history to simply go on.

To add - undercutting the human demographic pyramid has serious social drawback. Capital grows on influx of human population. Unfortunately the idea that human demographic growth is necessary is probably bias based around human psychology and large capital, that maintains its relevance merely by generating profit. If we neglect these rather stupid ideas, we are left with infinite sea of positive options where less population is always, better. We are not few. We are billions.

Most of the world is covered with people. Economy and its productivity cannot be measured today. The measures or measuring stick we use to explain the world today is inadeqate. Retrospective analysis of humanity is nice. But very risky business since nothing today ressembless the past.

There are good founders with few relationships able to raise upwards of half a million as the first investment in ideas that seem impossibly difficult to monetize. With decent connections, you can pocket upwards of 10 million to start a company that seems hot.

You can learn programming in 3-12 months and earn 6 figures with low taxes working remotely in a few years. You can make bank by doing the most niche and easy to learn of jobs as long as you know how to follow the market. You can probably make it even if you just follow your nose and invest in trends like crypto or high-throughput sequencing early on.


OK, you make a case for money here, because making money is possible and there are actual outcomes.

The outcomes maybe true to market value.

Earning much is easy for many people and it provides no direct meaning. The rich man that’s unable to find happiness because he doesn’t realize the goal of life is altruism/nirvana/love/enjoying-the-moment/god is beyond cliche.

In what way is this rational or meaningful statement. 

A wrong and un factual thing,to proposes the alternative is better and therefore true.

It must be true, because making money is the goal? 

Then you are stating what you already stated as assumption.

Making money is goal, therefore its a true thing that is good.

Its good, because its money. But that is not a rational. It could be considered a rationalization.

That is just fact, when you make money then you have money. 

So you are operating still with tautological truth.

We live and do things with money, and therefore they are good.

This is not "the case for money", this is in my understanding just saying what we already have and operate on.

Unless there is no money we cannot operate on assumption that money is not the case. 

It is the case. The question would be then where is "your case?"


Wealth can result in a paradigm shift, both for people and companies. But if you read about people or companies that made an impact assisted by their assets, one thing of note is that the paradigm shift usually didn’t come until they realized they had the assets to pursue new “unimaginable” goals.

Finally, there’s the oft-repeated but true line: wealth is inflow minus outflow. Many people that we think of as rich are dirt poor once you account for taxes and monthly expenses. Money is useful when it opens up degrees of freedom in the socio-economic environment, it’s useless when spent on status goods and other zero-sum games (e.g. housing in large cities).

Then again you cannot have the money and not the product.

In essence the highest asset for companies is the ability to develop things through time.

Time can be in some sense gotten by money, but essentially, then you are buying time with money, by making money through time. 

Its a simple loop. I don't think you made a realistic case. I think this accounts for the case everyone knows.

When companies invest they invest into values. 

So a company that has coal invests in coal. 

A company that can make coal into gold through some magic philosophers stone through magic transmutation, is still investing in its highest asset. 

Now it would be the philosophers stone. Where did the stone come from? If it were merely function of money it would mean most companies would have philosophers stone. 

In my understanding then the case is still the same. "money" There seems to me something missing. 

Another common pitfall is trying to gain knowledge instead of money.

Yes you need to survive to have knowledge.

Money takes in such case precedence, because knowledge is slow, money works faster.

iii - Money Is Hard To Fake

Can you even be wrong in this statement though? 

When you live in society where everything including my body, has monetary value, can you falsify this? 

Well no. 

But what case are you making then? We either live in world where money is the "thing which we want or not"

For every person this is true. 

Saying that money is best indicator of whatever is not true though. What it indicates is what we already know.

Its the value of market working. It works because markets are build around financial concepts. 

That alone explains merely that we don't know the alternative of value on market with out putting a price tag on it.

But if we all subject goals to financial goal posts, we essentially have no alternative, but to put money as priority. 

Then you mean to say that unless we put money as priority, we cannot, be objective?

Sure, thinking that you want to be a doctor until your mid-30s then realizing you were meant to be a recluse yogi is worst than giving in to your calling in your early 30s. But you know what’s worst? Being a self-thought nihilist until your late 30s. At least the doctor has the capital to settle his affairs, get a jungle house in Burma and start his yogic journey.

No? Where are you making the "case"

Alas, I’m happy taking responsibility over optionality, even if freedom comes with the possibility of undertaking a wrong action. I wager you might feel the same.


Yes, but is this statement necessary? 

Are we in state of mind, where this is somehow questioned? 

Making money equates having options true.

I think you used lots of concrete examples, and statements that are true, but I was expecting 

"the case for money". Something different from what we already somewhat on some level know.

After all money is useful in a world where everything is valued by monetary means.

But the way I see it you essentially said "money is good"

with many examples and statements.

The contrary statements are that some dudes did not make it without money. 

What ever the case I am often exhausted, when dealing with such issues.

Good post though.

For instance certain high pitch sounds are terrible for my ears. Makes me lose focus, and makes my eyes close.

Its so bad, that I literally feel as though there is pain in my mind.

Schema? Or auditory thing? 

It never happens with other sounds, just with this pitch. 

Same problem with focus. 

I can clearly be aware how the little tribes in my mind come together to defeat the invaders, but once the battle is over they part ways, and go back, or if they have to do something, the infighting, metaphorically starts. 

For some odd reason though they have the oddest moments and reasons to come together. 

Its not though where my rational mind wants. This explanation could make sense.

Its also extremely exhausting. 

The sheer amount of mental effort that goes into this just feels like I am overclocking my mind just to do something that "might seem to outsiders" like am barely alive. 

On further thinking I also have issue naming emotions or putting them in context. 

What people say and feel is hard to match to my own "schema or whatever".

Like I can feel sad, but what makes me feel that way? 

For example I can be more productive when "depressed", but those two don't go together do they?

So you can see how being productive and sad at the same time can be pretty unsettling. 

Then what is the difference between belief and assumption in our mental maps.

What about imagination? Is that belief or assumption or in-congruent map of reality. 

Can imagination be part of mental processing without making us wrong about reality.

For instance, if I imagine that all buses in my city are blue, though they are red, can I then walk around with this model of reality in my head without a false belief? After all its just imagination?

Or is this model going to corrupt my thinking as I walk about thinking it, knowing full well its not true.

Further more !what does the question really ask! 

Does the tree fall, first question? If it does, who is asking? 

Who knows the tree? Who knows where it fell and how far and so on.

The question is more so nonsensical that it assumes the question can be asked without cognitive bias.

The question it self is cognitive bias. 

If we tie down abstract thinking immediately to reality, there is no creative process to be had.

Imagination then leaves no room for us to abstract or use mental process, that bogs us down in every day life, thus we never form connections that allow us to think else.

Its either true or not, but result of sensory and thinking process such as logic is predictable, if done perfectly.

Even language can be cognitive bias.

So then if we translate the question of falling trees into reality, that is, you know what that looks like, the question is pointless. You have experienced a tree falling.

The question then makes zilch sense.

Its irrelevant.

You just know that there are no trees that fall and fail to make a sound.

There is no !if!.

There is no logic to be used.

Its like walking around and  seeing a tree falling and asking people !Did you hear that?! It made a sound?

If however we word the question as such: Do all trees make a sound, all the time, under all conditions, here on Earth. Do all trees fall and hit ground and make a sound then the question is what to make of that?

For instance do all matches burn? How can we know if we don't try them all out?

So in strict abstract sense we can be sure that our model is true, as long as all trees make a sound as we see them falling, but there is a chance that a tree falls, and we won't hear it make a sound. 

Iran is powerful, but Israel is tiny country that can be easily defeated in other ways. 

Nukes are a flex. They cannot be used. If they do use them they might kill more people than just the ones they don't like. Biological weapons are taboo also, but are lot easier to use and can be used to the same effect without much trouble.

So you might ask if Iran is really "saying destroy Israel" do they mean" it "and acting on it or are they just working on having more power?

I don't think Iran can use nukes. Nor will they, nor will they have the ability to deploy them effectively.

I think Nukes are only political weapon. Minus Japan they have always been used as political weapon primarily.

And as long as Nukes work as political weapon they have greater leverage value for leaders than any other weapon. 

The narratives about Iran and Israel are of use too. They too are political weapon. 

Thus Israel talking about nuclear weapons it self is a form of weapon.

Its not clear whether Iran ever develops or even aims to develop nukes. Its merely "accepted as true" regardless of what we know, and we know very little.

Even in case of Japan one could argue the demonstration of power here was more political weapon than military victory. (But that is highly controversial), what is never controversial is that use of nuclear bombs had more than military implications. Which obviously resulted in arms race and cold war. Whether that was good or even intent I cannot say.


AI is not Iran though. Its not human, and while I assume its aimed to be human, its real mission is to combine both human and inhuman qualities. 
Therefore we might find that whatever happens in future is going to be "unknown".

And also the old famous "unknown, unknown". Merely meaning that for example AI might never need to use strategies like game theory at all. 

So the bottom line is its misguided to assume qualities about AI or its research, but being fearful is not wrong.

Its just to fear this is pointless. 

Load More