We commonly and unknowingly model stress as a direct function of an event: F(s) = E. Phrases like "that event was stressful," "that job interview was stressful," or "start-ups are stressful" imply stress is an objective property of the event itself, fixed to a job interview as much as its...
I. Premises * The goal is to live a life well lived, measured by maximizing well-being (whatever your utility function is). * ASI would be able to engineer mental states through advanced pharmaceutical interventions, brain machine interface, etc., that radically improve human experience relative to the greatest pleasures on offer...
We commonly and unknowingly model stress as a direct function of an event: F(s) = E. Phrases like "that event was stressful," "that job interview was stressful," or "start-ups are stressful" imply stress is an objective property of the event itself, fixed to a job interview as much as its physical location. This subconscious belief, evidenced by our language, suggests stress is inherent to the event, inevitably affecting anyone who encounters it, now or in the future. The natural corollary of this, of course, is that reducing stress is impossible. In this post, I’ll propose a more accurate and useful way to model stress.
First, let me disprove the old... (read 1100 more words →)
I see where you’re coming from, but my point about boundaries applies specifically within the domain of conscious experience. There’s no clear boundary between ‘you’ and ‘me’ in that space because consciousness doesn’t seem to have non-arbitrary borders. But paperclips aren’t conscious, so they don’t even exist within that domain of experience to begin with.
So while self/other distinctions might be constructed, that doesn’t mean we should erase distinctions that actually matter—like the difference between something that has subjective experience and something that doesn’t. That’s why I wouldn’t extend the same boundary-dissolving logic to a paperclip (or a rock, or a chair) in the same way I would to other conscious beings.
This article explores three high-leverage ways one can spend their time in the pre-ASI period... (read 1688 more words →)
Even though cults would indeed arise even without genuine extraterrestrial encounters, I think that the actual presence of aliens would increase the probability and # of flying saucer cults. Actual alien encounters would likely inspire some # of these sorts of beliefs, making the formation of cults even more probable than in a world without aliens. Essentially, while the baseline probability of cult formation might be high due to "human silliness", the added “signal” from genuine alien events could tip the scales further in favor of cult emergence.
Thus the conditional probability P(cults|aliens) would be greater than P(cults|!aliens).
If these both theories made the same predictions, you'd have to depend on your prior knowledge - your prior, for short - to judge which one was more likely.
Not sure what the commenting standard is for grammar mistakes but... change this to "both these".