I'm going to start with a big claim here; your emotions are not irrational, they're superrational. You're using them wrong. Superrationality is the term for perfect rationality, the state which maximizes utility because it assumes that all other players are also superrational, and thus all superrational players will come up...
Epistemic status; wild speculation, thought experiment, with potentially helpful personal benefits and emotional resonance. Imagine you're an algorithm. Imagine that you know what it feels like to be an algorithm. Imagine that you are outputting the results of an algorithm, accumulating several distinct streams from multiple input sources, and only...
I think you're misunderstanding a key point presented in the writing. Optimal coordination is not indicating that everyone makes identical choices. X != Y. The text is not implying that there would be no valid choice. The text is implying that the optimal choice is the one in which the assumption is made that the underlying system is the same, and the information is different in different locations. I definitely see how "choice" is used as both referring to the function of how to choose and the outcome in my writing, and that should've been made clearer.
We share common emotional and cognitive processing capabilities, but we operate with different information and perspectives... (read more)
I'm going to start with a big claim here; your emotions are not irrational, they're superrational. You're using them wrong.
Superrationality is the term for perfect rationality, the state which maximizes utility because it assumes that all other players are also superrational, and thus all superrational players will come up with the same strategy if they assume that all other players are superrational too. Different choices are impossible, because each player is choosing for all players utilizing perfect rationality. The prisoner's dilemma effectively disappears under this assumption; a superrational player only has to think "If I defect, they defect. But if I cooperate, then they cooperate. Therefore I'm really choosing between (defect, defect)... (read 3056 more words →)
Epistemic status; wild speculation, thought experiment, with potentially helpful personal benefits and emotional resonance.
Imagine you're an algorithm. Imagine that you know what it feels like to be an algorithm. Imagine that you are outputting the results of an algorithm, accumulating several distinct streams from multiple input sources, and only once a certain threshold is met, can you output a single result. Imagine you're a neuron.
Then...imagine you're two neurons. Scale it up. Imagine you're a neural net. Scale it up. Imagine you're a rat brain. Scale it up. Imagine you're a human brain. Scale it up. Imagine you're two human brains connected by an extra corpus callosum. Scale it up. Imagine you're a... (read 1250 more words →)
Definitely, I'm working on it. Lots of writing that needs to be done. The novelty here is actually that I would propose we can use this framework to make novel, testable predictions about neurology from subjective experiencing, but that's an extremely big and speculative claim, so it needs a bit of scaffolding. The main barrier to entry right now is definitely my lack of practical/concrete examples, so I'll be focusing on that next.