As a whole, I find your intuition of a good future similar to my intuition of a good future, but I do think that once it is examined more closely there are a few holes worth considering. I'll start by listing the details I strongly agree with, then the ones I am unsure of, and then the ones I strongly disagree with.
I might update this comment if anything else comes to mind.
By the way, if you haven't already, I would recommend you read the Fun Theory sequence by Eliezer Yudowsky. One of the ways you can access it is through this post:
"Seduced by Imagination" might be particularly relevant, if this sort of thing has been on your mind for a while.
This post was engaging enough to read in full, which I consider to be fairly high praise.
However, I think that it's lacking in some respects, namely:
I've read this post three times through and I still find it confusing. Perhaps it would be most helpful to say the parts I do understand and agree with, then proceed from there. I agree that the information available to hirers about candidates is relatively small, and that the future in general is complicated and chaotic.
I suppose the root of my confusion is this: won't a long-term extrapolation of a candidate's performance just magnify any inaccuracies that the hirer has mistakenly inferred from what they already know about the candidate? Isn't the most accurate information about the candidate here in the present rather than a low-confidence guess about the future?
It's also unclear what all the questions in each step are meant to be assisting with. Are you really saying that, based on a candidate's application and short interview(s), you can make meaningful predictions about questions like "Who, other than Jamie, paid the price for their struggle, and in what way?" or "Where are they moving to? Do they keep in touch?". From my point of view, trying to generate weighted probabilities for every possible outcome just seems a lot less practical than merely comparing an applicant's resume and interview directly against another applicant's.
While one's experience and upbringing are highly impactful on their current mental state, they are not unique in that regard. There are a great number of factors that lead to someone being what they are at a particular time, including their genetics, their birth conditions, the health of their mother during pregnancy, and so on. It seems to me that the claim that "everyone is the same but experiencing life from a different angle" is not really saying much at all, because the scope of the differences two "angles" may have is not bounded. You come to the same conclusion later on in your post, but you take a different path to get there, so I thought my own observation might be helpful.
On your next point, [Zombies! Zombies?](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fdEWWr8St59bXLbQr/zombies-zombies) is an excellently written post on the subject that I agree with. I think it may change your opinion, especially on the claim that a p-zombie's brain and a conscious brain are physically identical.
Your loose definition of consciousness -- "the ability to think and feel and live in the moment"-- clearly does not apply to inanimate objects, at least not every single inanimate object. Ultimately, yes, we are all made of particles, we are not in disagreement about that. But to say that everything is conscious essentially renders the word "conscious" to be totally meaningless.
Sure, everyone and everything is constantly being changed and recycled, I don't disagree there. I do think, personally, that some patterns of matter are more important than others.
I don't see how your takeaway follows from your claims. Are you saying that I should treat rocks with kindness, because rocks are essentially the same as me? And what does it mean to leave things better? In a different, more common context, I can generally agree with ideas like "treat people, including yourself, with kindness and empathy" or "leave the world better than you found it" but the reasons I believe in those ideas comes from somewhere completely different.
Ultimately, if seeing the world this way helps you to be a happier, healthier person, then I can't say that you should or shouldn't keep seeing things this way. But I do think that you could find much more consistent and rational reasons to justify your morality.
Consider the following thought experiment: You discover that you've just been placed into a simulation, and that every night at midnight you are copied and deleted instantaneously, and in the next instant your copy is created where the original once was. Existentially terrified, you go on an alcohol and sugary treat binge, not caring about the next day. After all, it's your copy who has to suffer the consequences, right? Eventually you fall asleep.
The next day you wake up hungover as all hell. After a few hours of recuperation, you consider what has happened. This feels just like waking up hungover before you were put into the simulation. You confirm that the copy and deletion did occur. It is confirmed. Are you still the same person you were before?
You're right that it's like going to sleep and never waking up, but Algon was also right about it being like going to sleep and waking up in the morning, because from the perspective of "original" you those are both the same experience.
Shortly after the Dagger of Detect Evil became available to the public, Wiz's sales of the Dagger of Glowing Red skyrocketed.
There are a few ways to look at the question, but by my reasoning, none of them result in the answer "literally infinite."
From a deterministic point of view, the answer is zero degrees of freedom, because whatever choice the human "makes" is the only possible choice he/she could be making.
From the perspective of treating decision-making as a black box which issues commands to the body, the amount of commands that the body can physically comply with is limited. Humans only have a certain, finite quantity of nerve cells to issue these commands with and through. Therefore, the set of commands that can be sent through these nerves at any given time must also be finite.
While I am not technically a "New User" in the context of the age of my account, I comment very infrequently, and I've never made a forum-level post.
I would rate my own rationality skills and knowledge at slightly above the average person but below the average active LessWrong member. While I am aware that I possess many habits and biases that reduce the quality of my written content, I have the sincere goal of becoming a better rationalist.
There are times when I am unsure whether an argument or claim that seems incorrect is flawed or if it is my reasoning that is flawed. In such cases, it seems intuitive to write a critical comment which explicitly states what I perceive to be faulty about that claim or argument and what thought processes have led to this perception. In the case that these criticisms are valid, then the discussion of the subject is improved and those who read the comment will benefit. If the criticisms are not valid, then I may be corrected by a response that points out where my reasoning went wrong, helping me avoid making such errors in the future.
Amateur rationalists like myself are probably going to make mistakes when it comes to criticism of other people's written content, even when we strive to follow community guidelines. My concern with your suggestions is that these changes may discourage users like me from creating flawed posts and comments that help us grow as rationalists.
When I brought up Atlantis, I was thinking of a version populated by humans, like in the Disney film. I now realize that I should have made this clear, because there are a lot of depictions of Atlantis in fiction and many of them are not inhabited by humans. To resolve this issue, I'll use Shangri-La as an example of an ostensibly hidden group of humans with advanced technology instead.
To further establish distinct terms, let Known Humans be the category of humanity (homo sapiens) that publicly exists and is known to us. Let Unknown Humans be the category of humanity (homo sapiens) which exists in secret cities and/or civilizations. Let Unknown Terrestrials be non-human lifeforms which originated on earth and are capable of creating advanced technology. Let Extraterrestrials be lifeforms which did not originate on earth. Let Superhumans be humans from space, or another dimension, or the future.
The arguments you bring up concerning the Fermi paradox don't seem to answer the question of "Why jump to extraterrestrial life?". They are simply saying, "This is how aliens could potentially exist in close proximity without our knowledge." Let me attempt to demonstrate the issue with an analogy.
Imagine a cookie has been stolen from the cookie jar. Mother and Father are trying to figure out who took the cookie.
Mother: "It seems most probable that one of the children did it. They have taken cookies from the cookie jar before."Father: "Ah, but we should consider the possibility that a raven did it."Mother: "Why would we think that there's a non-negligible chance that a raven took the cookie?"Father: "Studies show that Ravens are capable of rudimentary tool use. It could have pried off the lid by using another object as a lever."
Nothing about these UFOs specifically indicates that they are extraterrestrial. The fact that extraterrestrial life might exist and might have the technology necessary to secretly observe us is not enough evidence to support any significant probability for them as an explanation for the UFOs, especially when we know for near-certain that Known Humans have flying machines with similar abilities.
Let's say we ignore mundane explanations like meteorological phenomena, secret military tech developed by known governments, and weather balloons. Even in that case, why jump to extraterrestrial life?
Consider, say, the possibility that these UFOs are from the hyper-advanced hidden underwater civilization of Atlantis. Sure, this is outlandish. But I'd argue that it's at least as likely as an extraterrestrial origin. We know that humans exist, we know that Atlantis would be within flying distance, there are reasonable explanations for why Atlantis would want to secretly surveil us. If this version of Atlantis existed, sure, we would expect to see other pieces of evidence for them, but maybe Atlantis is hiding from us.
Consider the contrivances required to explain why a group of extraterrestrials would be discovered through UFO sightings. They'd be competent enough to travel through space, likely using faster than light travel, they'd clearly not want to be discovered because otherwise they'd respond to our signalling attempts. And yet they would not have the competence to, on multiple occasions, blow their cover and show themselves to humanity. And yet, they never blow their cover in a way that actually distinguishes them as extraterrestrial.
If not for popular culture, do you really think that you'd jump to an extraterrestrial explanation? All other flying machines that we know of have been made by humans. There is insufficient evidence to suppose that these flying machines, if they are flying machines, are not.