LessWrong 2.0 Reader

This does seem kind of correct to me?

Maybe you could see the fixed points that OP is pointing towards as priors in the search process for frames.

Like, your search is determined by your priors which are learnt through your upbringing. The problem is that they're often maladaptive and misleading. Therefore, working through these priors and generating new ones is a bit like relearning from overfitting or similar.

Another nice thing about meditation is that it sharpens your mind's perception which makes your new priors better. It also makes you less dependent on attractor states you could have gotten into from before since you become less emotionally dependent on past behaviour. (there's obviously more complexity here) (I'm referring to dependent origination for you meditators out there)

It's like pruning the bad data from your dataset and retraining your model, you're basically guaranteed to find better ontologies from that (or that's the hope at least).

Both quotes are from your above post. Apologies for confusion.

I'm currently in the process of releasing more of my fixed points through meditation and man is it a weird process. It is very fascinating and that fundamental openness to moving between views seems more prevalent. I'm not sure that I fully agree with you on the all-in part but cudos for trying!

I think it probably makes sense to spend earlier years doing this cognition training and then using that within specific frames to gather the bits of information that you need to solve problems.

Frames are still useful to gather bits of information through so don't poopoo the mind!

Otherwise, it was very interesting to hear about your journey!

Well, why want anything? Why not just be dead? Peace of mind [LW · GW] guaranteed for ever.

Thanks, I had copied the spelling from part of the OP, which currently says "Arnalt" eight times and "Arnault" seven times. I've now edited my comment (except the verbatim blockquote).

Guys! Only 4 of you filled out the feedback form so far. Here it is again, please fill it out so I know how to make things better. :-)

'these practices grant unmediated access to reality' sounds like a metaphysical claim. The Buddha's take on his system's relevance to metaphysics seems pretty consistently deflationary to me.

I do not think they meant anything AI specific, just general existence about humanity vs other species.

The question was not about whether humanity live forever, the original prompt is "why must human/humanity live/continue forever?", which is in the original question.

Do not feel the need to reply in anyway, nothing here is urgent. (Not sure why you would reply in bad shape or mention that; initially thought it is related to the topic).

The bigger difference is how much Lesswrong/MIRI got human value formation and the complexity of human values wrong, but that's a very different discussion, so I'll leave it as a comment than a post here.

Outside of theism, I really don't see how anyone could plausibly answer zero to that question. Would you mind elaborating?

Sure. The simulation hypothesis has some non-zero probability p. There are infinite possible purposes for the simulation. By principle of indifference, I divide p/∞, and calculate that any particular purpose has zero probability.