LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Perhaps I misunderstand your use of the phrase "intentionally ignorant" but I believe many cases of people who are seen to have acted with "integrity" are people who have been hyperaware and well informed of what normal social conventions are in a given environment and made deliberate choice not to adhere to them, not ignoring said conventions out of a lack of interest.

I also am not sure what you mean by "weird". I assume you mean any behavior which is not the normal convention of any randomly selected cohesive group of people, from a family, to a local soccer club, to a informal but tight knit circle of friends, to a department of a large company. Have I got that right?

My idea of 'weird' tends to involve the stereotypical artists and creatives I associate with, which is, within those circles not weird at all but normal. But I'm meta-aware that might be a weird take.

(Thanks to the Hayflick limit, only some lines can go on indefinitely.)

As of late July last year, "I" am in PNSE. A few comments.

First, no major errors or concerns when reading the post. I might have missed something, but nothing triggered the "this is misunderstanding what PNSE is fundamentally like" alarm.

Second, there's a lot of ways PNSE is explained. I like this short version: "I am me". That is, "I", the subject of experience, no longer experiences itself as subject, but rather as object, i.e. "me". It's like having a third-person experience of the self. I also like to describe it as thought becoming a sense, like vision or hearing, because "I" no longer do the thinking; instead this person does the thinking to me.

Third, not everyone describes it this way, but in Zen we call the transition into PNSE the Great Death because it literally feels like dying. It's not dissimilar from the ego death people experience on drugs like LSD, but ego "death" is better described as ego "sleep" because it comes back and, after it's happened once, the mind knows the ego is going to come back, whereas in the Great Death the sense of separate self is gone and not coming back. All that said, many with PNSE don't experience a violent transition like this, so the Great Death or something like it may be a contingent feature of some paths to PNSE and not others.

Fourth, I don't remember if the paper discusses this, and this is controversial among some Buddhist traditions, but PNSE doesn't mean the mind is totally liberated from belief in a separate self. You said the homunculus concept lies dormant, but I'd say it does more than that. The mind is filled with many beliefs that presupposed the existence of the homunculus, and even if the homunculus is no longer part of experiences of the world, it's still baked into habits of behavior, and it takes significant additional work once in PNSE to learn new habits to replace the old ones that don't have the homunculus baked into them. Very few people ever become free of all of them, and maybe literally no one does as long as they continue to live.

Fifth and finally, PNSE is great, I'm glad it's how I am now. It's also fine not to be in it, because even if you believe you have a homunculus, in an absolute sense you already don't, you're just confused about how the world works, and that's okay, we're all confused. PNSE is also confused, but in different ways, and with fewer layers of confusion. So if you read this post and are now excited to try for PNSE, great, do it, but be careful. Lots of people Goodhart on what they think PNSE is because they try to hard to get it. If PNSE doesn't sneak up on you, then be extra suspect of Goodharting! (Actually, just also be suspicious that you've Goodharted yourself!)

Question: How does this idea guarantee that the contamination did not happen on purpose otherwise or accidentally through articles like this ? (Not speaking for the companies since I am quite sure that they don't care... Just a practical consideration.)

I wouldn't equate Robin's perspectives on culture with reactionary movements or conservatism. If anything, he seems quite open to radical transformations of society (e.g. futarchy to replace parlamentarism, bounty systems and vouching to replace policing, private insurance policies to replace welfare policies etc.).

Whereas (neo-)reactionary / conservative thought simply often intends to return some previous status quo, Robin does not confess to representing such views and has not proposed such solutions. In fact, as far as I'm aware he hasn't proposed any solutions at all as of yet.

What do you believe, then, is the most effective way of achieving a goal?

I think the answer is: the homunculus concept has a special property of being intrinsically attention-grabbing…. The homunculus is thus impossible to ignore—if the homunculus concept gets activated at all, it jumps to center stage in our minds.

I don't fully understand this bit. I feel like I'm reading a mathematical proof where the author leaves out steps that are trivial to the author, but not to me.

I'd go a step beyond this: merely following incentives is amoral. It's the default. In a sense, moral philosophy discusses when and how you should go against the incentives. Superhero Bias [LW · GW] resonates with this idea, but from a different perspective.

I don't understand why you would short the market if your P(Doom) is high. I think most Dooms don't involve shorts paying off?

don't see the downstream impacts of their choices,

This could be part of it... but I think a hypothesis that does have to be kept in mind is that some people don't care. They aren't trying to follow action-policies that lead to good outcomes, they're doing something else. Primarily, acting on an addiction to Steam [LW · GW]. If a recruitment strategy works, that's a justification in and of itself, full stop. EA is good because it has power, more people in EA means more power to EA, therefore more people in EA is good. Given a choice between recruiting 2 agents and turning them both into zombies, vs recruiting 1 agent and keeping them an agent, you of course choose the first one--2 is more than 1.