LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Commented on EA under sibling comment. Sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack, although it probably seems so. Sorry again.

I didn't, because you couldn't even if you wanted to. You don't know me personally so why would I assume you were attacking me personally? I was merely trying to state a terminological disagreement in an attempt to change the readers hidden inference [LW · GW].

To me it seems that pragmatism without accurate beliefs is a bit like running across a minefield.

This is not what philosophical pragmatism is about. With pragmatism you learn what is useful which in 99.999% of cases will be the thing thats accurate. Note that I said:

Do people realize that you can’t always do both? [emphasis added]

But philosophy is all about the edge cases. What do you do when there is knowledge that is dangerous for humanities survival? Do you learn things that are probably memetic hazards? Realism says 'yes', Pragmatism says 'no'. Pragmatism is about 'winning', realism is about 'truth'. If somehow you can show that these clearly opposed philosophies are actually reconcilable you will win all the philosophy awards. Until that time, I choose winning.

Thank you for your comment! I'd like to briefly clarify that I don't consider the "lockdown versus kill the people" question a dilemma - I'm not trying to propose policy, just attempting to make realistic predictions for the next few months.

I think going for the approach you suggest ('option 2') is unrealistic in most western countries, and that the countries where this strategy worked had unique circumstances that worked in their favour.

As gbear605 points out, it is a lot more difficult to revert to this strategy when the disease is endemic, compared to when the number of active cases is in the several hundreds. In the post I link to an estimate of 1.1 million active cases of Covid-19 in the US today. One of the bigger weak links in the non-quarantine approach is that, when people test positive for cold/flu symptoms, there needs to be some plan or support in place to thoroughly isolate them for up to two weeks. At lower numbers this can plausibly handled by hospitals or nursing homes (which has been a big part of South Korea's method), but at up to a million cases this is unrealistic. In effect this would be akin to a lockdown with some extra steps.

Another advantage that South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (as far as I know the biggest success stories of this method) had is that they are geographically isolated. I imagine this cuts down on the threat of re-infection from outside the country, and also why it is so much more difficult to prevent Covid-19 from becoming endemic in the US.

Widespread screening for elevated temperatures and cold/flu symptoms sounds like a very clever (and cost-effective!) method to combat the virus, if we also have a plan ready for people who test positive. But I don't think it can be the success story in western countries that it is in some Asian countries. We either missed our window and let Covid-19 grow too much, or we never had a window to begin with.

As for your later two points, I believe I addressed those in the original post. I think bringing R0 down to around 1 and keeping it there is prohibitively taxing, in multiple ways, and that even slight relaxation of our response will already have severe consequences. We should be thinking on the R0 scale, which runs from about 0.7 to about 2.5-3. Also I explicitly mention that I am fine with leaving the level at which we achieve herd immunity open for debate (I give 20% as a somewhat lower bound, based on estimates that this exposure level has already been reached in NYC).

A detailed investigation of outbreak in a South African hospital found pretty good evidence for transmission by surfaces or indirect contact (nurse touches infected person A and then later touches susceptible person B). Doesn't mean risk from deliveries is significant but worth being wary of surfaces in general.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/study-tells-remarkable-story-about-covid-19-s-deadly-rampage-through-south-african

According to current evidence, SARS‐CoV‐2 is transmitted between people through respiratory droplets and contact routes. Droplet transmission may also occur through fomites so transmission of the virus can occur by direct contact with an infected person or indirect contact with surfaces in the immediate environment of that person or with objects used on the infected person (e.g. stethoscope or thermometer). The spatial distribution of cases and exposed individuals who became infected on the wards suggests that indirect contact via health care workers or fomite transmission were the predominant modes of transmission between patients in this outbreak. Direct droplet or contact transmission would be plausible where the people that were exposed were located in close proximity to an infectious case, e.g. P4 in the bed directly opposite P3 on MW1 between 13 ‐ 16 March (Figure 7); or X1 and X3 sharing a four‐bedded bay with P7 on MW1 between 27 March ‐ 2 April (Figure 10). However, in other examples the exposed individuals were located in different rooms and different areas of the ward, making indirect contact via health care workers or fomite transmission more plausible. We also present evidence suggestive of direct droplet transmission from a symptomatic health care worker to two patients on the neurology ward.

"If, at some point in the future, we have the same number of contagious people, and are not at an appreciable fraction of group immunity, it will at that point again be a solid decision to go into quarantine (or to extend it). "

I think for many people the number of infections at which this becomes a good idas has increased as we have more accurate information about the CFR and how quickly realistic countermeasures can slow down an outbreak in a given area, which should decrease credence in some of the worst case scenarios many were worried about a few months ago.

Notably, hypothesizing the other parts doesn't seem to make sense from an evolutionary POV, as it is reasonable to assume that the ability to have "urges" must logically precede the ability to make predictions about the urges, vs. the urges themselves encoding predictions about the outside world. If we have evolved an urge to do something, it is because evolution already "thinks" it's probably a good idea to do the thing, and/or a bad idea not to, so another mechanism that merely recapitulates this logic would be kind of redundant.

A hypothesis that I've been considering, is whether the shift to become more social might have caused a second layer of motivation to evolve. Less social animals animals can act purely based on physical considerations like the need to eat or avoid a predator, but for humans every action has potential social implications, so needs to also be evaluated in that light. There are some interesting anecdotes like Helen Keller's account suggesting that she only developed a self after learning language. The description of her old state of being sounds like there was just the urge, which was then immediately acted upon; and that this mode of operation then became irreversibly altered:

Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. [...] I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught, or that I lived or acted or desired. I had neither will nor intellect. I was carried along to objects and acts by a certain blind natural impetus. I had a mind which caused me to feel anger, satisfaction, desire. These two facts led those about me to suppose that I willed and thought. [...] I never viewed anything beforehand or chose it. [...] My inner life, then, was a blank without past, present, or future, without hope or anticipation, without wonder or joy or faith. [...]

I remember, also through touch, that I had a power of association. I felt tactual jars like the stamp of a foot, the opening of a window or its closing, the slam of a door. After repeatedly smelling rain and feeling the discomfort of wetness, I acted like those about me: I ran to shut the window. But that was not thought in any sense. It was the same kind of association that makes animals take shelter from the rain. From the same instinct of aping others, I folded the clothes that came from the laundry, and put mine away, fed the turkeys, sewed bead-eyes on my doll's face, and did many other things of which I have the tactual remembrance. When I wanted anything I liked,—ice-cream, for instance, of which I was very fond,—I had a delicious taste on my tongue (which, by the way, I never have now), and in my hand I felt the turning of the freezer. I made the sign, and my mother knew I wanted ice-cream. I "thought" and desired in my fingers. [...]

I thought only of objects, and only objects I wanted. It was the turning of the freezer on a larger scale. When I learned the meaning of "I" and "me" and found that I was something, I began to think. Then consciousness first existed for me. Thus it was not the sense of touch that brought me knowledge. It was the awakening of my soul that first rendered my senses their value, their cognizance of objects, names, qualities, and properties. Thought made me conscious of love, joy, and all the emotions. I was eager to know, then to understand, afterward to reflect on what I knew and understood, and the blind impetus, which had before driven me hither and thither at the dictates of my sensations, vanished forever.

Would also make sense in light of the observation that the sense of self may disappear when doing purely physical activities (you fall back to the original set of systems which doesn't need to think about the self), the PRISM model of consciousness as a conflict-solver, the way that physical and social reasoning seem to be pretty distinct [LW · GW], and a kind of a semi-modular approach (you have the old primarily physical system, and then the new one that can integrate social considerations on top of the old system's suggestions just added on top). If you squint, the stuff about simulacra [LW · GW] also feels kinda relevant, as an entirely new set of implications that diverge from physical reality and need to be thought about on their own terms.

I wouldn't be very surprised if this hypothesis turned out to be false, but at least there's suggestive evidence.

Cool, that sounds like a mild no-self state alright. :) Though any strong valence is likely to trigger a self schema and pull you out of it, but it's a question of practice.

Your description kinda reminds me of the approach in Loch Kelly's The Way of Effortless Mindfulness; it has various brief practices that may induce states like the one that you describe. E.g. in this one, you imagine the kind of a relaxing state in which there is no problem to solve and the sense of self just falls away. (Directly imagining a no-self state is hard, because checking whether you are in a no-self state yet activates the self-schema. But if you instead imagine an external state which is likely to put you in a no-self state, you don't get that kind of self-reference, no pun intended.)

First, read this mindful glimpse below. Next, choose a memory of a time you felt a sense of freedom, connection, and well-being. Then do this mindful glimpse using your memory as a door to discover the effortless mindfulness that is already here now.

1. Close your eyes. Picture a time when you felt well-being while doing something active like hiking in nature. In your mind, see and feel every detail of that day. Hear the sounds, smell the smells, and feel the air on your skin; notice the enjoyment of being with your companions or by yourself; recall the feeling of walking those last few yards toward your destination.

2. Visualize and feel yourself as you have reached your goal and are looking out over the wide-open vista. Feel that openness, connection to nature, sense of peace and well-being. Having reached your goal, feel what it’s like when there’s no more striving and nothing to do. See that wide-open sky with no agenda to think about, and then simply stop. Feel this deep sense of relief and peace.

3. Now, begin to let go of the visualization, the past, and all associated memories slowly and completely. Remain connected to the joy of being that is here within you.

4. As you open your eyes, feel how the well-being that was experienced then is also here now. It does not require you to go to any particular place in the past or the future once it’s discovered within and all around.

Recently I've also gotten interested in the Alexander Technique, which seems to have a pretty straightforward series of steps for expanding your awareness and then getting your mind to just automatically do things in a way which feels like non-doing. It also seems to induce the kinds of states that you describe, of just watching oneself work, which I had previously only gotten from meditation.

Can you pick up a ball without trying to pick up the ball? It sounds contradictory, but it turns out that there is a specific behaviour we do when we are “trying”, and this behaviour is unnecessary to pick up the ball.

How is this possible? Well, consider when you’ve picked up something to fiddle with without realising. You didn’t consciously intend for it to end up in your hand, but there it is. There was an effortlessness to it. [...]

But this kind of non-‘deliberate’ effortless action needn’t be automatic and unchosen, like a nervous fiddling habit; nor need it require redirected attention / collapsed awareness, like not noticing you picked up the object. You can be fully aware of what you’re doing, and ‘watch’ yourself doing it, while choosing to do it, and yet still have there be this effortless “it just happened” quality. [...]

Suppose you do actually want to pick up that ball over there. But you don’t want to ‘do’ picking-up-the-ball. The solution is to set an intention.

[1] Have the intention to pick up the ball. [2] Expand your awareness to include what’s all around you, the room, the route to the ball, and your body inside the room. [3] Notice any reactions of trying to do picking-up-the-ball (like “I am going to march over there and pick up that ball”, or “I am going to get ready to stand up so I can go pick up that ball”, or “I am going to approach the ball to pick it up”) — and decline those reactions. [4] Wait. Patiently hold the intention to pick up the ball. Don’t stop yourself from moving — stopping yourself is another kind of ‘doing’ — yet don’t try to deliberately/consciously move. [5] Let movement happen.

This is really cool! I've been reading a lot of cookbooks on dessert/watching elementary baking videos for fun lately, and knowing why every ingredient does what it does is extremely interesting as well as useful.

I wonder, if more baking books emphasised all potential spanners in the works early on (climatic factors, different oven temperatures, etc), whether your approach to baking would be more widely adopted? Would a reframed focus on difference, rather than sameness, encourage independent understanding on the part of the cookbook owner?

Yes. Therefore you should not do that. "Least resistance" and "going with the flow" are for those who want to remain asleep, to do nothing, to be nothing.

(This post could be read as a predecessor to the Immoral Mazes sequence [? · GW].)

Regarding HCQ, the recent large-N studies were observational and looks like patients there were given HCQ late and if they were relatively sicker. Using it early on could still work (but now there won't be an RCT for that thanks to numerous delendae).

Regarding schools, did the countries that reopened those already fare particularly worse?