Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017

Yes. Less Wrong has done well at avoiding politics, and I hope it stays that way.

SIN(your number)=0.879....

As I saw your number here, it ended with 8855.

Now it is okay. I have restarted Chrome - and you are right, it's close.

You have SOLVED the problem. Congratulations!

LOL ... Sinus of which natural number between 1 and 10^100 is closest to 0.

And not sinus of some whole number of some arbitrary units like degrees, grads or whatever.

But you know this. You have just won a consolation prize. :)

I can definitely vouch for the pronunciation part, but is the rest really true? Source?

Second language might still be necessary for the cognitive development effect.

Language could be more or less frozen wherever it stands at the time.

No it wouldn't -- language is for signaling, not only communication. There would probably be a common language for business and travel, but languages would continue to develop normally, since people would still want to use language to determine how they present themselves.

A babelfish is probably never going to be good enough to fully replace actually knowing the language; to start with due to different word order in different languages you'll get something delayed and awkward. It will probably never capture slang and punning properly. Some languages can express some concepts very well, others struggle with those concepts and are awkward.

Babelfish are coming, and they will be very useful, but I kind of expect them to accelerate the drive towards everyone knowing a bit of English.

You should better look at the wikipedia page I linked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto

Also it's not about being similar to French and I don't know why you think that. I've learned Esperanto and French and didn't notice any similarities. Actually the Chinese were one of the biggest supporters, though that may be trending down.

It would be easy to grow Esperanto quickly. It would require some concerted effort, but there is a solid though small base around the world and there only needs to be some push to make it happen. Becoming the official language of the EU is one plausible avenue, but another one might crop up in the next few centuries.

Interesting -- thanks. Did you learn Esperanto before English or after? (I'd guess a second foreign language is easier to pick up than a first, unless the first is learned in childhood and the second not.) Is your native language more like English or more like Esperanto or roughly the same in each case?

It's certainly true that Esperanto is much more regular than English. (My impression is that English is unusually irregular even among natural languages, but I'm not sure how true that is.)

visible [...] see-able

Of course, if you say "see-able" in English then everyone will understand you. The only trouble is that you won't be speaking English like a native speaker. That's not really a question one can raise about Esperanto, since there are no native Esperanto speakers. (Well ... allegedly there are ~1000 "native speakers", which I think means "people brought up bilingually in Esperanto and some other language", but that doesn't constitute an actual linguistic community.)

This isn't just a quibble; my point is that if Esperanto became an actually widely used language, I bet it would start acquiring irregularities that one would have to know in order to speak it "like a native". You'd still be able to say "see-able" and everyone would know what you meant, just as you already can in English, but you'd need to know "visible" to sound truly fluent. (Of course I don't mean that this specific example would turn out to be an irregularity. But I bet there'd be some.)

Mind you, what I say about irregularities is sheer guesswork: it just seems like the sort of thing one should expect. I wonder whether there's any research on this sort of thing? (E.g., when pidgins turn into creoles, do they become more or less irregular?)

I managed to learn spoken and written Esperanto about as well as I learned spoken Japanese, in roughly 1/10 the hours spent.

That's not a fair comparison. If you know English + Spanish, you should expect Esperanto to be much easier than Japanese; but similarly, if you know English + Esperanto, you should expect Spanish to be much easier than Japanese. Esperanto is very much more like English or Spanish than it is like Japanese, and it will have been easier for you for that reason completely independent of whether it's more learnable than other Latin-derived languages.

I still highly recommend that you listen to the audio with headphones in a relaxed way as a form of meditation, Tiffany, you will understand more of what this is about and that it is really an epiphany or conversion. If you at least give me the benefit of the doubt and do that I can trust that you took the time to investigate this to its fullest potential.

I don't think you did do the Steps, though. You probably froze at Step 2 and deflected everything and simply read it as information to process, rather than to update your beliefs (epistemic rationality), it's not usually easy for us to accept emotions. Listen to the audio and read this emotional intelligence guide and I can reassure you that you will have a deeper understanding what this is about. I'm not trying to tell you anything or convince you, on the contrary, I am trying to make you question yourself and what you are emotionally invested in and how it's limiting your potential. But I don't know how. So I guess I have to convince you to think for yourself! Makes no sense and it's a paradox, but hint, you don't right now, or maybe :)

It's very hard because most of LessWrongers are in death spiral, whether affective or not, the utility function of said death spiral includes rejecting these types of opportunities. It doesn't really matter what I say. I can only say this and try my way of convincing you to let go of your false beliefs and irrationality, really. It's so astonishing how so many can be irrational.

I'm simply asking you to 1) be open-minded 2) do the steps and the audio while being open-minded.

I've answered so many arguments and debunked so many of the users here for their nonsense, for them, it all boiled down to objective evidence, neuroimaging. That's very expensive and our understanding of our brain is still very small. Having to answer these irrelevant questions proves my point that many are here for intellectual entertainment rather than in a serious effort, investigate why the world is the way it is - why I am, and how I can change it?

Snake-oil, cult, evengalism, woo. These are all irrational crying wolf arguments by irrational people. I hope you're not and that someone reading this really gives it an honest try.

Now let me answer your irrelevant questions, c'mon, get off it already. :`)

If you said may instead of will it wouldn't set off the alarm bells. "Will" is a promise. If what you mean is "other people have reported experiencing these effects", I'd recommend saying that instead. The list of "you will" points looks like advertising at best and culty at worst.

It's a way of communicating, it's not meant to be that serious and nitpicked to figure out the smallest "flaws". That's probably one time waste of yours. If not, my fault. It's will most, then "you will", which does not imply any specific, but most. Vague.

Honestly ingive, there's not a massive amount wrong with what you're saying that I can see, except that it's all dressed up to the nines in semi-mystical language and presented as an epiphany or conversion rather than as a sensible set of guidelines.

Rationality is beautiful, so is consistency, the consistent patterns which has brought us about. It's literally Awesome. There is nothing which a caveman which is transported to modern days NYC will say but be speechless and maybe "Awe" "Beauty" "Divine" "Love" to describe it when he returns home to his cave. Limitations of language are here, that's why you have to visualize. That's why the steps might be limiting. It's about You. Your subjective experience. Your consciousness. All you, not me and no collective.

Imagine I linked to a webpage that just said: "Try to feel good about living life rationally. Know thyself - question why you want things. Question whether the things you want are really necessary for your happiness. Identify your most meaningful goals. Remember that you're part of something bigger than yourself. Try to focus on living for the benefit of others. Keep thinking this way and you'll probably feel more content and less worried about trivial things, and get more done."

That's not steps. Everyone thinks that everyone will be comforted by it, no matter how irrational they are, no matter how much they resist reality.

I guarantee I wouldn't be getting all the flak you have here. People wouldn't be saying "snake-oil" or "cult" or "evangelism" or "woo". What they would probably be saying is "duh". But as far as I can see that's your basic message, shorn of all the neuro-Spinozism spangles and fluff and dodgy-sounding claims of eternal happiness.

So I should change, rather than the flak:ers? Should I or you change? Which is the variable in the question if not undoubtedly your subjective experience? I'm telling you to think for yourself. The fluff is a big deal because you make it, you're talking sooo much out of your own lens you're unable to see beyond it, until now.

As I said before, I'm glad that things have "clicked" for you and that you, presumably, feel better about your life than you did formerly. I just don't see why you need to wrap a core of nice, basic bits of life advice in ten pounds of shiny wrapping paper. Are you afraid people won't take you seriously if you don't make your ideas seem complex and revolutionary? Honestly, the opposite is probably true. Profound truths about the ideal way to live are usually pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, by any means, but definitely simple.

My neural activity is equally you as it is me, the same for you, there is no separation, the more that are in line with reality, then I am in line, the "I" which is not referenced to the practical me, my subjective experience.

I'm happy to answer any more questions which you would have. But try the audio and the steps with a sincere effort in improving yourself and emotionally resonating with the consistent patterns which have brought us about.

make this idea feel more magical.

I lol'd....

Is this stuff for real or is it trolling?

The theory goes, whether we like it or not we are emotionally attached to something and are unaware of said attachment and the death spiral. Like identity. Experience. Comfort. But those might simply be at the essence seeking consistency. We become aware of it, then replace it. Becoming attached to the consistent patterns that bring us about, with inductive reasoning, we let go of everything. There is no meaning of an identity or experience if it goes against the utility function and not in line with the inductive reasoning or that reality is probabilistic. (There is a chance that we don't exist, although small, for example).

The reason why there appears to be an attachment is because there is someone which attaches to something else even though this is not the case. The feedback loop is consciousness and whatever is fed gets strengthened. Whether it be identity or probabilistic logic. Even though this might seem like semantics it's not, it's a means to an end to attach yourself to a concept. Not the end goal.

What I am trying to say here is that from LW point of view you are making elementary mistakes in logic, and you keep repeating them over and over again, because you seem to not bother to get familiar with things that are common knowledge here.

You say I am making elementary mistakes in logic: As if anything there was said in the context of instrumental rationality, and if logic isn't defined differently in this exercise of epistemic rationality. Sounds like an attempt at straw man to me.

You are not prepared for this audience, and unless you do something about it, updating your wiki page and posting the link here will be a waste of time.

It's not my wiki page and of course I am not prepared. I don't deny that.

Second, this whole "logic nation" and "clicking" thing seems extremely self-referential. People who "clicked" keep talking about the fact that they "clicked" -- as far as I know, that is the only observable consequence of "clicking".

I don't see to the extent to which it becomes an apparent problem and even then if it even is.

The only exception seems to be Athene himself, a YouTube celebrity; he does some impressive things, for example is good at poker. But "a popular person endorses X" is not the same as "X will also make you popular". (As an analogy, there are probably many Hollywood actors that talk nicely about homeopathy, but that should not be taken as a proof that using homeopathy will make you a Hollywood star.)

Well he says this is how he is and he think it's likely those who have 'clicked' become similar now it's always different, depending on knowledge etc. But the attachment to something, of course not in "that way". I suspect that rather then augmenting our strengths and flaws with advancing technology, it'll be something similar to this. By the way, you can't exclude the duration which someone has had an insight along their impact.

Shortly, there is zero proof that "clicking" actually does anything; other than giving you a community of people who also talk about "clicking" all day long.

I don't know what you equal to proof, BOLD neuroimaging, tests or maybe anecdotal testimonies..

Having a group of friends with a common topic is a good thing, but you could achieve the same result by choosing e.g. science fiction to be the thing you are emotional about. If you encourage each other to work out, eat a healthy diet, and study math, that's better than most groups. So... Maybe the right thing to focus on would be this: Let's talk about how useful it can be for humans to have a group of friends whose goal is to live rationally, and to encourage each other to live rationally. To eat a healthy diet and exercise, to study math and then debate interesting topics together. That is the good part. And leave out all the "neuro-Spinozism" and other mumbo-jumbo, which is only there to make this idea feel more magical. My question is what exactly is your situation here: Do you already have such group, or are you trying to find one? Because if you already have such group, then the best way to attract people would be to describe what it is like to be in such group. If your group is awesome, and you describe how awesome it is, you won't need to update the wiki page; people will naturally want to have the same kind of experience. On the other hand, if you don't have such a group, and your posts on LW are attempts to find other people who would want to start such group, I think there are two ways that would work much better. First, stick with the "logic nation" folks, and post somewhere on their forums that you like their ideas in general, but you don't want to move and live with Athene, so you are looking for a similar-minded people in your area, to hang out with. Hopefully, someone will respond. Second option is to use LW instead, in which case your situation would be much easier if you just stop focusing on Athene, and instead read the Sequences and join the nearest LW meetup. Because our stated goals seem to overlap.

I don't know to what extent I am. I just posted it because it was interesting if someone would go through the process and what would happen. If they were honest to themselves and the required emotional intelligence. (By that I mean being aware of their own emotions)

It seems as there is a large overlap as you say and I'm reading the Sequences, it is good so far.

The essential question is whether "clicking" can be good for you even if you don't talk about it all the time. In other words, whether it really improves your life, or just makes a nice topic to talk about. If it doesn't improve your life, then what's the point? And if it does improve your life, then you can just "click" privately, and attend local LW meetups -- thus gaining benefits both from "clicking" and from having a community that shares 90% of your goals.

That seems appropriate.

You could even do the rationalist "taboo" thing, and introduce your ideas to the LW community without mentioning "clicking" or Athene explicitly. Is that even possible? Or would leaving out Athene and his keywords from the equation ruin everything? If it would, then that is a red flag. I know people in the rationalist community who are unimpressed with Eliezer, but agree with the idea of thinking and living more rationally, overcoming cognitive biases, etc. You can benefit from the rationalist community while ignoring Eliezer. Can you similarly benefit from "clicking" while ignoring Athene? Does following his ideas help you develop your own power, or does it only make you his follower? Are you trying to find a god, or become a god?

It's possible but it's not a heuristic deployed by humanity. I could be saved this work if we came to terms and realized the grave misunderstanding what this is about. I'm not certain though. I like how you seem to appear to agree but that I should go undercover like a Trojan horse and infiltrate the community. I think with LW-lingo and terms it's much easier to communicate but the exercise in of itself is probably the best we got right now.

Responding to comments is the majority of my discussions and are not about my core agenda. They are discussions which might've stemmed from (on it) it, yet still are separate discussions which have their own value. This also dismisses what ChristianKI implies in of itself. Which he himself knows, we've talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda. It was a discussion. On lesswrong.

I ask myself whether he has a place here. I don't think he does.

I've not linked to my site, but a site, which proposes a new view or idea and discussed of it in the past. Maybe once a month and you think I shouldn't be allowed to do so here. It's quite surprising as instead of refuting said idea you seem to imply I am a spammer.

I'll be honest. Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?

The reason why I posted it in the first place was because it was re-made. It looked spam-like because I copy pasted the entire content into the comments which made an ugly wall of text. Big mistake and I am sorry for that.

I'm going to write a little regarding what you said about religion.

There is probably a brain mechanism which religions are driven by. If there is, there needs not to be such a thing as non-religious or a religious theory. We can keep it at brain mechanisms, and later what trains it to be that way or how to switch it with System 2. As evident by brain scans of praying, religious actions shows activity in the reward circuits of the brain. So does abstract concepts, like money, especially in the more evolved parts of brain like the orbitofrontal cortex.

If these are able to activate the reward system, then one could reasonably conclude that you're able to instead of being rewarded by prayer or money, by rationality. Extrinsic rewards as we know are trained so we can reasonably conclude we can condition ourselves to rationality.

Since one interpretation of quantum mechanics shows that reality is probabilistic, (waves) we can also add this in the mix, inductive reasoning for said rationality and actions(actions instead of prayer in the context of reward) are considered for their negative or positive expected value.

Of course if you are driven by probabilistic rationality, the first thing to do would be to restructure your belief-system to decrease the binary thinking to stay consistent as we might like to feel this way emotionally.

It makes sense that your identity might vanish as you'd see experience, consciousness and what we are for what it is. A means to an end, a cell in a body where as the experience itself is a way for us to evolve rapidly.

That's the point I think.

I'm forfeiting sir. It was more of a general question, I didn't mean you to take it literally.

Take your advertisements elsewhere.

Advertisements sounds more material rather then immaterial. Unless you intended to convey an emotion with that word. So what do you expect me to return with, if not empty evangelism? That's more of the question I wanted to ask.

This community is not meant to be a platform for "promoting ideas"

Makes no sense, of course you promote your ideas. I think your pattern-recognition machine associated that with advertising.

If people want to discuss it they will, but as they haven't it can be inferred that they don't want to.

Have I somehow implied the other?

This community

Amygdala hijack

This sounds quite like an us vs. them mentality, to say "This community", and overall, in my opinion, your message was very hostile and primitive. Even before that you start with such an attitude! "grinding my teeth".

But, I don't take you as the only representative of "the community", which includes me and every other being. Of course, practically, have to have rules.

Based on your post history you seem to like politics, had bit of an attitude previously and most worrying seem to want to become a moderator with new capabilities. Have the capability of removing/hiding content without having to justify all details of such decisions to the membership as a whole However I'm speculating, but my pattern-recognition machine sees something which many might not.

Since I don't want to leave you without suggestions for improvement, I highly advise you to look into Mindfulness Meditation, to lower blood flow to the DMN where the "self/identity/ego" is housed. Research the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain hypothesis and so on.

Try not to destroy the world.