Comment by ingive on Open thread, May 15 - May 21, 2017 · 2017-05-18T04:49:07.990Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Eating tasteless food might be useful in weight loss and health. Vegetables usually have phytonutrients, which evolved to be for example insect repellents. However many of these phytonutrients have, for example, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory mechanisms in our body, Sapiens. Like Curcumin and Sulforaphane. Since IQ goes down by age, though crystallized not so much, it might be worthwhile to try and include these foods. Curcumin can pass the blood brain barrier in certain instances.

You've read this? It's long, but if you CTRL+F for "taste" you'll see some obvious writings. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/

Not Relevant, Not written by Yvain (srs): "He pointed to Absolute Infinity and told Him, including himself. why Blind-Every-thing-No-thing God, don't you allow us to enjoy, Qualia:tetively, useful food, rather than processed food? Unless we can't eat enough calories to satisfy our leptin-VNM-feedback system with unprocessed food, it should not be done"

Maybe AGI and CRISPR can edit the genes to enjoy "useful" food, it's after all only food for our real purposes.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017 · 2017-03-17T08:44:35.491Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not sure if intelligence and consciousness are one and the same thing, and with your words, consciousness/intelligence is information processing. If you conclude that intelligence is information processing, then this might be an aspect of the body, an attribute, in roughly the same way as consciousness. Then that aspect of the body is evolving in machines, called artificial intelligence, independent of conscious experience.

Consciousness has such a wide variety of states, whether it be mystical, religious experiences, persistent non-symbolic experiences, nonduality or even ordinary states and so forth. It's fine that these states are seen from the perspective of neurons firing in the brain, but from the state of the beholder, it's well, you know... maybe unsatisfactory to conclude the source is the brain? William A. Richards[1], for example, have the view that the 'hard problem of consciousness' is a philosophical question, and I don't doubt many others who have experienced these states have a more open appreciation for this idea. [4]

But as a philosophical question, even with the assertion that consciousness is information processing, it could be this 'brain being a receiver or reducing valve' philosophical idea. Hence, creating conscious machines means inducing a reduction valve of Mind-At-Large or receiver, however you want to look at it.

Recent neuroimaging studies have sparked the light of Aldous Huxley's philosophical idea[2] that the brain is a reducing valve for Mind-At-Large, consciousness, by showing that reductions in blood flow to certain regions of the brain with for example psychedelics lead to a more intense experience.

"As you can see here, there was a negative correlation between the blood flow to these areas and the intensity of the subjective experience by the subjects, so the lower the blood flow, the more intense the subjective experience. " [3]

Probably the most efficient way to accelerate neuroscience research is with AGI and I wouldn't be surprised if DeepMind's coming AGI will be utilized for this purpose as for example Hassabis is a neuroscientist and been a strong proponent for AGI scientists.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/07/william-a-richards-psychedlics-entheogens-book

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/327452-aldous-huxley-compared-the-brain-to-a-reducing-valve-in

[3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/this-is-your-brain-on-psilocybin/

[4] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201604/psychedelic-drugs-and-the-nature-personality-change

Comment by ingive on Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017 · 2017-03-14T01:11:23.530Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Important insight which LessWrong can comment on: link

To me, it's a very concise summary of what we all know yet stupidly enough, ignore because of irrational societies and educational systems. I'm not saying that I am taking it in. That would be the equal excuse as of any other. What do you think?

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017 · 2017-03-12T20:04:34.613Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The Marlet Protestors crash Effective Altruism debate

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awtz9F-PYtBMJ%3Awww.martlet.ca%2Fprotesters-crash-effective-altruism-debate%2F

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017 · 2017-03-08T01:22:30.074Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

As an intervention, I suppose by the number of applicants. It's was mostly about changing one's essence or awareness rather than it changing itself by taking action, being responsible and not making excuses. Of course, 'clickers' can still apply but this is the new stuff, regarding non-clickers.

Bachir is taking application calls publicly and it's pretty fun (Here's a Scientology mention). https://www.twitch.tv/videos/127066455?t=01h07m10s

I'm thinking about applying in the future. First I am going to read the Sequences, deepen my practice of meditation, etc.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017 · 2017-03-06T20:01:44.812Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

MrMind now 'the singularity group' has changed focus, rather than making people change their awareness and thus do EA actions, they instead ask to do the right EA action in every single moment. So people who are interested can apply and go over, meditate, exercise work etc according to a schedule until the right action disciplined has transitioned to the EA awareness. I think 12 hours of work a day (of course not physical labor).

The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective. They are also going to go around universities and try and grow the movement. To be honest this seems exciting and the impact you were speculating of. Here you can see the application form: http://pastebin.com/PLc1r0J9

So the problem about our current day society seems like it's centered around, for example, entertainment and intellectual masturbation (hobbies) even though we know we can be fulfilled and in a state of flow doing, for example, the right action every single moment. There won't even be a future or a past then.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-03-05T14:49:56.929Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, you are right on the point. I wanted to ask:

"If many forecasts say the probability is 80% that A will win, 20% that B will win, why do they say the forecasts were wrong if B wins?"

Wrong implies bivalence, binary thinking, duality: it implies right. A probability cannot be binary, it's infinite. My brain has a hard time understanding why it's reasonable... Kind of Orwellian.

So to my point. Forecasts were only wrong if they say A will win, but B wins. Is this not correct? Stating 80% in hindsight is equal to stating 0%, and even before that it's 0% or 100% or it's void, nothing, of no substance...

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-03-04T22:40:39.177Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This is a stupid question, but if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

Would an accurate prediction be "100% that B will win"? If they say 99% they are losers either way. I really do not understand. Maybe I have a tumor and it's impacting my cognition, haha.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-03-03T11:36:31.333Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, you are right. I'm sorry. The weight loss per day slows down over time. I wish I knew math so I could say what that curve is.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-03-02T15:51:48.257Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If you want to be serious, buy a food scale and measure all of your food and eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight and then maintain. This means you'll have to keep it up forever. You can eat whatever you want as long as you hit the target. Processed food that has nutrition labels are also applicable to this method. In regards to not eat more, it depends where you eat. At home, you cook the amount you need, in processed restaurants with nutrition labels you order as much as you need.

Forget buffets and fancy restaurants. Unless if you maybe fast for 24 hours after or have a well-kept habit to keep this up. That means for example approximating how much you overate and subtract it from next days calories, you'll learn as you train by measuring food.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017 · 2017-02-28T00:51:44.378Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

My wishing for the world is intellectual masturbation, so my practical actions in this consensus reality matter the most (instrumental rationality). But if thinking stops (epistemic rationality by persistent non-symbolic experiences) I do not care in a sense, I go insane in relation to the consensus reality but sane to the non-symbolic way of being.

So the way to solve this is to have a good system to remember me of my chores, goals, and choices which we would call rationality in the consensus reality. Otherwise, I might simply no longer be efficient from what I learn of the consensus reality. My memory might even be impaired.

Some think that the way for us to return to these states is by AGI and simply overcoming the limits of the human brain, but humans have done it for thousands of years, possibly with more ease.

See this article, Ben Goertzel is doing the interview: http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/08/08/engineering-enlightenment-part-one/

So what I think that I want is a persistent non-symbolic state, symbols make no sense, it's a bit Orwellian. But empirical feeling, indiscriminate love and so on makes a lot of sense. Of course, everything will function as it used to be ('I'-thought have never existed in the first place), but it will still be different. But from the place I am, I need (and I think humanity) need some system in which the computer keeps a track of what my goals and so on were before the persistent non-symbolic state.

This beautifully falls into a nice merging with machines, I think, let that which is unconscious, and always will be (machines), be our thinking, for we are non-symbolic I think. :)

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-02-28T00:16:55.260Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Meditation is supposed to be fun, something you do practice being here and now. That doesn't mean you can't meditate while using the computer or other activities. In fact, when meditators are asked to start meditating while scientists are doing an MRI scan, they might laugh that -they are always meditating-.

But nonetheless, a hypertrophied muscle from exercise is used in daily life, so the spurt of activity to induce the change is necessary. Have a groove with the now - that's the point. Observe your thinking, do not run with every thought, return to the breath. Thoughts that it is boring, return to the breath. You are not 'your' thoughts sir, you're the consciousness which is aware of thoughts and other perceptions.

But the only way to find out is to do the practice, maybe one day you will meet me half-way, I hope. Because I have seen it and I hope you do too. It becomes more interesting from then on.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-02-27T07:12:17.375Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

MrMind, and the LessWrong community, it seems as I was wrong on many things as you said, by hearing more about the productivity of the people at the house. I'm not sure if you have yet started to compile information on it.

I admit that I was wrong in my prediction and that 'what is' 'ought to be' seems to yet be unresolved and that the group does have some cultish behavior. The leader is very charismatic and made some very bold predictions. What I thought then was that I had discovered the ultimate key to human behavior, that everyone could be quantified down to a 'core value' which could be changed.

Now recently, it seems as the leader has come to the conclusion that because the click was for selfish reasons, it was unproductive. So by working on that. it seems as productivity has increased, which directly implies it was unproductive during the time period we're speaking of, MrMind.

Also according to the singularity group, it seems as not 'everyone' is capable of the selfless 'click', you "had to have the necessary program to change yourself" so "the leader" has made the prediction that they will no longer grow their group. Unfortunately, it seems as they are brigading, for example, the vegan subreddit. I have made a post here I wouldn't be surprised if this could happen in other communities like this one or EA.

They do say however that reality can make you change yourself, so they're thinking about making a curriculum, maybe even bringing people in. I think, in the end, it seems as from the perspective of the super-organism, by intellectually thinking of determinism with some probability if it applies on a macroscopic level, that it is how it is.

I would say I still appreciate the work being done I think it's useful. Personally, I would use the resources leaning towards persistent non-symbolic experiences and dmn/self etc.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017 · 2017-02-27T06:12:02.235Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What about an hour meditation and 30 min in assistance of this practice? If you have time, watch this video about self-inquiry I'm sorry there is no transcript available.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017 · 2017-02-26T10:17:51.443Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I've had the overall impression that the older you become the stronger you hold your beliefs, a metaphor can be the hardening of neural networks. I am making a relation right now between that and the part of the personality known as 'openness' which according to Roland R. Griffiths decrease as people become older.

“Normally, if anything, openness tends to decrease as people get older,” says study leader Roland R. Griffiths, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/single_dose_of_hallucinogen_may_create_lasting_personality_change

Which is discussed here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/7wh/rationality_drugs/4xmw to http://lesswrong.com/lw/82g/on_the_openness_personality_trait_rationality/

So drop acid with your friends, or rather have an underground psychedelic therapy group with blindfolds, music and emotional support. You gotta do your research though on how to facilitate these kinds of experiences. This is only for educational purposes and in theory.

Comment by ingive on Stupidity as a mental illness · 2017-02-26T09:40:18.187Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Non-iodized sea salt is trendy everywhere, I blame partly the TV cooks using it in the iconic "grab a pinch"-fashion. I'm not sure sea salt should be mandatory iodized, but areas affected more by IQ loss probably eat processed food which is iodized anyway compared to the new age health crowd.

There are a lot of other interventions worthwhile alongside pushing iodized sea salt to 'new health' crowds, like breastfeeding and peaceful parenting. The latter two probably more important in certain areas.

Comment by ingive on Stupidity as a mental illness · 2017-02-25T12:50:51.442Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Rather than forcing people to undergo an alteration of, for example, their genes, you can simply make it a requirement to receiving funding. For example in welfare states (or in a libertarian society, private charities). Other enhancements can be done in a similar fashion, or voluntarily obviously.

If you heap scorn on 'stupid' people or by attribute whatsoever, it's great to note the cause, many times it is probably psychological projection with an underlying anxiety of not being up to part to one's standards.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017 · 2017-02-25T08:07:52.942Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You seem to imply that my comment is a cost but not to which extent. I acknowledge that I am not a writer which is able to facilitate this to you in the LW-lingo and better English. But, it also matters to a cost to what and benefit to who? I'm not writing with my brain wired from the perspective of the community of lesswrong. But, frankly, I have seen it very strongly in its users like you. It might seem like I am confronting you but then I offer you the opportunity to see it in another way.

The way which is bigger than all of us and epistemic/instrumental rationality combined.

I'm not sure what's the problem anyway if you can say what is. I wish you would argue against me so I can better explain my point. :)

Peace and stillness my man. I appreciate y'all.

Comment by ingive on Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017 · 2017-02-24T04:01:33.163Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

There is a lot of wishing with what I wish for the world, so then I understand that the best option for me is to figure out the best course action over my lifetime, as that's what I have access to (indirectly via bandwidth to a keyboard-computer-internet-etc-you) but at the same time disconnecting from this belief. Because wishing isn't the best option, neither is the best course of action. Realizing that it's useful practically sometimes to attach to thinking, but not for the majority of the time. (p.s I made an excuse for my attachment to my thinking lol)

The best course of action is being in a state of flow constantly, which means inhibiting subvocalization and past-future thinking. Because the left hemisphere gets in the way of the action I am taking. For example, if I do a round of dual n-back, if I start actively thinking, my score drops. However, if I enter into a state of flow or focusing and thus inhibit the default mode network, it seems much better.

Now, I think that rationality suits as the best action, while at the same time not being attached to rationality and embrace the right hemisphere. Of course, from inside-out the brain knowing of right hemispheres will teach you nothing. But it acts as a guide to get you to spend time being in a state of flow to get 'nowhere' as naturally, you will become better at it.

What do I wish for rationalists and myself? I wish that we naturally tip the balance to the flow state but decide our actions with rationality. How this is expected to work is as following, every human being on this planet should go towards persistent non-symbolic experiences. While at the same time building applications, for example, everyone's phone for example which will act as a reminder and memory tool. The connection between the phone and the brain can simply be a wireless earpiece wore at all times. Maybe with some weak-AI system as well. Doesn't have to be an AGI. So we already use and have this technology.

I'm infinitely certain that this is our purpose on planet earth.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017 · 2017-02-08T17:54:29.288Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I'm sorry if I don't understand, but multiplying my debt with a greater debt leads to no debt. It is true as the mathematics show. If we say to the bank, check account A debt and multiply with account B debt, account A will have no debt. It is independent on how you want to phrase it.

What does each operation in your equation represent? "Removing two $2 debts is equal to adding $4"

It is true because the mathematics has to stay consistent, it is based on primordial choices. That's my point, we choose it this way.

There are elements of math and symbolic reasoning that don't map to reality, fine. But those parts which DO map well, are pretty strong, and are empirically correct in addition to being symbolically/conventionally well-formed. Mathematics is a mental creation, but that doesn't make it unrelated to reality - it's a pretty good and well-tested model of our universe. As to that picture, the water goes neither up nor down - it's a still drawing.

So, if I understand right, you think that mathematics is a mental creation and does map well to reality, but it doesn't make it unrelated to reality. Reality seems to be independent of our maps, and a relation between a map and it would be a mental one. Yet reality is beyond any maps or limits.

Well, the drawing is non-bivalent yet we choose our thinking to be such, as evident towards a lot.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017 · 2017-02-08T15:42:42.575Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

And -2 * $-1 = $-2, yes.

I think you meant (-2 * -1 = $2) I meant, multiply by a negative count of debt and not itself. So a debt multiplied by a negative count of debts leads to no debt at all, a positive. I'm not sure how you can have a negative count of debts.

$2 debt squared does make sense, though, it is $4 and no debt. So by our mathematics, I could call the bank and ask them to multiply my debt with yours, I would return a positive.

The point I am making is that we've made it this way because have chosen to. It says to me that mathematics is more of a mental creation, albeit a very useful one and that nature might be infinitely greater than our own self-imposed boundaries.

Take a look at this picture does the water goes up or down? Is bivalent thinking necessarily nature or simply a mental creation? When it comes to truths (true or false) or computers (by primordial decisions) (1 or 0)

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017 · 2017-02-08T12:36:47.572Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Consistency in Arithmetic

Double the debt: 2 -1 = -2 *Ok

But: -2 -1 = 2 *Ok?

Who will allow you to multiple your debt with another's debt to get rid of it?

2 -1 + -2 - 1 = (2 - 2) -1 = 0 -1 = 0

But...

2 -1 + -2 -1 = -2 + -2 * -1 = 0

Therefore...

-2 * -1 = 2

Ian Stewart, Professor Stewart’s Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities, Profile Books, 2008, pages 37-38;

So mathematics is mentally-created, it looks objective because of primordial choices we have made? As a form of a subconscious of the Species and we've created computers because we think that way and choose to think that way? Our truths may be grounded on habit and rationality may be a self-imposed restriction, nature being more non-bivalent than we would like it to be. Under the same logic, the furniture in our room might have been subject to similar primordial choices. Oh, and especially I, Ourselves, Identity.

The degrees of what's available in nature might be infinitely greater than we think and a self-imposed boundary might be inherently limiting.

A Musico-Logical Offering

Hofstadter opens with the story of J.S. Bach's Musical Offering for King Frederick, which contains a particular canon that sneakily shifts from one key to another before its apparent conclusion, and when this modulation is repeated 6 times, the piece ends up at the original key but one octave higher. This is our first example of a "Strange Loop":

The "Strange Loop" phenomenon occurs whenever, by moving upwards (or downwards) through the levels of some heirarchical system, we unexpectedly find ourselves right back where we started. (Here, the system is that of musical keys.)

Other examples occur in the drawings of M.C. Escher, for example this famous one.

Is the water going up or down?

Comment by ingive on Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness · 2017-01-28T16:58:02.230Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Maybe it was DID in the original studies. Consciousness is certainly an interesting phenomenon.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-28T06:20:59.274Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

That's interesting. You haven't simply pointed out my errors in my thought processes. I have yet to see you simply point them out, rather than arguing with assumptions that I can refute with basic reasoning. It's cute that you, for example, assume I don't have an answer to your hypothetical scenarios because I simply point out that it's a waste of time. Hypotheticals are intellectual entertainment. But it might've been a better choice to answer your questions from the mindset I was speculating of.

I just watched The Master which was an aesthetically pleasing movie. It does give some taste of cults/new-age thinking, and I can see myself doing the same type of thinking for other things. I've discussed with people with different perspectives and watched such content as well. I've come to the conclusion that this is human nature. Thinking back long ago in my life and now, unfortunately, if you think you're incapable of such thinking or not actually a part of such a thing right now, you probably are. But that is very confrontational and I wouldn't be surprised that you, or someone else, would without hesitation deny that fact. I can only tell you that in some hope that you don't reinforce the belief that you probably are not.

I'm going to open my mind now, you're free to reprogram my brain, tell me, Master and break through to me. Seriously, I am open minded.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-25T03:41:41.821Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What?

Because Hume thought the universe is without taking in consideration that it ought to be different because of probabilistic nature (one interpretation) of it all.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-25T03:27:35.819Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Not sure what this means. If "Just align with reality!" is your guiding ethical principle, and it doesn't return answers to ethical questions, it is useless.

It does return answers for ethical questions. In fact I think it will for all.

Naw, we're naturally aligned to decrease our own suffering. Our natural impulses and ethical intuitions are frequently mutually contradictory and a philosophy of just going with whatever feels right in the moment is (a) not going to be self-consistent and (b) pretty much what people already do, and definitely doesn't require "clicking".

What if your suffering is gone and there are only others suffering based on intellectual assumptions?

Sufficiently wealthy and secure 21st century Westerners sometimes conclude that they should try to alleviate the suffering of others, for a complex variety of reasons. This also doesn't require or "clicking".

What if that was the goal and being wealthy and secure 21st century Westerner was the means as with all?

By the way, you seem to have surrendered on several key points along the way without acknowledging or perhaps realizing it. I think it might be time for you to consider whether your position is worth arguing for at all.

I didn't surrender, I tried to wake you up. I can easily refute all of your arguments by advising you to gain knowledge of certain things and accepting it fully.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-19T18:27:41.156Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

In which case, since your whole philosophy seems to depend on the universe not being deterministic, you should scream "oops!" and look for where you went wrong, not try to come up with some way to quickly patch over the problem without thinking about it too hard.

I'm glad that it's clarified, indeed it relies on the universe not being deterministic. However, I do think that a belief in a deterministic universe has an easier time for its agents to go against their utility so my philosophy might boil down more to one's emotions, probably what even put Humes to philosophize about this in the first place. He has apparently talked a lot about emotions/rationality duality and probably contradicted himself on 'is-ought' in his own statements.

You learn that an innocent is going to be murdered. That 'is', so what force compels you to intervene?

Is tells me what I should write to your hypothetical scenario to align you more with reality, rather than continuing the intellectual masturbation. Which philosophers are notorious for, all talk, no action.

The universe is full of suffering. That 'is'. So you ought to spread and cause suffering? If not, what is your basis for saying so?

We are naturally aligned into the decrease of suffering, I don't know exactly, so what is is in every moment whereas the low hanging fruit has to be picked up in for example poverty reduction. Long-term probably awareness of humans like you and I, the next on the list might be an existential risk reduction, seems to be high expected value.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-19T17:11:39.230Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW
  1. With that interpretation, not Copenhagen. I'm unsure, because inherently, can we really be certain of absolutes because of our lack of understanding of the human brain? I think that how memory storage and how the brain works shows us that we can't be certain of our own knowledge.

  2. If you are right with that the universe is deterministic then what ought to be is what is. But if you ought to do the opposite from what 'is' tell us, what are you doing then? You are not allowed to have a goal which is not aligned with what is because that goes against what you are. I do agree with you now however, I think that this is semantics. I think it was a heuristic. But then I'll say "What is, is what you ought to be".

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-19T15:51:36.588Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If someone wins the Nobel prize you heard it here first.

The is-ought problem implies that the universe is deterministic, which is incorrect, it's an infinite range of possibilities or probabilities which are consistent but can never be certain. Humes beliefs about is-ought came from his own understanding of his emotions and those around him's emotions. He correctly presumed that it is what drives us and that logic and rationality could not (thus not ought to be in any way because things are) and thought the universe is deterministic (without the knowledge of the brain and QM). The insight he's not aware of that even though his emotions are the driving factor, he misses out that he can emotionally be with rationality and logic, facts, so there is no ought to be from what is. 'What is' implies facts, rationality, and logic and so on, EA/Utilitarian ideas. The question about free will is an emotional one if you are aware your subjective reference frame, awareness, was a part of it then you can let go of that.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-19T15:07:54.186Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I think then you should ask what can you do about it (or do the most effective action).

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-19T14:55:57.333Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You're welcome to explain why this isn't the case. I'm thinking mostly about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. It tells us everything.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T21:26:47.645Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I agree. Now I'd like the password for username2.

You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics, because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.

-niceguyanon

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T20:46:12.349Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

It's unlikely that it's not the same person, or people on average utilize shared accounts to try and share their suffering (by that I mean have a specific attitude) in a negative way. It would be interesting to compare shared accounts with other accounts by for example IBM Watson personality insights. In a large scale analysis.

I would just ban them from the site. I'd rather see a troll spend time creating new accounts and people noticing the sign-up dates. Relevant: Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists

By the way, I was not consciously aware of the user when I wrote my text or the analysis of the user agenda. But afterwards I remembered "oh it's that user again".

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T20:35:23.658Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What do you mean by this? Assuming its a joke, why does it speaks to his character and underlying ideas; why would it, it wasn't meant for you to take seriously.

Because a few words tell a large story when they also decided it was worth their time to write it. I wrote in my post and explained for example what type of viewpoints it implies and that it's stupid (in the sense inefficient and not aligned with reality).

Probably not at all.

I will update my probabilities then as I gain more feedback.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T20:10:24.492Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

No, you don't. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You're assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as philanthropic, altruistic and selfless.

The reason why you think so is because of straw Vulcan, your own attachment to your self and identity, and your own projections onto the world. I have talked about your behavior previously in one of my posts. do you agree? I also gave you suggestions on how to improve, by meditating, for example. http://lesswrong.com/lw/5h9/meditation_insight_and_rationality_part_1_of_3/

In another example, as you and many in society seem to have a fetish for sociopaths, yes you'll be a sociopath, but not for yourself, for the world. By recognizing your neural activity includes your environment and that they are not separate, that all of us evolved from stardust, and practicing for example meditation or utilizing psychotropic substances, your "Identity" "I" "self" becomes more aligned, and thus what your actions are directed to. That's called Effective Altruism. (emotions aside, selflessness speaks louder in actions!)

Edit: You changed your post after I replied to you.

[1] ETA: Before I get nitpicked to death, I mean the symptoms often associated with high-functioning sociopathy, not the clinical definition which I'm aware is actually different from what most people associate with the term.

Still apply. Doesn't matter.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T19:54:45.144Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

a

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T17:40:25.531Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You have been strongly associated with a certain movement, and people might not want to engage you in conversation even on different topics,

You forgot to say that you think that. But for username 2's point, you had to reiterate that you think.

because they are afraid your true intention is to lead the conversation back to ideas that they didn't want to talk with you about in the first place.

That's unfortunate if it is the case if ideas which are outside their echo chamber create such fear, then what I say might be of use in the first place, if we all come together and figure things out :)

I think username2 was making a non-serious cheeky comment which went over your head and you responded with a wall of text touching on several ideas. People sometimes just want small exchanges and they have no confidence in you to keep exchanges short.

It was but it speaks of his underlying ideas and character to even be in the position to do that. I don't mind it, I enjoy typing walls of texts. What would you want me to respond, if at all?

Agreeing with the sentiment that people probably aren't engaging with this question because it's too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available, and what is available is probably incomplete as well. By asking such a broad question rather than a narrower, specific, or applied question, you won't get many responses.

Yeah, I think so too, but I do think there is a technological barrier in how this forum was setup for the type of problem-solving I am advising for. If we truly want to be Less Wrong, it's fine with how it is now, but there can definitely be improvements in an effort for the entire species rather than a small subset of it, 2k people.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T14:37:02.222Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

that's at least on the right side of the is-ought gap.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean.

Accepting facts fully is EA/Utilitarian ideas. There is no 'ought' to be. 'leads' was the incorrect word choice.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-18T11:28:53.608Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Replace all humans with machines.

Changing human behavior is probably more efficient than to build machines, to align more with reality. It's a question whether a means is a goal for you? If not, you would base your operations on the most effective action, probably changing behavior (because you could change the behavior of one, to equal the impact of your robot building, but probably more). I don't think replacing all humans with machines is a smart idea anyway. Merging biology with technology would be a smarter approach from my view as I deem life to be conscious and machines to not be. Of course, I might be wrong, but sometimes you might not have an answer but still give yourself the benefit of the doubt, for example, if you believed that every action is inherently selfish, you would still do actions which were not. By giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you figured out later on (which we did) that it is not the case, then that was a good choice. This includes consciousness since we can't prove the external world it would be wise to keep humans around or utilize the biological hardware. If we had machines which replaced all humans, then that would be not very smart machines to at least not keep some around in a jungle or so, which hadn't been contacted. Which undoubtedly mean unfriendly AI, like a paperclip maximizer.

I just want to tell you that you have to recognize what you're saying and how it looks, even though you only wrote 5 words, you could as well be supporting a paperclip maximizer.

That's basically related to the entire topic of this site. People probably aren't engaging with this question because it's too tiresome to summarize all the information that is available from that little search bar in the upper right corner.

What should I search for to find an answer to my question? Flaws of human behavior that can be overcome (can they?) like biases and fallacies is relevant, but it's quite specific however, I guess that's very worthwhile to go through to improve functionality. Something other would be stupid.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T22:33:33.892Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yeah, it's also called 'Enlightenment' in theological traditions. You can read the testimonies here. MrMind has, for example, read them, but he's waiting a bit longer to contact these people on Reddit to see if it sticks around. I think the audio can work really well with a good pair of headphones and playing it as FLAC.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T22:13:57.497Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I agree.

These are the steps I did to have identity death: link to steps I also meditated on the 48 min hypnosis track youtube If you are interested in where I got my ideas from and if you want to try it yourself. It's of course up to you but you have a strong identity and ego issues and I think it will help "you"(and me).

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T21:58:16.212Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This is substantially different from saying with any kind of certainty that helping other people is identical to helping myself.

No, it's not.

Other people want things contrary to what I want.

What does that have to do with helping yourself, thus other people?

Having low attachment to my identity is not the same thing as being okay with people hurting or killing me.

Yeah, but 'me' is used practically.

The fact that human brains run on physics in no way implies that helping another is helping yourself.

I said your neural activity includes you and your environment and that there is no differentiation. So there is no differentiation by helping another as in helping yourself.

Again, if a person wants to kill me, I'm not helping myself if I hand him a gun. If you model human agents the way Dennis Hoffman's character does in I Heart Huckabees you're going to end up repeatedly confused and stymied by reality.

That's the practical 'myself' to talk about this body, its requirements and so on. You are helping yourself by not giving him a gun because you are not differentiated by your environment. You are presuming that you are helping yourself by giving gun because you think that there is another. No there is only yourself. You help yourself by not giving the gun because your practical 'myself' is included in 'yourself'.

This is also just not factual. You're making an outlandish and totally unsupported claim when you say that "emotionally accepting reality" causes the annihilation of the self. The only known things that can make the identity and self vanish are high dose psychotropic compounds extremely long and intense meditation of particular forms that do not look much like what you're talking about and even these are only true for certain circumscribed senses of the word "self".

I don't deny that it is not that factual as there is limited objective evidence.

These are pseudo-religious woo, not supported by science anywhere. I have given you very simple examples of scenarios where they are flatly false, which immediately proves that they are not the powerful general truths you seem to think they are.

I disagree with 'helping another is helping you' being psuedo-religious woo but it's because we're talking about semantics. We have to decide what 'me' or my 'self' or 'I' is. I use the neural activity as the definition of this. You seem to use some type philosophical reasoning where you are presuming I use the same definition.

So we should investigate if your self and identity can die from that and if other facts which we don't embrace emotionally leads to a similar process but for their area. That's the entire point of my original post.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T20:54:45.419Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Indeed, this is true in the sense that it's most likely that this is the case based on the available evidence.

I'm glad that you're aligned with reality on this certain point, there's not many that are, but I wonder, why do you claim that helping others is not helping yourself, excluding practicality of semantics? It seemed as you were very new to the concept of non-emotional attachment to identity/I because you argued my semantics.

But, you claimed earlier that none of this is actually factual would you like to elaborate on that? That these are my interpretations of vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas.

The reason why I push this is because you contradict yourself and you very much seemed to have an opinion on this specific matter.

I feel it might help you to know that none of this is actually factual. These are your interpretations of really vague and difficult-to-pin-down philosophical ideas, ideas about which very smart and well-read people can and do disagree. For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses. The same could be said for the idea that helping another is helping yourself. That's not true if the other I'm helping is trying to murder me -- and if I can refute the generality with one example that I came up with in half a second of thought, it's not a very useful generality.

So... "none of this is actually factual", it's philosophical ideas, but later on you agree that "you and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true" by saying "Indeed, that was what I said. It is still true." Which you did but it was "...in some narrow technical sense..." and "...but it is also very much false ... relevant ..." now it's "It's true" "factual"? Is it also a "philosophical idea" and a part of the ideas that "none of this is actually factual"?

Your statements in order:

  • not actually factual.
  • really vague philosophical ideas
  • may be true in some narrow technical sense
  • but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses
  • indeed, that what was I said
  • it is still true

It's fine to be wrong and correct yourself :)

The activity of that atom is not relevant to my decision making process. That's it. What part of this is supposed to be in error?

Yeah, it isn't, but the example you gave of you and environment, is relevant to your decision-making process, as evident by your claim (outside of practicality) and of semantics that "helping others is not helping yourself" for example. So using an analogy which is not relevant to your decision-making process in contrary to your example where it is, is incorrect. That's why I say use the example which you used before. Instead of making an analogy that I don't disagree with.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T19:31:30.345Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense"

In a technical sense.

"but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."

The relevant sense here is your emotions.

Technically you understand that self and environment is one and the same, but you don't emotionally resonate with that idea [you don't emotionally resonate with facts].

Otherwise, what do you mean with:

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense" It's true...?

"but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses." But it's false... for a relevant sense?

What is the 'relevant sense'? (not emotions?)

Is it more or less probable that 'you and your environment' is separated and based on what evidence?

I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but I suspect that you don't. Your thinking is not clear. By using different words, you will force yourself to interrogate your own understanding of what you're putting forth.

Emotionally accepting or submitting to something is an empirical fact. There are no different words, but if there is, you're free to put them forward.

The gravitational pull of a distant atom is causally present but practically irrelevant to any conceivable choice that I make. This is not a statement that I feel is particularly controversial. It is obviously true.

You keep using analogies rather than the example you gave earlier. Why? I already understand what you mean, but the actual example is not irrelevant to your decisions.

So what you actually meant was:

"You and your environment are not separated. This is obviously true"?

Can you confirm? Please spot the dissonance and be honest.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T18:52:14.122Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

You say you're not, yet you're contradicting your previous statement where scientific facts are irrelevant to your other senses [emotions]. Which you completely omitted in responding to. Please explain. Is it a blind spot?

This is just not a very interesting or useful line of thinking.

I'm unsure why accepting facts to the extent where falsehoods by other senses are overwritten, is uninteresting or not useful.

I (and most people on this forum) already try to live as rationalists, and where your proposal implies any deviation in from that framework, your deviations are inferior to simply doing what we are already doing.

It's obviously not inferior or superior as I've already explained a flaw in your reasoning, which you're either already too much of an affective death spiral to notice, or completely omitting because you have some vague sense that you are right. You could've welcomed me rather than prove to me what I've been saying all along. :)

Furthermore, you consistently rely on buzzwords of your own invention ("aligning with reality", "emotionally submitting") which greatly inhibit your attempts at clarifying what you're trying to say.

It's very explanatory. If you go against what you are and your purpose then you are not aligned with reality. If you go alongside with what you are and your purpose then you are aligned with reality. Accepting facts in all senses, including emotionally. By everything I've written so far, it should able to connect the dots with your pattern-recognition machine what these 'buzzword's mean? If I say X means this, this that, multiple times then you should have a vague sense in what I mean it?

Perhaps if you read the essays as I suggest, you could provide substantive criticisms/improvements that did not rely on your own idiosyncratic terminology.

I wasn't using 'my terminology' when I explained your contradiction, and that this contradiction is the problem?

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."

.

You're believing that you and your environment are separate based on "relevant" senses. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to your some of your senses, it is technical. If all of your senses were in resonance, including emotional, then there wouldn't be such a thing where scientific evidence is irrelevant in this context.

That's the improvement we have to make.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T18:16:40.955Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What am I supposedly believing that is false, that is contradicted by science? What specific scientific findings are you implying that I have got wrong?

This is what you said:

"For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses."

You're believing that you and your environment are separate based on "relevant" senses. Scientific evidence is irrelevant to your some of your senses, it is technical. If all of your senses were in resonance, including emotional, then there wouldn't be such a thing where scientific evidence is irrelevant in this context.

So your environment and you are not separate. This is a scientific fact. Because it's all a part of your neural activity. Now I am not denying consciousness, qualia or empirical evidence. I'm already taking it as a premise. But you are emotionally attached to the idea that you and environment are separate, that's why you're unable to accept the scientific evidence. However, if you had a scientific mindset, facts would make you accept it. It's not in the way you think right now "It's true in a technical sense, but not for the relevant senses", whereas one part of you accept it but the other, your emotions, do not.

Exactly this is what I am explaining by aligning with reality, you're aligning and letting the evidence in rather than rejecting from preconditioned beliefs. I think you're starting to understand and that you will be stronger because of it. Even if it might seem a little scary at start. Of course we have to investigate it.

There is a narrow technical sense in which my actions are dependent on the gravitational pull of some particular atom in a random star in a distant galaxy. That atom is having a physical effect on me. This is true and indisputable. In a more relevant sense, that atom is not having any effect on me that I should bother with considering. If a magical genie intervened and screened off the gravitational field of that atom, it would change none of my choices in any way that could be observed.

You don't bother considering because it's an analogy in which the hypothetical scenario leads to that conclusion. Do the same with the statements in context, repeat it, is it having any effect on you that you feel that you're not separate from your environment ("Helping others is helping you?") and so on? But of course you have to write down in the same manner, but now not for an analogy.

Then you're jumping forward and making quasi-religious statements about "aligning with reality" and "emotionally submitting" and talking about how your "sense of self disappears". All that stuff is your own unsupported extrapolations. This is the reason you're having trouble communicating here.

Aligning with reality is an emotional heuristic which follows Occam's razor. Emotionally submitting, you already do. That's an example of if you emotionally submit to a heuristic which constantly aligns you to reality and acts as a guide to your decisions. Then if there is evidence, like I've written in the start of the post, you submit yourself to the extent where it's no longer in "a technical sense".

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T17:01:32.408Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Science does not actually know how emotions work to the degree of accuracy you are implying. Your statement that using emotional commitment rather than Bayesian epistemology leads to better alignment with reality is a hypothesis that you believe, not a fact that has been proven. If you become a very successful person by following the prescription you advocate, that would be evidence in favor of your hypothesis, but even that would not be very strong evidence by itself.

I don't know, that's why I wanted to raise an investigation into it, but empirically you can validate or invalidate the hypothesis by emotional awareness, which is what I said at the start of my message you quoted and somehow make me seem to imply science when I say empirically.

First sentence: "It's important to recognize empirically"

I do not have an experience of dissonance when I say,

You might've had, but no longer. That's how cognitive dissonance works.

"From one point of view we're inseparable from the universe, from a different point of view we can be considered independent agents." These are merely different interpretative paradigms and neither are right or wrong.

Independent agents is an empirical observation which I have already taken as a premise as a matter of communication. Emotionally you don't have to be an independent agent of the universe if you emotionally choose to. It's a question whether one alignment is more aligned with reality based on factual evidence or what you feel (been conditioned). Right or wrong is a question of absolutes. More aligned overtime is not.

you will need to be willing to criticize yourself and your own ideas with detachment and rigor.

I'm unsure what it is I have not written which has not tried to communicate this message, in case you don't understand, that's exactly what I am trying to tell you. I am offering to raise a discussion to figure out how to do it. Aligning with reality implies detachment from things which are not aligned. If you wonder if attachment to it is possible, yeah as a means, but you'll soon get over it by empirical and scientific evidence.

I'm not arguing that changing perspective from default modes of human cognition is bad. I'm arguing that your particular brand of improved thinking is not particularly compelling, and is very far from being proven superior to what I'm already doing as a committed rationalist.

I'm not sure, that's why I want to raise a discussion or a study group to investigate this idea.

"Performing the actions most likely to yield highest utility is most probable to be aligned with the utility function",

Simply being aligned with reality gives you equilibrium as that's what you were designed to do. Using Occam's razor here simplifies your programming.

The bottom line is being able to accept facts emotionally (such as neural activity before) rather than relying on empirical observations of social conditioning. I'm unsure that you've in any way disproved my point I just made.

That's the point I want to bring, we should want to investigate that further and how we can align ourselves with the facts emotionally (empirically). But how do we do it?

Simply by saying it like this "true in some narrow technical sense" then "false in probably more relevant senses" so your empirical observation is probably "true" rather than scientific evidence, or facts? (which you call narrow and technical), no it's not probably true and there is a disconnect between your emotional attachments to what's less probable to what's more probable. You don't even see it as a problem because it's your lens, yet you have to do your best to admit it in a way where it doesn't seem too obvious by using words like "narrow". That's exactly what I invite you to discuss further, why are you believing things to be false, when the scientific evidence says otherwise? ("true in some narrow technnical sense") I presume you're also using true and false in a linguistic way, there's no such thing.

That's exactly why I deem it important, because if you did, you'd say "yeah the scientific evidence says so" instead of "no my senses tells me it's false" or both (which makes no sense, worth to investigate!), what if by learning of the scientific evidence, you adopt the "truth" so that your senses tell you what is "true"? That's what you would do.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T15:57:50.538Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I should only "submit" to any particular belief in accordance with my assessment of its likelihood, and can never justify submitting to some belief 100%. Indeed, doing so would be a form of irrational fundamentalism.

Not necessarily, because the submitting is a means rather than the goal, and you will always never be certain. It's important to recognize empirically how your emotions work in contrary to a Bayesian epistemology, how using its mechanisms paradoxically lead to something which is more aligned with reality. It's not done with Bayesian epistemology, it is done with emotions, that do not speak in our language and it's possibly hard-wired to be that way. So we become aware of it and mix in the inductive reasoning.

For example, the idea that you and your environment are not separate from each other may be true in some narrow technical sense but it is also very much false in probably more relevant senses.

"true in some narrow technical sense" yet "false in probably more relevant senses" this is called cognitive dissonance, empirically it can even be this way by some basic reasoning, both emotionally and factually, which is what I am talking about, and which needs to be investigated. You're proving my point :)

That's not true if the other I'm helping is trying to murder me -- and if I can refute the generality with one example that I came up with in half a second of thought, it's not a very useful generality.

That's simply semantics, the problem is attaching emotionally to a sense of "I", which is not aligned with reality, independent of action, you may speak of this practical body, hands, I, for communication, it all arises in your neural activity without a center and it's ever changing. Empirically, that arises in the subjective reference frame, which is taken as a premise for this conversation.

I suspect that you haven't read through all of Eliezer's blog posts. His writings cover all the things you're talking about, but do it in a way that is grounded in much sturdier foundations than you appear to be using.

Yes. Unsure if his writings cover what I am talking about since evident by what you've said so far. Not that I blame you, I just want us to meta observe ourselves so we can be more aligned.

It also seems that you are very much in love with this idea of Logic as being the One Final Solution to Everything, and that is always a huge danger sign in human thinking. Just thinking probablistically, the odds that the true Final Solution to Everything has been discovered and that you are in possession of it are very low. Hence the need to keep a distribution of likelihoods over beliefs rather than putting all your weight down 100% on some perspective that appeals to you aesthetically.

I'm unsure what considers as danger sign in human thinking if you change perspective, the likelihood that something is worse than what we have is low. You only need a limited emotional connection to science and rationality to realize this and how bad thinking spreads epidemically now, but from someone like us, it's more likely to be good thinking? The likelihood to investigate this is very high to be positive expected value because inherently you, I and more possess the qualities which are not aligned with reality. I want to reassure you of something, however.

Alignment with reality is the most probable to give equilibrium as it's aligned with the utility function. When in a death spiral and not aligned (yet think is aligned) then aligning with reality might seem as not aligning ("very much false in probably more relevant senses") but the opposite and that it would be against utility function and lead to experience opposite to before. That's the case, but if you are honest with your emotions, the experience which is baseline has a hard time to see beyond itself. That's why understanding that experience is a tool, not a goal, although it gives to what would be considered a "satisfaction of that goal", it is only by accepting facts that it happens, and it can't happen in the death spiral.

I'm unsure if this is possible to communicate with words, this is quite a limitation of language and it seems as regardless what I say to you, you cannot see beyond it. That's why I want to start a discussion of how we should be more aligned with reality and where to start from. Whether it be neuroscience studies or whatever.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T12:14:38.434Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I see that the problem in your reasoning is that you've already presumed what it entails, what you have missed out on is understanding ourselves. Science and reasoning already tell us that we share neural activity, are a social species thus each of us could be considered to be a cell in a brain. It's not as much if every cell decides to push the limits of its rationality, rather the whole collective as long as the expected value is positive. But to do that the first cells have to be U(figure this out).

It's not either perfect or non-perfect, that's absolute thinking. Rather by inductive reasoning or QM probabilistic thinking, "when should I stop refining this, instead share this?" after enough modification and understanding of neuroscience and evolutionary biology for the important facts in what we are.

Based on not thinking in absolute perfection, it's not a question of if, but rather what do we do? Because your reasoning cannot be already flawed before thinking about this problem. We already know that we can change behavior and conditioning, look around the world how people join religious groups, but how do we capitalize on this brain mechanism to increase productivity, rationality, and so on?

Before I said, "stop refining it then share it", that's all it takes and the entire world will have changed. Regarding that, our brain can fool itself, yeah, I don't see why there can't be objective measurement outside of subjective opinion and that it'll surely be thought of in the investigation process.

Comment by ingive on Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016 · 2017-01-17T01:23:09.334Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

A scientific mindset has a lower probability of being positive expected value because there is more than one value when it comes to making decisions, sometimes in conflict with each other. This can lead to cognitive dissonance in daily life. It's because science is a tool, the best one we got. Aligning with reality has a higher probability as it's an emotional heuristic, with only one value necessary.

Aligning with reality means submitting yourself emotionally, similar to how a religious person submits to God, but in this case, our true creator: To logic, where it is defined here as "the consistent patterns which bring about reality". Then you accept facts fully. You understand how everything is probabilities, as per one interpretation of quantum mechanics and that experience is a tool rather than a goal. Using inductive reasoning and deciding actions as per positive expected value allows you to accept facts and be aligned with reality.

It's hard if you keep thinking binary, whether it be absolutes or not, 1's or 0's. Because to be able to accept facts it to be able to accept one might be wrong, everything is probabilities, infinite possibilities. Practically, if you know exercising every day is positive expected value, for example, then as you align yourself with reality in every moment, you realize even if you injure yourself accidentally today, you won't give up reality. Because you made the most efficient action as per your knowledge and you already accounted for the probability of accidentally injuring yourself.

So as you keep feeling you also upgrade it with the probabilities to keep your emotions aligned with reality and easier able to handle situations as I mentioned above, however, maybe something more specific if someone breaks your trust. You already took it in consideration so you won't completely lose trust and emotions for reality.

When you accept and align yourself with reality, then the facts which underlie it, with our current understandings and as long as the likelihood is high, you keep aligning yourself. Experience truly is a feedback loop which results in whatever you feed it.

Regarding what aligning with reality entails: When you're constantly aligning yourself to reality, as long as you deem the probability high you'll be able to emotionally resonate with insights gained. For example, neuroscience will tell you, that you and your environment are not separate from each other, it's all a part of your neural activity. So helping another is helping you. If that doesn't resonate enough, for example, evolutionary biology that we're all descendants from stardust might. Or that there is a probability that you don't exist (as per QM) although very small. So what happens? Your identity and self vanishes, as it's no longer aligned with reality, you accept facts, emotionally. Then you keep the momentum by doing logical actions as per positive expected value after you learn everything what truly is you, and so on.

It's about what Einstein believed in and Carl Sagan, Spinoza's. However Einstein couldn't accept QM because he was thinking in absolutes already, and was unaware of how the brain works. Which we do now, for example, know we're all inherently in denial, and how memory storage works, etc. If he knew that he might have had a different view.

I can't really fix up this text right now but I hope it can somehow help for you to understand what it means to align with reality. It's really important to accept that experience is a tool, not a goal, from insights from evolutionary biology for example. Then there is reality. Who is aligning, if there is only reality?