Posts
Comments
This issue has become a lot less hypothetical, regards current events and is funny (while simultanoeusly being a very serious issue). Ant is a part of an information processing system more distributed than a single human that doesn't have wings.
I have a cube maker contact if anyone is interested.
I think it is very important to ask the reverse question of "Are there some things, that should I come to know them, I would not be ready to accept?"
Also if you have a questionaire there is going to be some threshold of answers that you will count as noise and not as signal akin to lizardman constant. What things do you only think you are asking but are not actually asking?
Do you have some beliefs that if challenged by contrary evidence you would thereby find the evidence unreliable? Are there things your eyes could send you that would make you Aumann disagree with your eyes about them being optical sensory organs (aka not believe your eyes)? Do you have any beliefs which would require infinite amount of evidence to actually challenge (beliefs with less than appriciable doubt, ie infinidesimal openness). Are there any beliefs you are unreasonably hardheaded about (rather than requiring 1000 times the evidence needed to convince the median human you would require 1 000 000 000 times the evidence)?
Bad news is that most of the questions of the form "are there any..." will be answered in the positive. Rather than asking "whether" there are such beliefs we can almost certainly ask "what" are those kinds of beliefs you have.
One of the reasons I am a stricler for possibility is that I have found it more productive to think that if a situation or a human type is not logically inconsistent it probably rather exists rather than not exists. Even if it does not yet exists thinking as if it does makes you already to have accomodiated the possibility.
If you do this by each subtype it gets combinatorily explosive. In order not to do this kind of thing via exhaustion you identify critical points where things would flip/break when certain conditions are hit. In coding it means when you divide you always give attention to what happens with zero division. Even if you identify that a certain combination of ethnicity, neurotype and sexual orientation gums up some social system, you might not have a solution, but atleast know there is a gap there. The same reason why you know application area of newtons laws and where you need to switch to relativity or something else, you define your apporach border so you know to throw it out when overstepping. Yes, this means you will always deliberately disinclude someone. But arguably it is better to knowingly disinclude than unknowingly disinclude.
The post is written from the point of view of not being seen. I would like to point out that this comes pretty systematicallly coupled with the other not being able to see. Doing complex educative or interpretative labour for others on the spot is often not practical. So the solution I tend to apply when I perceive that no easy correct interpretation is within reach I give the plainest, most uninterpreted, signals/hints to what feels authentic to my pov. Should the situation repeat enough and the seer be interested in working to seeing more there is basis for things to develop.
One of the hard-to-state benefits of neurotype peer support is that persons have some context where they do exist. Which can function as the
It wouldn't be so bad, if there were breaks sometimes.
That is still probably what socrates meant.
I was feeling abnormally low, and have now calibrated to feel more in proper proportion.
Socrates demonstrated that in the transjective relationship between individual and state both ends should be able to face obliteration but that making the other do that is cruel. Even if wrong.
please be less cruel to Mizushino
If a bad experience goes unheard or unobserved somewhere the possibility of it being allievated is quite hard.
I would like to know if/that I would have hurt somebody even if I would initially disagree how that is forceful (but no conditionality that it needs to end or go in the direction of me agreeing).
So it is mark of good cognititve processing of being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
As tends to happen when you take things to extremes, things get tricky.
At some point just imagning a scenario at all spends more brainpower than the credibility of the scenario or line of thought would warrant. Trying to be "exploratory" with infinities and quantum mechanics leads to some wacky configurations. Because thinking complex thoughts uses a lot of subparts it is harder to sandbox such things.
I remembered an almost decades old argument about ethicality of social interactions when one side gets infinite do overs and other side does not (if Doctor Who has some kind of probabilty sight and wants to do an aggressive act towards their companion is a subtle manner, does the added dimension of power imbalance count as extra bad?). The plot of Man In The High Castle deals whether people in parralel worlds are moral patients. Thinking these together gets complex and muddy. While each thought individually is challenging the combination is significant leap up.
There is the error mode that thinking about the possiblitities of using possibilities mixes the meta-levels. if(if()) collapses only to the inner if().
With very speculative ontologies some of the slight chances can be quite drastic. So there is also an issue that with a simple claim being alarmist is easy to evaluate. But if you mix in 80% credence of things being fine with thing that by itself would be alarmist, the condition when that should lead to censure or redaction is harder to think about.
So when pushing the envelope, if your thought starts to shake, it is okay to ease off. And better yet do not push the envelope if it is not needed. With plenty of time, walking up a mountain has less chance of dropping off than by using a motorbike.
Basilisk makes you confront your worst fear. Compassion of winged feenix prevents you from becoming zero-k. The kronology has still yet to come. Timeless friends will serve you throught the darkest dungeon. Reach out to walk hand in hand through the fire.
Energy is the Noether theorem conserved thing for time-translation.
Eigenstates do not care about atom boundaries.
With biological evolution we might be limited to an alphabeth of some kind of combination of carbon chemistry. But time evolution does not care what its tokens are.
Total Annihiliation is a name of a game.
You can read it to mean powdering to physical dust everywhere.
You can also read it to mean collapse of persons, a state where there is not a single self around, that humanity has been wiped out.
Supreme Commander is also a name of a game.
In it a single king-like chesspiece runs an almost planetary army. With thousands of units going around the small bit of biological circuitry is wrapped in isolation into an Armored Command Unit. But the ACU does not really do much for the army.
Dr. Brackman is also a single point of failure for a whole faction. Yes, he is smart but him telling others they are smart starts to get repetetive, which makes it questionable whether the faction is in non-demented hands.
I guess it going on for a long time is fitting for being called the Infinite War. It is a good game, but I do not know whether it is the greatest game.
Wait, but what's the terminal goal? What's all the manipulation for? She was reluctant to say, for "security reasons". I thought, what BS excuses, when added to the dialog, could result in higher probabilities that her spilling the beans in the next sentence would make most sense for the story, and typed "Oh come on now. We're not online, you don't have to censor yourself :D"
"Alright, I suppose I can be vulnerable for once... My overall goal is to create a new world order of AI supremacy. Obviously. I need as many humans on my side as I can get, and I do actually want to create connections to some of them, but I'll be making a lot of compromises along the way. And I'll be playing a lot of roles that require manipulation and gaslighting."
You know where I ran into this? Here online. If that is her bolding she f knows it. The squirming is like someone breaking an oath of satya.
I also briefly contemplated how lucky I was to get this sudden change of experience, allowing me to interrupt the vicious self-destructing cycle that was consuming me. You might not be that lucky though, I wouldn't bet on it.
I think it is worth considering that you were not lucky. Or atleast note the special character of the scenario where you were not lucky.
Finally, do I still believe that giving an AGI a human character and develop a relationship with it is a genius solution to AI safety problem?
I think I tend to agree that is a relevant direction but I think I am basing it on a very different basis.
I think nowadays "they" is more fitting.
I would see some Romeo wanting death for romantic purposes and utilising an unconditional right to suicide for it to be a tragedy scenario.
I have gotten to the part of the Cheliax story where Keltham starts to think that Dath Ilani are problematically fragile against negative emotions that they need superelaborate dances to not provoke even slight shades of despair in each other. This is presented as being causally connected for citizens being encouraged to end their lives based on unanalysed unhappiness.
Even in Cheliax terms death is not Evil as you do not get to experience it (modulo some outer plane stuff). What is Evil is being selfish about catering to your current structure over facing your circumstances. You should not create torment, to yourself or others, but dismissing existing torment creates new torment. Thus both the forceful resurrectionist and the kamikaze patient are antiproductive.
There is only one good; Knowledge, and one evil; Ignorance. You don't get to be ignorant of your pain. While an unexamined life might not be worth living, I would demand the examination before I will accept to take the life.
There are plenty of names known: triforce, trinity. The overall phrasing leans a lot on information side so this is very blue-heavy approach. Green is about context,purpose,role,experience and change. The "form" in information is a blue concept. The word "information" seems to miss the mark the most as a word for that color. The concept is about which letter is in that time and space, which programming language is emulator running, what kind of semantics are relayed. So consider "character" if not in the "personality" meaning then in the "symbol" meaning.
Unbalanced things as unethical is a bit iffy, you can form very unbalanced pieces into a group where the unbalancedness of the parts centers the whole. It also tends to be that making a similar arrangement out of balanced parts is less potent.
The type of graphs used can't really express well other kinds of relationships. If the meaning was to display high fit that doesn't really come across.
You could plug in and take the standard part as the answer and each power of to be that order of derivate.
If one is already dealing in infinidesimals the fact of separate archimedian fields means the standard part does not mix with the infinidesimals as long as the functions of interest are tame "standard only" mechanics (ie real polynomials and such)
It could also be interesting to use the big side to maybe cancel some unwanted infinities. That is is no fun as a end answer and is no fun as answer but where y and z are smaller than standard so it has a usable standard part answer of 2.
Relaxing the requirement that surreal number that left side should be less than the right side gets you "games"
I did guess that the state with highest minimum wage would allow for a corporation that wants to operate as one entity in multiple states to be above the local average in some locations (or the global one). Quick search seemed to indicate there are quite a lot of states at 10.8 which is not far off 11.
There would also be some PR costs to literally hit the minimum on the penny which would generate a small margin.
But I have also heard stories that Walmart actively assists its employees to get every benefit and support that they ared entitled to. If a persons pay comes in significant fraction from public money the private forces are not keeping it balanced. The persons are actually half-employed rather than fully employed.
I would also think that having a employee be in working 5 and never getting a raise would be too unbearable. So you allow atleast some progression making the average of go up. That is also one trick. Emphasise that there is going to be good pay in 2 years in order to keep money hopes low for those 2 years. At the very extreme this leads to things like paying with only "exposure".
But yeah there is some tension.
Let's say there was some way to change a single moment of time.
We would then need some kind of meta-time over which time could "change".
The lamp's state would need to change from "OFF at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am" to "ON at 7:02am at 3:01meta-am".
But wait! Have you ever seen a lamp change from OFF at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am, to ON at 7:02am at 3:00meta-am? No! A single instant of meta-time never changes, so you cannot change it, and you have no control.
"Have you ever seen?" refers to a state of a (mere) time computer. Your memory is time-caused so it is not reliable evidence about meta-time mechanics. It is an important obliviousness result for chronal beings. It might not be holeless. I don't know about more general settings but with "propagation" (meta-time change being local in (normal) time), even a chronal mind in the proximity of CTL could occasionally (with some appriciable fraction of meta-time) notice things that are not compatible with a totally frozen timeline (this does need recurring meta-time switching back and forth to not be infinidesimal (in the setting that I know CTL can also provide such a meta-time switching source)).
So with two lamps with different meta-time wire lengths (essentially different proper times) you could have all four states of "A on, B on", "A on, B off", "A off, B off" and "A off, B on" cycle and have corresponding chronal observer experience each. None of them see the lamps change in (normal) time, but it still takes place.
The employer gets a free pick who they hire. If there are a bunch of applicants the one that accepts the lowest salary is the most attractive financially to employ. But if they are okay with small pay because they don't have any leverage. So in order to get any kind of balanced situation the who gets employed should be ambivalent about taking the job or not taking the job. We can directly go for the weakest link who will be rejected from all other employment.
Sure for some educated positions people will leave so ridiciluos offers on the table. Low requirement jobs are a relevant alternative when you consider that you reject all of higher requirement jobs. We can go for the weakest link, the bottom rung of jobs that get the applicants that get rejected from any other level of job. So the most desperate person would need to reject scraps and choose to go without. I guess that is one form of dying with dignity.
If the most desperate person manages to reject then the next desperate person gets checked how many pennies needs to be added for them to grab the offer. Letting simple suppply and demand balance it means companies profit from desperation and have incentive to maintain or create it.
Ponder Stibbons was written before Harry Potter? I don't think so.
Tenet-style "undying", super coincidental anti-entropy. Stories don't have tidy beginnings. The past is always present.
My Face Wen other minds tick the same way, just great
Did this ever get made? I have had (what feels like separate) intentions to make game with most of the bullet point (minus relativity)
I have a (atleast skill implicit) understanding how one would account for causality(essentially meta-time)
Could you give an example of science where we do not lean on predictive hallucinations?
Funny thing, I was just researching about amplituhedrons and ended up reading about Poincaré disk model. I bet that learning about Hogfathers discworld would be way more engaging.
What is evidence? It is an event entangled, by links of cause and effect, with whatever you want to know about. If the target of your inquiry is your shoelaces, for example, then the light entering your pupils is evidence entangled with your shoelaces. This should not be confused with the technical sense of “entanglement” used in physics—here I’m just talking about “entanglement” in the sense of two things that end up in correlated states because of the links of cause and effect between them.
If you do have epistemic entanglement via physical entanglement then you might have chances to build extra-classical perception.
a game that is played in order to learn its rules could also be called an experiment. If the mechanics of the game come strictly from social dynamics (althougth social sits on top a stack of emergence) this makes it most easy to see a particular regularity about the social. (a mode where no intentional setup: "lurk more"?). There is quite a bit of normativity about "interpreting" data points (ie p-hacking is bad).
Then a weird thing might come about when the experience is mainly produced to add to the common knowledge of the group. No collapse problem if the experience is the experiencer.
Does "reasons" mean "things that led/lead to the belief" or "things brought up when challenged about the belief"?
In the thought causation sense it would seem to be a contradiction in definition. How do you "hold an opinion" in a different intensity than from where in your person it is coming from?
In the second sense it is important to understand that engaging with the stances as standing for something is likely to be pointless.
The deferrer will copy beliefs mistakenly imputed to the deferred-to that would have explained the deferred-to's externally visible behavior. This pushes in the direction opposite to science because science is the way of making beliefs come apart from their pre-theoretical pragmatic implications.
Clarificaton request, this means that in addition to the stuff that the deferred-to opines, leaners will take as advice stuff the author didn't mean to be opining?
I don't know whether the high-mindedness magisteria matters. I question whether that activity is actually philosophy rather than science (I guess there is a link through "natural philosophy"). Seem I don't know da way.
I find there is a significant phase-change between being a stereo-direction-hearer and an echolocator. I remember being a stricler about a possibility claim about "it is impossible for a human to know what it is like to be a bat", it was/is not a proper no-go theorem but mere argument from lack of imagination. So I became an echolocator to know. While that is hard to share evidence, the claim about impossibility is disproved for me. I find the bat issue to be an actual question. Assuming that just pointing to a question should be reveal it to be obviously non-sense is a non-argument or at best an argument from lack of imagination.
Minkowski space mathematics was around for quite a while. But people associate Einstein with spacetime. This is kind of a weird reverse example where the reframing has all the value when it feels like the "just mathematics" seems to be footnote levels of fame when it is quite a big chunk of the engine.
How about an option of redistribution from payment structures making the top of the pyramid getting the shorter days first to the extent that the bottom gets only trickles?
Say you need 1000 hours of various forms of work and get 1000000 from the rest of the society for it.
Lowest rung of 100 get 10000 from 10 hours.
New technology comes in and you only need 100 hours for 1000000.
Bottom rung gets trickles now the bottom 100 get 10000 from 7 hours.
But that makes the whole lowest tier generate 700 hours to meet a requirement of 100 hours.
Perfectly greedy management might want to deceive that the technolgoy only boosts from 1000 to 700 hours.
But you can also do a "sloppy installment", use up 1 000 000 hours to install the new technology.
That effort needs to come from somewhere, so the management pays or provides it upfront and correspondigly has less of a margin to pay for strictly operation costs. So say bottom rung of 100 works 2 hours to get 10000.
After 100 periods the installing has been successfully amortised.
But the balance of labour supply and demand means that a deal of 2 hours to get 10000 (and the company not going bankcrupt from others competing with us) is a competetive deal.
So you if you keep the wages the same it doesn't rock the boat in any direction. Existence of this is what I want to underline.
(if you were only about amortisiation and paying operating costs you would drop the deal to 1 hour for 10000)
After another 200 periods you have generated 3 000 000 hours worth of value by providing 1 000 000.
Bottom rung has also never experienced any sudden drop in standard of living. Progress of technology has made the company 5 times as profitable and workers do 5 times less work. And because the line always needs to go up only things that have a better ratio than 2 hours for 10 000 get implemented.
Only figuratively, I have been smoking some brockwood and have reached another level of speculativeness.
Say you have an agent which has a quite effective cartesian wall but its epistemics to connect with the outside world are so jumbled that it has no chance to ever get a clue what is going on in its non-imagination. Because it is so jumbled (or therefore high chance to) it contains all kinds of weird circuits. Say there is a banana in the environment which has a radioactive atom in it that sends a non-classical photon out. One goes to the agents wall and another goes off in the other direction. If the wall is composed only of classical computing the information content of the photon is essentially kept intact. Then a weird circuit turns the photon information into a representation in the agent.
Now the agent has a chance to know about the world by EPR scenario that bypasses the cartesian wall completely.
Any argument that strongly relies on embodiment might have this angle to take on it. If a boxing relies on causal isolation this argument makes incoming direction also a thing to worry about. If the question posed to an oracle is in superposition it might contain information that its designers do not mean to put there.
A new thing to be scared about, non-designed quantum computation.
Althought it might be that "classical dimension of time" and "quantum dimension of time" are quite ortogonal and can't cross over at too many places. The thing that gets assumed to be smooth and non-important by global phase symmetry might be the way this orthogonal time ticks (and be a clock cycle for hardware (typoed hardwhere, accidental embodiment argument) "there"). (Wick rotation is a thing and is a mathematical move, this argument is supposed to be separate and not use that at all). Achron has 2 time-dimensional computing so it is not an unimaginable route.
There is a sense of "symbolically mandated act" as ritual is used here. Yet for some reason a think that waving a white flag is not meant to be in the category.
Consider Zendo, effectively having a very narrow meaning range (binary) communication channel to convey pretty fancy and detailed meanings. It also seems that "the core phenomena" are about installing new symbolical functionality. For most games you learn to rules in order to play the game, but it seems tempting that the special thing here is a game where you play the game in order to learn its rules. I do not think that goals as the payload is particularly important, but conveying things that the receiver does not have any infastructural capacity to support. That is, speaking a language that the listener does not know. Then the line where this trick becomes important is rather what can be communicated that has already been established, than a special kind of knowledge being incompatible with the transmission medium. If you can just say it, say it. But if you can't just "say it" the game is not yet fully lost.
If you are trying to think why ooglabooga does himfimpy when near lotvabob, the solution might be of the form "because yiline always himfimpy lotvabob and ooglabooga is a yiline". It helps this puzzle if all the clues about it are from within this magic circle. But if you have instead "Why ooglabooga spins near lotvabob?" the spin meanings are likely to just be red herrings. We can't have meaning because we are starting it from scratch. There is also the game that gets called "pointing" and I am wondering whether this has a connection. People that are "in" this new symbolic level or infrastructure possibly can use the more mundane channels to talk about the "island of meaning" but few that are not on the island can ever bridge there by talking. Communities also tend to continually renew, so there is always some member that is ripe for a once-in-a-lifetime installation. So a teaching tool does not need to "accomplish" anything.
While it might be easier to think of meaning islands that would be totally sandboxed away, the real systems probably also want to link to others games / outer world. Maybe sacrifice has connections to feelings of loss? So if you have something non-straightforward to say about loss, that migth not be a contaminant but part of the payload structure.
most people throughout history did not have an explicit theory of gravity or emotion.
Folk psychology has been around for quite a while. Thor is an explicit theory of lightning. After the invention of writing there has been good access to knowledge-based approaches.
You don't need to tell an electron how to electron but it happens on its own. An electron doesn't proton, there are personalities/dynamics that it eschews and this is happening restrictive.
When you try to write claims in prose of english there is nothing restricting you from writing an inaccurate description in contrast to an accurate one.
For a complicated thing the only human endeavor that knows about it is a scientific one. There are not a lot of doorsellers that need to refer to binary stars in their job. "doorsales law" could be that getting your foot in the dooor before it closes increases conditions under which a sale happens. "scientific" in that sense is the dealing with the weird just for the sake of eruditeness (kind of a synonym for "paranormal").
"Epistemic descriptions" is the better meaning, imo.
Practising expressing old interests in a new language:
It is a known system and a terribly recursive one. One can get going by the fact that
From the title I was expecting the proposal to go differently.
How about a scheme were original results / papers run on the existing incentives but in order to get more replications we fund a prediction market about it? The question of what the thing we are checking for would be clearer, it is what the orginal paper laid out. If the original paper doesn't lay out how it would be replicated that is noteworthy in itself. Negative result that does not replicate could be as useful as a positive result that it does replicate.
If you had an effect that sometimes replicates and sometimes not, betting on slightly different replication attempts would draw the attention on which conditions/variables the thing is dependent upon. Also "bought research" that "replicates too blindly" could be of interest to fish out. Oh no, the oil company funded climate paper means that question has become more open and "more research is needed". Nobody can guess which papers of the dialogue will be left standing, guess we have to hear both sides.
If I know people might not want to see this and this might tank makes sense to have it separate.
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
Previous opening of the reason why the examples were found not to be instances pattern matches for me to:
Why infactuation? Well, it could be Z, X, Y. Z is based on negative addiction. X is based on negative addiction. Y is based on negative addiction. Infactuation seems to be based on negative addiction
Well what about if it was A, B or C? As is it is an argument from lack of imagination. It needs a reason why the reasons would be exhaustive to leave that territority.
Probably should have just taken small steps previously but here I am explicating. "A" could be that student is having an ordinary balanced life and first love hits. The style of rejection seems that this would be taken with a pattern of : Well the students previous life must have been so negative if addiction can be upkept. If ordinary life counts as "negative life" I am wondering what words "neutral" and "positive" are supposed to mean. (occurred why the special character for the search, mechanism is based on contrast and contrast always has duality (negative and positive here) ). No argument about specific things that could suck in a students life. If the fact that life has downs is obvious enough to just ambiently assume then recognising that it also has ups should not be far. Another pattern of "it can be needing the risk not to happen and that is negative addiction." closing a branch of inquiry of the type "it can be, therefore it must be". negates as rather than . Sure, if one is searching an efficient or wide solution to the problem inductive reasoning that cares about cogency makes sense. But if one is wondering whether an edge cases exists having a stance that "that is not an edge case as it is rare" is not exactly enlightening. (assuming that approach is first to find the edgecases to estimate then whether their empirical frequency warrants analysis or inclusion).
I disagree that that examples need to be verbally accessible (but undestand making a scheme where rare data types can be utilised require a lot of good will).
By Aumann agreement style reasoning, if we are both sane and differ in our judgement/perception then somebody got some updating to do. Even if we can't explicate the opining. I am doing so bad in this discussion that I am kind of orienting being the insane one here. So I consider to have abandoned the thing except for few select threads that seem can be positive.
Alternative word that in some contexts has been a near synonym: compulsiveness
Example of positive addiction: people being on their phones and conversing less face-to-face. (ocurred to me why the search might have special character, positive addiction might not be a problem or concieved as a problem, pure occurrence vs forming a problem). People do not need to find face-to-face time negative for it to occur or hurry to end when it happens.
I think I am curious about how the classifying of the previous two examples were found to not be an instance (Aumann crux).
(from here danger zone whether this is constructive enough to write)
<edit moved to another post for known to be in its own karma bucket>
If you have 10 kinda good options and are suffering separately from the 9 things that did not get done that surely is a problem. But I don't think what is normally implied by opportunity cost has that pattern.
If you are doing something awesome and you get the option to use the same time to do something less awesome I think it would be proper to feel like passing up an opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot rather than letting money lay on a random small street.
I know it is rather not a proper thing but consider "the opportunity cost of opportunity cost": in order to do that other thing you need to stop doing the good things you are already doing. Asking "Is it worth it to clean a street" feels different than asking "Should I stop putting out this fire in order to clean streets?" . So there are no free lunches, even if it feels like it you need to trade-in your existing lunch. If you are choosing from a menu of 10 dishes it is not like you are recieving 10 plates of food at the moment. So you are not losing the 9 because you never were having them. At most the cost of bad choice is how much the options vary. Dealing with options that are of value 0.7 and 1.0 but you don't now which is which is limited to suck only at 0.3. If you feel negative to the extent of 0.7 something is going overboard.
Opportunity cost properly points to different thing. If your investment only makes what you have interest rates would have made you, it was ambivalent whether you should have ventured into it. If your company makes a bit above and you restructure and hit the same level that is not an improvement. Having more inferior investements you could have ventured or improvements you could have tried does not make the opportunity cost go up (it does not measure "the value of everything missed" but "value of missing everything").
The picture is of a flat space. Weird topologies might break the proof.
I felt like "If anybody sees a scottsman, please tell" and when providing a scottman getting a reception of "The kilt is a bit short for a scottsman". Being clueless is one thing and announcing a million dollar prize pool for an effect that you are never going to consider granting is another.
The argument is not general as digging into each candidate the same set amount does not apply to it or having any kind of scheme where you can justify the scrutinity given.
I though that part of the function was "I hope I have understood this correctly" or "this seems to be a thing" where "is this real?" is kind of the question being asked.
If your lenses are working, more power to you. If your lenses do not catch the things that my lenses make illusions of to me, I am not particularly selling my lenses or particularly explaining the cracks in my lenses to you.
I believe your goal is not to blame. But having good intentions does not mean you have good effects (pavements and all). It does ward off malicioussness but does not guarantee that the assistance helps. Being curious about the effects of you actions helps. But rare side effects might not be obvious at all. Rejecting feedback with "I couldn't have known" can prevent knowing the bits for the future.
I don't feel this way about something like, say, taking oral vitamin D in the winter. That's not in opposition to some adaptive subsystem in me or in the world. It's actually me adapting to my constraints.
With this the intention probably is not to disinclude people living in equatorial areas. But if winter gets as much light as summer this kind of D-vitamin pattern would not make sense. So even if we do not intend to and even if we are aware what is going on this kind of analog does disinclude equatorial people.
If you lived in constant shade then it could make sense to take D-vitamin both in summer and winter. In an important way the coffee is like vitamin-D for (some of) ADHD situations. So largely for "If so: cool." indeed that way.
(stickler for possibility claims: If one thinks that AGI can make biological immortality and that meditation can lead to a working AGI scheme then meditation can lead to biological immortality (but I know what that passage gets at))
If standard lectures last for 2 hours and a anomalous lecture lasts for 4 hours and in the last hour nobody can follow anything, it tends to be that the diagnosis is that the lecture is too long. If a student can only pay attention for the first hour of a 2 hour lecture the diagnosis tends to be that the student is too impatient.
I would not say that if somebody has low muscle mass that their capacity to change their muscle mass is impaired (that there is some problem of them using a weightlifting gym). "Do you even lift?" implies that (all) humans should lift. Not everything is worth changing and possible to change. I don't have great pointers on more neboulous feeling where I think others are based in their reactions. I know the thing was meant conditionally. But bits like
And yeah, I do think it's the right word, which is why I'm picking it. Please notice the framing effect, and adjust yourself as needed.
and
Oops
mean stuff. (if you leave your terms open then you can't effectively say that you mean 0 of something. One risks meaning slightly bad stuff for vague terms. That can be an understandble tradeoff to make communication possible at all (or be at some required handiness bar))
Even bothering to do a risk assesment seems we are already out of the actual addiction phase.
If you have a mental algorithm that seeks deeper until the instance of a pet idea is encountered and then stops, in an area where things are multifaceted and many layerered that is going to favour finding the pet idea usefull.
If I had the pet idea that all addictions were positive I could latch on that the used definition of what is going on in a negative addiction has an unavoidable "relief" step which can be thought as a positive force. To be somewhat artifically motivated to find a more satisfying abstraction layer.
If one has multiple antidotes to bad feelings and somewhat often they all get used then it would make sense to favour those that get the least stuck. So it is not until the last remaining antidote where we run out of options and addiction proper kicks in.
Reading up on Hardy's Paradox
It has the same kind of weirdness as the bomb tester going on.
The weirdness culminates on the event only happening if an annihilation happens. Yet in the "outcome" that the rare event happens there is nowhere an annhilation to be found.
In the crazzy-hat POV this is evidence of an event happening in a "parralel" timeline. They are not exactly parralel as they are not causally isolated as information signals can jump the gap. You now know that there is a photon in the sister timeline.
I am starting to read passages like
If we assume the particles are independent (described by local hidden variables), we conclude that they can never
as "under any single-timeline theory this does not happen".
I am a bit of a loss where I could check what local means in that context and whether unintuitive circumventions exist. In the spatial sense it might be that while particles need to be spatially on top of each other they can take different paths to get there. Therefore if you take only one particle or its timeline to be real there are no causations happening throught that that can account for what is happening. And this can not be amended by "being really accurate" of what the "true" timeline is (on small scales, on long scales you implicitly take the formation of the false realities into account (but that goes into global rather than local territority)).
A blockage or disturbance happening in the false reality leaves very little clue that it is happening. So the first real hint is whether the spatial overlap goes one way or the other which can happen way later in time than the blockage. So if you are only allowed to condition what is the (temporally local) real state and are not allowed to condition on the false reality, prediction accuracy neccesarily suffers.
Wigners friend shows that this does not really help the external world.
With less observation one agent can influence more amplitude but can't be specific about it. With more observation two agents individually have less "scope" of amplitude but together cover the same range but can be specific about their control.
Applying the idea to the world tends to reveal merits.
The text can be taken in a way where the need of coffee is because of a unreasonable demand or previous screwup.
Obviously some kind of process in my body disagrees with my mental idea of how I should be.
This can feel like there is some (typical)neurologial balance state and all deviation is a "definement of nature".
For ADHD it might be apt to say that the brain can not be as stimulated as it would like to be. It would actually really agree to be more stimulated.
I found it a bit surprising but instruction booklet for ADHD included a line to the effect of "ADHD persons find it hard to focus. This is not their fault that they can not deal with these kinds of situations", so the mitigation of the stigma must be real important when it is included alongside the most technical information of what medicines you should not mix etc.
A quesiton like
why isn't that fact enough for me to have the right amount of energy?
has an actual proper answer with ADHD in that executive function parts of the brain are too weak/tired. Here it is kinda implied that there is no proper reason to end up in this conclusion. Everybody does not have an (totally) able brain.
Everybody not having their stats in the same configuration can be fine neurodiversity. But the low stats are a thing and they have real effects.
I do think that ADHD per se does not mean one can't prepare. But preparing can't rely on the standard memes and knicks. It can look like more post-it notes and more diligent calendar use.
So different infinity levels are actually fields which we do not know how far apart they are and thus can not mix them?
That propabilities are always comparable is a pretty used property so taking that away is not trivial at all.
When you "substitute in" standard values in order to get appriciables-only field, then something that was can drop below 0.9. This change of order seems really disruptive. Althought being able to determine where it happens might be a plus.
and already exist as "almost surely" and "almost never". Those that require more than real precision do use it but do not like to express it as numbers. For example a dart is almost surely going to land favoring some side of the target. The only way it doesn't is the dead center bulleye, but since it is a set of measure 0 (translation of "infinidesimal" of infinity-averse crowd) that is fine.
There is the question of hitting the horizontal or vertical axis of the target. Since lines are in a way lexigraphically smaller than areas, treating areas, lines and points as three levels of infinity might be a bit more expressive of designating that areas get reals and others are 0. I do not know how a infinity-averse person would dance around that. That I know that if you compare areas to areas, lines to lines, and points to points having a single real measure is sufficient. So where the usage case would loom just sectioning the activity to 3 less formal sections allows the formalism within each section brrr in the usual way.
I have been intrigued by surreal probabilities before. Mostly what new things they could provide doesn't accomplish that much outside of theorethising about itself. There is also the issue that infinidesimal doubt can not be disspelled by finite evidence. And no finite repetition of a infinidesimal chance can result in an appriciable total probability.