Open thread, Jan. 09 - Jan. 15, 2017
If it’s worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the ‘open_thread’ tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options “Notify me of new top level comments on this article” and “
So apparently the fundamental attribution bias may not really exist: “The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: a (surprising) meta-analysis”_ActObs_meta.pdf), Malle 2006. Nor has Thinking, Fast and Slow held up too well under replication or evaluation (maybe half): https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/
I am really discouraged about how the heuristics & biases literature has held up since ~2008. I wasn’t naive enough back then to think that all the results were true, I knew about things like publication bias and a bit about power and p-hacking, but what has happened since has far exceeded my worst expectations. (I think Carl Shulman or someone warned me that the H&B literature wouldn’t, so props to whoever that was.) At this point, it seems like if it was written about in Cialdini’s Influence, you can safely assume it’s not real.
How well has the ideas presented in Cialdini’s book held up? Scarcity heuristic, Physical attractiveness stereotype, and Reciprocity I thought were pretty solid and hasn’t come under scrutiny, yet at least.
Is there a current list of biases that have held up?
I’ve been looking quite a bit specifically into the planning fallacy / miscalibration / overconfidence, which appears to be well-substantiated across a variety of studies (although I haven’t seen any meta-analyses).
Are you sure “does not replicate” is the same as “not real”? If we can’t trust the studies that found these effects, why are you so confident in the replications?
Time-reversal heuristic: if the failed replication had come first, why would you privilege the original over that? If the replications cannot be trusted, despite the benefit of clear hypotheses to test and almost always higher power & incorporation of heterogeneity, a fortiori, the original cannot be trusted either...
It would be surprising if the necessary level of power & incorporation of heterogeneity always happened to fall right in between that of the original study and the replication. I would expect that in many cases, the necessary level is above that of both studies, which means neither can be considered definitive.
I think there are some serious issues with the methodology and instruments used to measure heuristics & biases, which they didn’t fully understand even ten years ago.
Some cognitive biases are robust and well established, like the endowment effect. Then there are the weirder ones, like ego depletion. I think a fundamental challenge with biases is clever researchers first notice them by observing other humans, as well as observing the way that they think, and then they need to try and measure it formally. The endowment effect, or priming, maps pretty well to a lab. On the other hand, ego depletion is hard to measure in a lab (in any sufficiently extendable way).
I think a lot of people experience, or think they experience, something like ego depletion. Maybe it’s insufficiently described, or a broad classification, or too hard to pin down. So the original researcher noticed it in their experience, and formed a contrived experiment to ‘prove’ it. Everyone agreed with it, not because the statistics were compelling or it was a great research design, but because they all experience, or think they experience, ego depletion.
Then someone replicates it, and it doesn’t replicate, because it’s really hard to measure robustly. I think ego depletion doesn’t work well in a lab, or without some sort of control or intervention, but those are hard things to set up for such a broad and expansive argument. And I guess you could build a survey, but that sucks too.
In the fundamental attribution error, I think that meta analysis is great, in that it shows that these studies suck statistically. They only work if you come to them with the strong prior evidence that “Hey, this seems like something I do to other people, and in the fake examples of attribution error I can think of lots of scenarios where I have done that.” Of course, our memory sucks, so that is a questionable prior, but how questionable is it? In the end I don’t know if it’s real, or only real for some people, or too generalized to be meaningful, or true in some situations but not others, or how other people’s brains work. Probably the original thesis was too nice and tidy: Here is a bias, here is the effect size. Maybe the reality is: Here is a name for a ton of strange correlated tiny biases, which together we classify as ‘fundamental attribution’, but which is incredibly challenging to measure statistically over a sample population in a contrived setting, as the best information to support it seems inextricably tangled up in the recesses of our brains.
(also most heuristics and biases probably do suck, and lack of replication shows the authors were charlatans)
Are you saying that cognitive biases like endowment effect and priming map better to lab settings therefore are less susceptible to contrived experiments to prove them like ego depletion?
I don’t know whether or not these map well to a lab or not, but priming research is one of the major areas under going a replication crisis; not sure about the endowment effect.
I added a question on Skeptics.SE about his reciprocity principle.
How do you define it? Anything that Kahneman mentioned in his popular book? That seems too broad for me. The work of Kahneman and Tversky has held up well, as, I think, has the work of their students, the people invited to contribute to the book Heuristics and Biases.
I moved the Rational Politics Project to Gleb’s drafts because the discussion seemed insufficiently good.
Don’t we not do politics here? Maybe make a Thunderdome area where people can just fight about politics?
I think there are some interesting topics in that area and I’d like to post about them at some point.
I think there are some interesting topics in that area, and I hope you post about them at some point … elsewhere.
Elsewhere as in another website?
Yes. Less Wrong has done well at avoiding politics, and I hope it stays that way.
Less Wrong has not been doing well since 2013 or something, so one could perhaps rephrase this as
“Less wrong has been doing rather badly due (in part) to a lack of content, but I think metapolitical content is bad enough to be even worse”
Working on it.
What’s the standard for a “sufficiently good” discussion around here? Just wondering—maybe you should just put the whole site in “draft mode”!
(With apologies to Holmes)
Elo requested that I post this comment about spamming from (I take it) Landmark Forum participants in “the next Open Thread”. (Perhaps in order to remind him to perform some sort of moderator-hammering on them.) So here we are. (Linking to it seemed like a better idea than copying its text.)
I think it’s interesting and not something to be just lost to the archive. Not many people watch the comment RSS.
I don’t know what to think about Ego Depletion. When I first read about it, it felt quite intuitive and the research on it was robust. It came up everywhere I read. Then the whole replication crisis thing happened and serious doubts were cast on it. I updated towards a weaker effect.
I haven’t given it much thought since, until I was recently reminded of the study about mental fatigue on parole board judges and how chances of granting parole were greatest at the beginning of the work day and right after a food break(replenish mental resources).
If Ego Depletion is weak at best then what is going on with the parole study? My current epistemic status is that the effect is real and not debunked; but the effect may not be as universal (good for predicting parole and not so good for contrived cognitive experiments).
The effect size on the study of judges is too big to believe. Compared to that, removing the theoretical basis is a negligible problem.
That’s a great observation! I heard about the judges, then about ego depletion, then about ego depletion not being replicated, but I wouldn’t make the connection myself.
My guess (I don’t feel much certainty about this) would be that ego depletion is about frustration, and that the same task can feel differently frustrating for different people. Maybe some participants in the experiment didn’t mind doing some tasks, which is why their “ego” didn’t get “depleted”. But a daily job is different than an experiment.
PSA: There currently isn’t a way to edit the URL of a linkpost. (Be careful when submitting one!) If you get it wrong, resubmit with the right link and get a mod to delete the incorrect post.
Also, don’t send it to drafts first; that seems like it causes problems.
Another math problem. Enjoy it!
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/yet-another-math-problem/
Zvavzvmvat |fva(a)| vf rdhvinyrag gb zvavzvmvat |a-s(a)| jurer s(a) vf gur arnerfg zhygvcyr bs cv gb a; rdhvinyragyl, gb zvavzvmvat |a-z.cv| jurer a,z ner vagrtref naq 1<=a<=10^100; rdhvinyragyl, gb zvavzvmvat z|a/z-cv| jvgu gur fnzr pbafgenvag ba a. (Juvpu vf boivbhfyl zber be yrff rdhvinyrag gb fbzrguvat yvxr z<=10^100/cv+1.)
Gurer’f n fgnaqneq nytbevguz sbe guvf, juvpu lbh pna svaq qrfpevorq r.t. urer. V guvax gur erfhyg unf gur sbyybjvat qvtvgf:
bar fvk frira mreb svir gjb frira svir avar fvk guerr svir bar svir fvk svir bar svir fvk frira svir sbhe svir avar rvtug svir avar fvk bar bar mreb frira sbhe svir fvk fvk sbhe avar svir svir svir mreb frira guerr fvk gjb guerr bar guerr avar guerr rvtug bar rvtug rvtug rvtug svir avar mreb gjb frira bar mreb fvk gjb avar guerr frira rvtug sbhe svir gjb mreb avar svir gjb gjb avar svir mreb frira gjb sbhe mreb mreb rvtug gjb frira fvk bar frira svir fvk avar sbhe sbhe sbhe mreb fvk guerr
I wonder if there’s a simple worst-case proof that shows how complicated you need to let the seeds get in order to find the actual optimum. For example, if we look for the best integer under 10^85 rather than under 10^100, the seed that leads to this algorithm outputting the optimum is different, or at least the overlap seems small. But I’m having a hard time proving anything about this algorithm, because although small seed numerators could add up to almost anything, in practice they won’t.
To paraphrase Walter White—Say its (decimal) name!
It’s very long. I think just giving the sequence of digits is clearer.
SIN(your number)=0.879....
Then I goofed. Correction will follow shortly once I work out what ridiculous thing I did.
OK, I think what I meant was: frira fvk svir bar svir mreb gjb frira guerr sbhe rvtug frira frira bar sbhe svir sbhe sbhe gjb svir frira fvk bar gjb avar rvtug rvtug gjb gjb rvtug mreb bar sbhe svir avar avar frira guerr avar avar svir guerr guerr avar fvk sbhe avar avar bar fvk bar rvtug gjb rvtug frira bar bar svir sbhe mreb svir svir sbhe guerr guerr gjb gjb bar fvk mreb rvtug gjb sbhe frira svir guerr rvtug guerr sbhe svir fvk sbhe avar gjb bar avar guerr mreb mreb guerr rvtug rvtug svir svir svir fvk mreb sbhe frira rvtug avar.
Nope. Your number is too big. Bigger than 10^100.
Whaaa? I checked that. But you’re right. The last digit should simply not be there. I don’t know how that happened; presumably a bug in my convert-number-to-English-digit-names one-liner. Sorry.
… which agrees with cousin_it’s answer; I promise I didn’t cheat :-).
I think you have one extra digit at the end.
Yeah. A bug in conversion to English digits, I think. (Unfortunately it was throwaway code in a now-closed window so I can’t check exactly what stupid thing I did.)
Funnily enough, I didn’t even write any code. Just figured out that I need a 100-digit numerator of a continued fraction convergent of pi, then found it on OEIS.
Ha! I can never remember which sorts of best approximation are guaranteed to be actual c.f. convergents and which might be “intermediate” ones that come from iterating the mediant construction. So I used PARI’s “bestappr” function. My bug was in code that had nothing to do with the actual mathematics.
Congratulations to you, too!
7651502734877145442576129882280145997399533964991618287115405543322160824753834564921930038855560478
Wolfram Alpha says the sine is on the order of 10^-100.
Not for this number, if I copy and paste it to WolframAlpha.
Try to post in in two lines here.
You probably didn’t click “use radians”. Here’s a test link&rawformassumption=%22TrigRD%22+-%3E+%22R%22).
As I saw your number here, it ended with 8855.
Now it is okay. I have restarted Chrome—and you are right, it’s close.
You have SOLVED the problem. Congratulations!
guerr fvkgl!
fbeel.
Say its (decimal) name. Say it!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin(360))
LOL … Sinus of which natural number between 1 and 10^100 is closest to 0.
And not sinus of some whole number of some arbitrary units like degrees, grads or whatever.
But you know this. You have just won a consolation prize. :)
I have the same question as this OP. I didn’t think any of the answers were helpful enough. Basically everything I could find regarding Assange’s asylum with Ecuador stems from the threat of Sweden extraditing him to the U.S., however the threat of politically motivated deportation remains regardless of what happens in Sweden; the U.K. can just as well do it.
One of the answers says:
My reading is that it could happen in any country, but it did happen frequently in Sweden. So, while the risk is non-zero everywhere, it still makes sense to avoid the place where it is too high.
So why did Assange even go to Sweden? Another answer says:
My reading is that Sweden is a good place for whistleblowers’ servers, but not necessarily for the whistleblowers themselves.
(Note: I have no opinion on factual correctness of these answers; I just posted them because they seem relevant to your question.)
Are people here is interested in having a universal language, and have strong opinions on esperanto?
I think it might be good to have a universal language, but I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that Esperanto or any other deliberately manufactured language will become one. The way languages get (anything like) universal is by being widely used, and the way languages get widely used is by being widely useful. I don’t see any plausible way for something like Esperanto to achieve that. English might become a universal language. Maybe, depending on how the world goes over the next few decades, Chinese or Russian or something. But it won’t be Esperanto. Pretty much everyone whose knowledge of Esperanto would make learning Esperanto valuable already speaks English.
Human augmentation may radically lower the difficulty of learning a new natural language. Maybe they’ll give us a drug that puts our brains back into child mode for language acquisition.
If that happened, then the market for conlangs might look interesting.
Child mode for language acquisition is a myth. It only helps with pronunciation. For every other aspect of language acquisition that has ever been studied, adults learn faster.
Edit: I mean adults learn faster per hour of effort, which is the relevant axis. In practice, children often learn faster per calendar year because they have nothing better to do.
I can definitely vouch for the pronunciation part, but is the rest really true? Source?
I must admit that every linguist and developmental psychologist I have talked to has insisted that this is wrong, but they have not given me a single source. I believe that they correctly quote the textbooks, but that the textbooks repeat the myth without evidence. Here is a survey. (ungated pdf, but large)
And very scary as well.
Ooh there’s a cool idea, I hadn’t thought of that.
Another angle is the possibility that vastly-improved directly-implanted translators—a babelfish, basically—might make the whole thing moot. You learn your first language and then have absolutely no need, ever, to learn another. Language could be more or less frozen wherever it stands at the time. That’s if the technology is universally available—things get even more interesting if it was only available to the wealthy, or to citizens of wealthy nations.
Second language might still be necessary for the cognitive development effect.
No it wouldn’t—language is for signaling, not only communication. There would probably be a common language for business and travel, but languages would continue to develop normally, since people would still want to use language to determine how they present themselves.
You’re right, that was a little overbroad. I was thinking specifically in terms of the death or spread of individual languages.
If I have a device that translates anything said to me and renders it into my own language in real time—Pierre says something to me in French and I “hear” it in English—I never have to learn language other than my first, and my first—whether it’s English or Tagalog or Swahili—is no more or less useful, no more or less universally comprehensible than any other.
So you’re right that languages would still develop internally—English speakers would still speak to other English speakers and alter the language among themselves as they do now—but the cross-pollination of languages and their growth or decline over time would be affected.
The native language of my own country is almost dead—on life-support, so to speak—because English was more useful. English was what you taught your kids if you wanted them to have any chance of success. If you could, you taught them English as a first language. With a universal translator that pressure would be removed. Why would anyone go to the trouble of always speaking to their children in their second language so that the children acquire it as their first?
The number of people who learned any given language as their first would be pegged to the population speaking that language at the point when the technology was introduced. So the only reason for a language to die would be if that population declined over time due to to emigration or low birth rates.
Of course this is all pretty woolly, given that it’s an imaginary technology, possibly centuries away from even being possible.
A babelfish is probably never going to be good enough to fully replace actually knowing the language; to start with due to different word order in different languages you’ll get something delayed and awkward. It will probably never capture slang and punning properly. Some languages can express some concepts very well, others struggle with those concepts and are awkward.
Babelfish are coming, and they will be very useful, but I kind of expect them to accelerate the drive towards everyone knowing a bit of English.
English has the advantage that England is no longer a very powerful country and I don’t think many important countries hate us that much. Therefore it feels more politically neutral to speak English.
I think Mandarin is the only realistic competition, but it will be hard for people outside of the far east to learn. And much of the far east currently feels like China is trying to dominate them, so they would rather use English.
I think you’re being too pessimistic about Esperanto:
There are about 2 million speakers worldwide [4]. For a language only 100 years old.
It was recently added to Duolingo [5], a great resource for learning.
The Esperanto wikipedia is ranked #32 in terms of number of articles. [1]
It’s taught in 69 universities in 24 countries, several offering bachelors or PhD degrees. [7]
Prominent people are fluent in Esperanto, like the president of Austria [8]
After Britain leaves, only Ireland will speak English in the EU, giving Esperanto an opening. [11]
Esperanto is so easy to learn:
-> 2000 hours studying German = 1500 English = 1000 Italian = 150 Esperanto [6]
-> you can get it for free if you learn it along the way of learning English [9][2][10]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Wikipedias
[2] http://www.aaie.us/wordpress/?page\_id=42
[4] http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq-5.html
[5] https://www.duolingo.com/course/eo/en/Learn-Esperanto-Online
[6] http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/054000678/index.shtml
[7] https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto\_en\_universitatoj
[8] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033000824.html
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic\_value\_of\_Esperanto
[10] ‘A language teaching experiment’, Canadian Modern Language Review 22.1: 26–28
[11] http://e-d-e.org
I don’t see how those numbers, even if correct, mean that I’m being too pessimistic about Esperanto. I didn’t deny that some people speak it, or that it’s easy to learn. I said I don’t see any plausible pathway by which it becomes widely enough used to be a lingua franca.
The most interesting of those figures is the one about how many hours it takes to learn various languages. The link you gave doesn’t offer any direct support for the startling claim you make (apparently saying that Esperanto is 10x easier to learn than English); rather, it quotes someone else describing a study apparently done by the University of Paderborn’s Institute of Pedagogic Cybernetics. (On French students, so part of what this is measuring is similarity to French; that will no doubt be why German is alleged to be harder than English. I remark that Esperanto is more like French than English is—though probably not more like French than Italian is.) Unfortunately I can’t readily track down more information about this (it’s cited in an article by Flochon in a book by Guy Gauthier but, at least as quoted in the Grin report, doesn’t give any specifics about the study). I would want to know more before believing that the ratio is so very large.
You should better look at the wikipedia page I linked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto
Also it’s not about being similar to French and I don’t know why you think that. I’ve learned Esperanto and French and didn’t notice any similarities. Actually the Chinese were one of the biggest supporters, though that may be trending down.
It would be easy to grow Esperanto quickly. It would require some concerted effort, but there is a solid though small base around the world and there only needs to be some push to make it happen. Becoming the official language of the EU is one plausible avenue, but another one might crop up in the next few centuries.
Because (1) the study mentioned in the Grin report was conducted on francophone students and (2) while Esperanto is a proposal for a universal language, its structure and vocabulary are very decidedly European and indeed Romance. It is much more like French than Japanese or Mandarin or Korean, or even Sanskrit. Or, in fact, German.
That surprises me. Let’s try a little experiment. Go to the Wikipedia page on Esperanto (selected just because it’s an obvious thing to select, so you know I’m not cherry-picking) and find the first substantial quantity of Esperanto text. It’s this:
The very first word (en) has approximately the same spelling, pronunciation and meaning as a French word. This is not a coincidence. The next word doesn’t (I think). The next (lokoj) is in fact cognate with French lieux with the same meaning. Next (de): French also has a word “de” with the same spelling and similar pronunciation, and a closely related meaning. Then Ĉinio; corresponding French is Chine, similar spelling, similar pronunciation. Maybe half the words in this passage have close French cousins. The sentence structures are very similar too. The writing system is almost identical—same repertoire of letters, similar set of accents, more or less the same punctuation.
If you took the same text and wrote it in, say, Tamil, it would be very much more different.
Easy for whom? What’s the actual sequence of events that would lead to it happening?
I think we may have different ideas about what constitutes plausibility. I agree it’s possible but I’d put the probability well below 1%.
Sorry, but the idea that Esperanto is somehow only easy for French speakers is plainly wrong. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who has learned it and another language who’ll disagree.
Actually Esperanto is in the same language family as many Asian ones:
http://claudepiron.free.fr/articlesenanglais/europeanorasiatic.htm
Given the current status quo, it is impossible. However, I can imagine the political world developing into an atmosphere where Esperanto might be made the lingua franca. Imagine that American and British power continues to decline, and Russia and China and German, and maybe India, become more influential, leading to a new status quo, a stalemate. Given sufficiently long stalemate, like decades, Esperanto might once again become a politically viable situation.
Well, anything’s possible. But I’m struggling to imagine a halfway-plausible scenario in which this actually happens. In the situation you describe, what’s the actual mechanism by which Esperanto becomes widely used? I mean, let’s say we have a bunch of roughly equal Great Powers (perhaps they’re the Trump States, the Islamic Caliphate, the United States of Europe, China and Russia, with favoured languages The Best English, Arabic, German, Mandarin and Russian). Within each power’s sphere of influence its favoured language (or languages) will be dominant. So now imagine someone in, say, the Trump States. Obviously they need to know The Best English. They might want to learn Spanish in case their military service is at the Wall; or Russian, of course. But what’s going to make Esperanto more useful to them than those?
Are you thinking that Esperanto might be imposed as a lingua franca? That there’d be some sort of international treaty where all these mutually-mistrustful Powers agree that they will use Esperanto as a second language, or for negotiations, or something? Why would any of them do that?
I speak Esperanto fluently, and I really wish it could replace English as a standard communication language. But I see it as a coordination problem that is almost impossible to solve.
Learning English as an international language seems like an insane waste of resources. Why not use a language you could learn 10x faster? But the trick is that the costs are not same for everyone. Specifically, for native English speakers, Esperanto would be more costly than simply using the language they already speak fluently. And because the international language is chosen by people who have most economical power, of course their preferences are going to have greater impact. (And the same thing would happen if e.g. 20 years later English is replaced by Chinese. Then again, everyone except for Chinese would have a reason to prefer Esperanto, but the Chinese wouldn’t care, so the rest of the world would have to learn Chinese.)
Even a hypothetical situation where e.g. four languages with most economical power would be perfectly balanced, wouldn’t necessarily mean that people would adopt Esperanto (or any other neutral language). Most speakers of these four languages would have little to gain by learning another language, so they wouldn’t bother. And for the speakers of smaller languages it would be more profitable to learn one of the four languages (the specific choice depending on their geographical and political situation).
Essentially, most people don’t even want to communicate internationally. They mostly learn a foreign language if they believe it will help their careers. Which usually means they learn a language of an economically more powerful group. But that means that the other side doesn’t have an incentive to learn a foreign language. The few hobbyists don’t have enough purchasing power to matter on the large scale.
It would have to be a completely fragmented world, where almost every city would speak a different language, that would create a strong need for a neutral language. But after the invention of mass media, such situation is not going to happen.
I agree with all this (except that I happen not to be an Esperanto speaker myself) except for this:
I am sure Esperanto is easier to learn than English. I do not believe it is 10x easier in any useful sense. Were you exaggerating for effect, or was that a serious claim, and in the latter case could you point me at some evidence?
This is a wild estimate based on my personal experience. May be a different number for other people, of course, either depending on their personal characteristics, or how much their native language is already similar to English or Esperanto.
My Esperanto exposure:
reading two textbooks
spending a week in an Esperanto-speaking environment, maybe 10 times
spending an afternoon in an Esperanto-speaking environment, maybe 50 times
My English exposure:
5 years at elementary school, 4 years at high school, 4 years at university
reading dozens of English books
translating three books from English
reading English web articles practically every day for two decades
spending a week in an English-speaking environent, once
spending an afternoon in an English-speaking environment, maybe 100 times
The resulting skills are not so different. Mostly, in Esperanto I don’t have a sufficiently wide vocabulary, so e.g. when I want to make a lecture on some topic in Esperanto, I need to take a dictionary and prepare a list of domain-specific words, try to memorize them, and use a cheat sheet as a backup. And I need about an hour to “warm up”; but that’s mostly because I recently use Esperanto about once in a year.
Esperanto is simply much more regular than English, so spending the same amount of time will allow you to learn more. You don’t have to learn the pronounciation separately. You don’t have to memorize a long list of irregular verbs. You don’t have to separately learn how to say “to see” and “visible”; you just say “see-able” and that’s the canonical form. (And there are many words where the similar principle applies.) It may sound like it’s not a big deal, but when you put all these things together, it makes a huge difference in how quickly you learn something and how easily you will remember it.
In a 48-hour intense course people are able to learn Esperanto at a very basic conversational level (textbook, example lesson), which allows them to have very superficial conversations.
But it depends on what your native language is. For example, if it is German, then half of your words already are almost the same as in English, only with different pronounciation. I believe Esperanto would still be easier, but the difference would be smaller.
Interesting—thanks. Did you learn Esperanto before English or after? (I’d guess a second foreign language is easier to pick up than a first, unless the first is learned in childhood and the second not.) Is your native language more like English or more like Esperanto or roughly the same in each case?
It’s certainly true that Esperanto is much more regular than English. (My impression is that English is unusually irregular even among natural languages, but I’m not sure how true that is.)
Of course, if you say “see-able” in English then everyone will understand you. The only trouble is that you won’t be speaking English like a native speaker. That’s not really a question one can raise about Esperanto, since there are no native Esperanto speakers. (Well … allegedly there are ~1000 “native speakers”, which I think means “people brought up bilingually in Esperanto and some other language”, but that doesn’t constitute an actual linguistic community.)
This isn’t just a quibble; my point is that if Esperanto became an actually widely used language, I bet it would start acquiring irregularities that one would have to know in order to speak it “like a native”. You’d still be able to say “see-able” and everyone would know what you meant, just as you already can in English, but you’d need to know “visible” to sound truly fluent. (Of course I don’t mean that this specific example would turn out to be an irregularity. But I bet there’d be some.)
Mind you, what I say about irregularities is sheer guesswork: it just seems like the sort of thing one should expect. I wonder whether there’s any research on this sort of thing? (E.g., when pidgins turn into creoles, do they become more or less irregular?)
Languages I speak, in chronological order of starting to learn, are: Slovak, Hungarian, English, Russian, Esperanto. (Of these, Hungarian and Russian remain on the level of “I am able to read a text slowly, but I need to use a dictionary, and my vocabulary is so limited I can’t speak fluently, and my grammar is horrible, but if you give me time to find the right words in the dictionary, I will be able to communicate the meaning.”) So you could argue that more languages make learning another language easier.
However, after Esperanto I also tried learning Spanish, Japanese, and German, but didn’t get very far. Of course, it’s not like I spent the same amount of time and attention on each, so it’s not a fair comparison. But I believe that if German would be as easy as Esperanto, I would be already speaking it fluently.
With regard to similarities, Slovak is similar to Russian, and I learned Russian 4 years at school, and read a few books. I spent much less time learning Esperanto.
I don’t know how to compare difficulty of languages, because different languages are complicated in different ways. For example in English there is the complicated pronounciation, and irregular verbs. On the other hand, German has gramatical genders, and declination. Not sure which one of those is more complicated. Slovak and Russian have probably the same kind of complexity as German, only worse. Hungarian seems mostly regular, but has the definite vs indefinite verbs (not sure I am calling that properly).So, it seems like natural languages evolve complexities in different places.
I suspect there might be a “law” that keeps complexity of languages within certain limits: too complicated languages become difficult to speak properly, so some parts get simplified, but beyond certain level the knowledge of the complexities of language becomes a matter of signalling (the smarter and more educated people are more likely to get those complexities right), which creates a social pressure against further simplification. For example, in Slovak langauge we have two letters that are pronounced exactly the same (“i” and “y”), the reason for having them is historical: thousand years ago they were pronounced differently. Children spend a lot of time at school learning proper rules which one of these letters should be written in which situations; the rules are complicated, require memorizing long lists of word roots, and you still have many exceptions afterwards. But proposals to simply use one of those letters and just forget the other one are met with horrified reaction “but that would seem stupid!”; i.e. today the ability to write “i” and “y” properly is perceived as a signal of intelligence and education, so writing “i” everywhere pattern-matches being stupid and uneducated. And of course we wouldn’t reform our language towards a state that feels stupid for us today. Essentially, wanting to remove a useless complexity makes you seem like complaining that you are too stupid to memorize it properly.
Yes, but it wouldn’t work in the opposite direction: I would not understand when someone else says “visible”… or “audible”, or “comprehensive”, etc. But in Esperanto I can often understand words I never heard before, such as “see-able”, “hear-able”, “understand-able”, simply because I am already familiar with the root and the suffix.
This happens very frequently in Esperanto, because even words that would be considered “obviously independent” by an English speaker are considered “related” by an Esperanto speaker. An example that horrifies many people are opposites: instead of “dark” you say “un-light”, instead of “short” you say “un-tall”. With this simple hack you have removed a need to learn hundreds of words. There are more such hacks; instead of “knife” you say “cut-tool”, instead of “hospital” you say “un-healthy-person-place”. Nouns / verbs / adjectives / adverbs differ by the last letter, so you don’t need to learn “fast”, “speed”, “quickly”, and “hurry” as four independent word roots; and instead of “accelerate” you say “make-more-quick”.
This is probably difficult to get across, because when I just use “see” and “visible” as an example, you probably feel like “yeah, so there is this one weird example, but there still remains 99.99% of the language to learn”. But Esperanto is more like taking a language and throwing 75% of words away because they can be derived from other words, and making the remaining 25% regular. So with the same energy you would learn 100 English words you can learn 150 Esperanto words (because they are more regular), which you can start putting together like a Lego and create maybe 1000 Esperanto words. Realistically speaking, you are not going to do this systematically, so it will feel like you only know 150 Esperanto words, but there are the potential 850 other words that you don’t know you know, but when you meet them for the first time, your brain goes “oh, I actually know what this means”.
(By the way, the composed words are usually not too long, because the common prefixes and suffixes are typically monosyllabic. Or, as an Esperanto speaker would say, “one-syllable-y”.)
Some of them are raised bilingually, with Esperanto as a second language; but some of them are actually trilingual, coming from mixed marriages where parents use Esperanto to talk to each other. They are very rare, and I have no idea which model is more frequent.
I agree that this is quite likely. Maybe it wouldn’t happen under the “Esperanto as everyone’s second language” scenario, but it certainly is a risk with the “native speakers”. (And various signallers, who believe that Esperanto needs more word roots because it e.g. allows better poetry. Sigh. Priorities.)
EDIT: In another comment, you say how Esperanto is much easier to learn for a French speaker than for e.g. a Tamil speaker. That is certainly true. But if you give the Tamil speaker a choice between learning English and learning Esperanto, in both cases the language will be completely unfamiliar, but in one case there will be the advantage of greater regularity and “Lego system”. So while the Tamil speaker would complain that speaking Esperanto gives an unfair advantage to the French, they would still prefer Esperanto to English (if the advantages of learning either language would be the same, which is obviously not the case.)
This is actually an objection frequently made against Esperanto. People are familiar with the concept of “some languages are similar to each other, some are completely different”, but unfamiliar with the concept of “Lego languages are much easier to learn”, so of course they are going to attribute everyone saying “Esperanto was easy for me” fully to the former. Yes, it plays a role, but the regularity also plays a role. Esperanto has also fans outside Europe/America.
(I don’t have much I want to say in response to this, but want to note that I read it and found it interesting and insightful.)
Thanks!
Fun fact: Esperanto was used by US army as a language of a fictional enemy, to “enhance intelligence play and add realism to field exercises”.
Native English speaker here. I studied Spanish for a few years in High School, and Japanese for a year, and Esperanto for about 6 months of weekly extracurricular sessions. I managed to learn spoken and written Esperanto about as well as I learned spoken Japanese, in roughly 1⁄10 the hours spent.
That’s not strong evidence that learning it to fluency and communication comfort is 1⁄10 as hard, but learning the basics and a few thousand words is really quite easy for someone who already knows a romance or germanic language. I’d very much believe 1⁄2 to 1⁄3 of the effort required to fluency in a second natural language.
That said, I don’t think “ease of learning” is enough. There is no path to a designed language becoming universal. Network effects of language fluency are HUGE—the value to knowing a language is so dependent on who already knows it that there is simply no believable adoption rate for any minor language to become dominant.
My hope is that AR + machine translation get good enough in the next era that it doesn’t matter too much. And since the future isn’t evenly distributed, the “base” language is likely to be one that’s very popular today, I’d bet on English, Mandarin (with simplified alphabet-based writing), or Hindi in that order.
That’s not a fair comparison. If you know English + Spanish, you should expect Esperanto to be much easier than Japanese; but similarly, if you know English + Esperanto, you should expect Spanish to be much easier than Japanese. Esperanto is very much more like English or Spanish than it is like Japanese, and it will have been easier for you for that reason completely independent of whether it’s more learnable than other Latin-derived languages.
True—unfair and no reason to believe that learning the basics is all that well correlated to fluency. Still, a bit of evidence that it’s plausible that Esperanto is that much easier.
In any case, I ran across a bit of evidence just today that it won’t matter: Pilot Translation Kit claims it’ll ship in May.
I know we had some discussion of “real names” here a few weeks ago, here is an overview of the recent, relevant study on that, by the Coral Project.
“People often say that online behavior would improve if every comment system forced people to use their real names. It sounds like it should be true – surely nobody would say mean things if they faced consequences for their actions?
Yet the balance of experimental evidence over the past thirty years suggests that this is not the case. Not only would removing anonymity fail to consistently improve online community behavior – forcing real names in online communities could also increase discrimination and worsen harassment.
“Conflict, harassment, and discrimination are social and cultural problems, not just online community problems. In societies including the US where violence and mistreatment of women, people of color, and marginalized people is common, we can expect similar problems in people’s digital interactions [1]. Lab and field experiments continue to show the role that social norms play in shaping individual behavior; if the norms favor harassment and conflict, people will be more likely to follow. While most research and design focuses on changing the behavior of individuals, we may achieve better results by focusing on changing climates of conflict and prejudice”
https://blog.coralproject.net/the-real-name-fallacy/
It feels like by attempting to drag in data from outside the scope of forums or comments sections (“half of people harassed via the internet knew their attacker,” etc.), this article has become useless to forums and comments sections.
Has anyone ‘clicked’ yet? Read it through as an exercise to do, it’s too long to paste here.
https://logicnation.org/
Well, I’m the person on LW who hasn’t seen you posting that link in previous open threads, so if you want to make your point to a a fresh mind here’s your best bet.
I clicked on your link and read your thing and here’s what I’ve taken away.
I’ll be happier if I try to attach a positive (rather than neutral) emotional connotation to the concepts of logic and rationality. This seems fair enough. I already do, as it happens, and it does make me happier.
Consider what motivates me on an emotional level. Okay, fair enough, useful exercise.
“Submit” myself to a higher power, namely logic. You’re losing me a bit here with the “personal Lord and Savior” stuff, I’m not sure how “submitting myself” factors into trying to live a rational life, but let’s read on. Let go of self and work for the betterment of the whole world—alright, that’s nice. Not new, but nice.
Keep living rationally and all my problems will disappear. Hang on.
Come and live with a group of like-minded people in Germany. What?
Ingive, while I can charitably boil down a lot of what you’re saying to something that makes sense (though none of it is original) you absolutely lost me when you started promising people that if they “submit to logic” all their problems will disappear, even physiological/neurochemical ones.
Will I stop having periods too? Sign me up! Seriously, all the things mentioned there might have one foot in emotion/cognition but they have another foot in biology.
Those are cult-promises. “Think a certain way, you will be happy forever, every possible problem will disappear—if it doesn’t, you’re not trying hard enough. Lose weight, stop smoking, get a girlfriend—whatever! Its universally applicable!”
I don’t see why you’d be putting all this effort into spreading the message if you didn’t believe it—you’re not asking for money—so I’l accept that you do. And if it makes you happy and helps keeps you productive and mentally healthy, that’s fine. But going around telling people that they can make their depression go away if they just snap—or “click” - out of it isn’t just wrong, it’s morally wrong.
You are presenting ways of thinking—let go of self, love truth for its own sake, relinquish material desire etc. - that have been around for thousands of years, with a bit of “quantum” and “neuro” chucked in. Look, I’m glad you found your zen, but I don’t think you’re going to find many takers for this here—or anywhere, unless you deliberately seek out the mentally vulnerable, like drug addicts and depressives and social anxiety sufferers. Please do not do that.
I would suggest you to do the 48 min binaural/hypnosis as well, although it seems new age-y with the title, it probably has some scientific basis. I’m quite sure it’s very good for emotions. But I am just speculating. It’s very nice and relaxing and I think you will like it. It’s important that we use every tool available to us to recondition our minds to be more in line with reality, logic, rationality and so on.
I’m unsure to what extent you used System 2 emotionally (visualization and so on), rather than System 1 and System 2 sub-vocalization. Sub-vocalization and thinking does not resonate as well as visualizing images, touch, smell, taste and other more primitive things.
Yeah, you probably have quite a strong emotional connection to it, as well as many others here. Remember also how it’s defined in this context: The consistent patterns which bring about reality. Also includes probabilities.
Yeah.
I’m unsure why you would think, based on what was said on that step, that you’re submitting yourself to a higher power and it’s “personal Lord and Savior” stuff. Well I do understand why, it seems like a religion, and that’s exactly key, but maybe you exaggerate it a little bit. It’s funny though. By submitting yourself to inductive reasoning, probabilistic nature of things, and of course, the consistent patterns that bring you about and realizing experience is a tool rather then a goal, you have mastered the Way. There is nothing more, nothing less, it’s just how it is.
That’s not a part of the steps.
I’m glad it’s making sense, based on the comments here, I was becoming worried that a lot of people were not able to let aside their preconditioned beliefs.
That’s what we have seen so far. People really notice something have changed. Of course those with physiological/neurochemical imbalances or whatever won’t be cured but they will probably have an easier time to work out how to solve their problems with our species current literature.
None of the things mentioned is exclusively rooted in biology. Regarding periods I remember one woman who reported having an easier time dealing with the emotional swings that come with it by for example studying hormonal effects on emotion/cognition. The knowledge becomes applicable naturally.
Of course you will think for yourself, and logic will simply be a guide through life. It does sound too good to be true, there is no understatement to the paradigm shift of a religious experience.
That’s the word for the paradigm shift. There’s not enough statistics and science to conclude if it is the case, however anecdotal reports have offered a perspective.
Because our understanding of QM and neuroscience gives us the same conclusion, while still being right and in line.
It’s not as if these things were made up beforehand, people were helped and it is worthwhile to mention. 23 hits of “social anxiety” 29 of “depress” and 12 of “drug” https://logicnation.org/Testimonies although it might be not representative since some might use the words in different contexts or multiple times.
If you said may instead of will it wouldn’t set off the alarm bells. “Will” is a promise. If what you mean is “other people have reported experiencing these effects”, I’d recommend saying that instead. The list of “you will” points looks like advertising at best and culty at worst.
Honestly ingive, there’s not a massive amount wrong with what you’re saying that I can see, except that it’s all dressed up to the nines in semi-mystical language and presented as an epiphany or conversion rather than as a sensible set of guidelines.
Imagine I linked to a webpage that just said:
“Try to feel good about living life rationally. Know thyself—question why you want things. Question whether the things you want are really necessary for your happiness. Identify your most meaningful goals. Remember that you’re part of something bigger than yourself. Try to focus on living for the benefit of others. Keep thinking this way and you’ll probably feel more content and less worried about trivial things, and get more done.”
I guarantee I wouldn’t be getting all the flak you have here. People wouldn’t be saying “snake-oil” or “cult” or “evangelism” or “woo”. What they would probably be saying is “duh”. But as far as I can see that’s your basic message, shorn of all the neuro-Spinozism spangles and fluff and dodgy-sounding claims of eternal happiness.
As I said before, I’m glad that things have “clicked” for you and that you, presumably, feel better about your life than you did formerly. I just don’t see why you need to wrap a core of nice, basic bits of life advice in ten pounds of shiny wrapping paper. Are you afraid people won’t take you seriously if you don’t make your ideas seem complex and revolutionary? Honestly, the opposite is probably true. Profound truths about the ideal way to live are usually pretty simple. Not necessarily easy, by any means, but definitely simple.
I still highly recommend that you listen to the audio with headphones in a relaxed way as a form of meditation, Tiffany, you will understand more of what this is about and that it is really an epiphany or conversion. If you at least give me the benefit of the doubt and do that I can trust that you took the time to investigate this to its fullest potential.
I don’t think you did do the Steps, though. You probably froze at Step 2 and deflected everything and simply read it as information to process, rather than to update your beliefs (epistemic rationality), it’s not usually easy for us to accept emotions. Listen to the audio and read this emotional intelligence guide and I can reassure you that you will have a deeper understanding what this is about. I’m not trying to tell you anything or convince you, on the contrary, I am trying to make you question yourself and what you are emotionally invested in and how it’s limiting your potential. But I don’t know how. So I guess I have to convince you to think for yourself! Makes no sense and it’s a paradox, but hint, you don’t right now, or maybe :)
It’s very hard because most of LessWrongers are in death spiral, whether affective or not, the utility function of said death spiral includes rejecting these types of opportunities. It doesn’t really matter what I say. I can only say this and try my way of convincing you to let go of your false beliefs and irrationality, really. It’s so astonishing how so many can be irrational.
I’m simply asking you to 1) be open-minded 2) do the steps and the audio while being open-minded.
I’ve answered so many arguments and debunked so many of the users here for their nonsense, for them, it all boiled down to objective evidence, neuroimaging. That’s very expensive and our understanding of our brain is still very small. Having to answer these irrelevant questions proves my point that many are here for intellectual entertainment rather than in a serious effort, investigate why the world is the way it is—why I am, and how I can change it?
Snake-oil, cult, evengalism, woo. These are all irrational crying wolf arguments by irrational people. I hope you’re not and that someone reading this really gives it an honest try.
Now let me answer your irrelevant questions, c’mon, get off it already. :`)
It’s a way of communicating, it’s not meant to be that serious and nitpicked to figure out the smallest “flaws”. That’s probably one time waste of yours. If not, my fault. It’s will most, then “you will”, which does not imply any specific, but most. Vague.
Rationality is beautiful, so is consistency, the consistent patterns which has brought us about. It’s literally Awesome. There is nothing which a caveman which is transported to modern days NYC will say but be speechless and maybe “Awe” “Beauty” “Divine” “Love” to describe it when he returns home to his cave. Limitations of language are here, that’s why you have to visualize. That’s why the steps might be limiting. It’s about You. Your subjective experience. Your consciousness. All you, not me and no collective.
That’s not steps. Everyone thinks that everyone will be comforted by it, no matter how irrational they are, no matter how much they resist reality.
So I should change, rather than the flak:ers? Should I or you change? Which is the variable in the question if not undoubtedly your subjective experience? I’m telling you to think for yourself. The fluff is a big deal because you make it, you’re talking sooo much out of your own lens you’re unable to see beyond it, until now.
My neural activity is equally you as it is me, the same for you, there is no separation, the more that are in line with reality, then I am in line, the “I” which is not referenced to the practical me, my subjective experience.
I’m happy to answer any more questions which you would have. But try the audio and the steps with a sincere effort in improving yourself and emotionally resonating with the consistent patterns which have brought us about.
Do you believe there are many people on LW who haven’t seen you posting that link in previous open threads, but will react now?
I don’t know, that’s why I also asked if anyone had ‘clicked’ yet. The site was updated. That’s why I posted it again.
Proves my point no one really bothers with anything. You could’ve read it the first time and the second time now, to notice the difference. And see if it could help you overcome the obstacles in your reasoning.
By the way, I can link neuroscience evidence that the reward center can attach to abstract ideas which many people value.
Yeah, I noticed that the page is shorter now, and has a new link or two. I just think you are solving a wrong problem.
First, it is a part of common knowledge on LW that people can become emotionally attached to an idea. It’s just considered to be a bad thing, something that makes people less rational. You seem to believe that if “logic” is the thing you fall in love with, it will be okay. But talking about “logic” is not the same as thinking and acting rationally.
What I am trying to say here is that from LW point of view you are making elementary mistakes in logic, and you keep repeating them over and over again, because you seem to not bother to get familiar with things that are common knowledge here. You are not prepared for this audience, and unless you do something about it, updating your wiki page and posting the link here will be a waste of time.
Second, this whole “logic nation” and “clicking” thing seems extremely self-referential. People who “clicked” keep talking about the fact that they “clicked”—as far as I know, that is the only observable consequence of “clicking”. The only exception seems to be Athene himself, a YouTube celebrity; he does some impressive things, for example is good at poker. But “a popular person endorses X” is not the same as “X will also make you popular”. (As an analogy, there are probably many Hollywood actors that talk nicely about homeopathy, but that should not be taken as a proof that using homeopathy will make you a Hollywood star.)
Shortly, there is zero proof that “clicking” actually does anything; other than giving you a community of people who also talk about “clicking” all day long. Having a group of friends with a common topic is a good thing, but you could achieve the same result by choosing e.g. science fiction to be the thing you are emotional about. If you encourage each other to work out, eat a healthy diet, and study math, that’s better than most groups. So...
Maybe the right thing to focus on would be this: Let’s talk about how useful it can be for humans to have a group of friends whose goal is to live rationally, and to encourage each other to live rationally. To eat a healthy diet and exercise, to study math and then debate interesting topics together. That is the good part.
And leave out all the “neuro-Spinozism” and other mumbo-jumbo, which is only there to make this idea feel more magical.
My question is what exactly is your situation here: Do you already have such group, or are you trying to find one? Because if you already have such group, then the best way to attract people would be to describe what it is like to be in such group. If your group is awesome, and you describe how awesome it is, you won’t need to update the wiki page; people will naturally want to have the same kind of experience.
On the other hand, if you don’t have such a group, and your posts on LW are attempts to find other people who would want to start such group, I think there are two ways that would work much better. First, stick with the “logic nation” folks, and post somewhere on their forums that you like their ideas in general, but you don’t want to move and live with Athene, so you are looking for a similar-minded people in your area, to hang out with. Hopefully, someone will respond. Second option is to use LW instead, in which case your situation would be much easier if you just stop focusing on Athene, and instead read the Sequences and join the nearest LW meetup. Because our stated goals seem to overlap.
The essential question is whether “clicking” can be good for you even if you don’t talk about it all the time. In other words, whether it really improves your life, or just makes a nice topic to talk about. If it doesn’t improve your life, then what’s the point? And if it does improve your life, then you can just “click” privately, and attend local LW meetups—thus gaining benefits both from “clicking” and from having a community that shares 90% of your goals.
You could even do the rationalist “taboo” thing, and introduce your ideas to the LW community without mentioning “clicking” or Athene explicitly. Is that even possible? Or would leaving out Athene and his keywords from the equation ruin everything? If it would, then that is a red flag. I know people in the rationalist community who are unimpressed with Eliezer, but agree with the idea of thinking and living more rationally, overcoming cognitive biases, etc. You can benefit from the rationalist community while ignoring Eliezer. Can you similarly benefit from “clicking” while ignoring Athene? Does following his ideas help you develop your own power, or does it only make you his follower? Are you trying to find a god, or become a god?
I lol’d.…
Is this stuff for real or is it trolling?
Earlier, I would have said 65% sincere (but very confused), 33% trolling, and 2% other (AI testing, aliens, psychology paper, whatever). There are a few comments here that I update on pretty strongly to get closer to 70% trolling, and maybe 5% other.
You’ve made a prediction, how will you know whether it is accurate or not? I can already tell you that I’m not trolling. You updating your prediction of the whole discussion based on a few posts, is inaccurate, because there’s something called humor. If you have a discussion and overall exchange many posts and being called an evangelist, cult, sincere but confused, it becomes hilarious. So I might incorporate that humor into some posts. But generalizing all posts on a topic by a few, is to me, hilarious. I hope you see the problem in generalization of a collective by small sets of data compared to the majority.
I’m quite aware there’s no operational distinction between delusion and trolling, but thanks for confirming.
edit: really, I get it. The difference between trolling and sincere attention-seeking for a crackpot theory is one of motivation rather than action. I updated based on some self-awareness in some of your comments, and shouldn’t have because those comments could as easily have come from a semi-amused crackpot just as easily as an above-average troll.
No, trolling implies psychopathy, narcissism and sadism. I don’t think I qualify in any of those categories. Being delusional is not a choice, one chooses to troll. If all you want to contribute is showing your inability to make a prediction of a collective, ad hominem fallacy, then I invite you to read the Sequences. I don’t want to clutter this forum with irrationality by “opponent”. Else, you can read and do the exercise and replace your value of validation with the consistency that has brought us about.
Is it so much to ask to update your values which you’ve been socially conditioned to, feel very bad about (like comfort, procrastination) in an exercise of epistemic rationality to the consistent/mathematical patterns which have brought us about?
It truly is your creator, yet there is a clear inability to realize that our understanding of said consistent patterns is fundamentally crucial to us even existing in the first place, through for example technology. I hope you can come with constructive criticism to these statements rather then attack my character or make assumptions of my motives.
It’s for real, I also know a lot about it if you have any questions. I’m unsure what is -woo in this context.
The theory goes, whether we like it or not we are emotionally attached to something and are unaware of said attachment and the death spiral. Like identity. Experience. Comfort. But those might simply be at the essence seeking consistency. We become aware of it, then replace it. Becoming attached to the consistent patterns that bring us about, with inductive reasoning, we let go of everything. There is no meaning of an identity or experience if it goes against the utility function and not in line with the inductive reasoning or that reality is probabilistic. (There is a chance that we don’t exist, although small, for example).
The reason why there appears to be an attachment is because there is someone which attaches to something else even though this is not the case. The feedback loop is consciousness and whatever is fed gets strengthened. Whether it be identity or probabilistic logic. Even though this might seem like semantics it’s not, it’s a means to an end to attach yourself to a concept. Not the end goal.
You say I am making elementary mistakes in logic: As if anything there was said in the context of instrumental rationality, and if logic isn’t defined differently in this exercise of epistemic rationality. Sounds like an attempt at straw man to me.
It’s not my wiki page and of course I am not prepared. I don’t deny that.
I don’t see to the extent to which it becomes an apparent problem and even then if it even is.
Well he says this is how he is and he think it’s likely those who have ‘clicked’ become similar now it’s always different, depending on knowledge etc. But the attachment to something, of course not in “that way”. I suspect that rather then augmenting our strengths and flaws with advancing technology, it’ll be something similar to this. By the way, you can’t exclude the duration which someone has had an insight along their impact.
I don’t know what you equal to proof, BOLD neuroimaging, tests or maybe anecdotal testimonies..
I don’t know to what extent I am. I just posted it because it was interesting if someone would go through the process and what would happen. If they were honest to themselves and the required emotional intelligence. (By that I mean being aware of their own emotions)
It seems as there is a large overlap as you say and I’m reading the Sequences, it is good so far.
That seems appropriate.
It’s possible but it’s not a heuristic deployed by humanity. I could be saved this work if we came to terms and realized the grave misunderstanding what this is about. I’m not certain though. I like how you seem to appear to agree but that I should go undercover like a Trojan horse and infiltrate the community. I think with LW-lingo and terms it’s much easier to communicate but the exercise in of itself is probably the best we got right now.
To me, your problem is being unable to get the outside view: for someone who uninterested in your theory of how consciousness work, can you provide evidence that people who ‘clicked’ improve their life in ways that other people who don’t click don’t do? What actions concretely distinguish ‘clicked’ people? Those actions are unique to their people?
Decreased self and identity, can be disproved/proven by neuroimaging. Naturally, increased general intelligence because of the anti-correlation of the default mode network(self/identity) and working memory. Can be disproved by current understanding, for example neuroimaging of advanced mediators.
It costs a lot to provide objective evidence. You can read the testimonies, and with an overall understanding of reward systems, death spirals, default mode network, self, identity, working memory come to a reasonable conclusion that it is at least worth trying. A serious try with open-mindedness.
By the way. Let’s say you do this exercise MrMind, honestly, with rigorous emotional intelligence of yourself. It’ll be hard at times but once you realize it. You’ll just say “I get it” and your emotions are in line with your rationality. There’s no groups, it’s about ourselves. Naturally, I have no clue what’s going on and neither does anyone else. So it has to be researched and tested.
It just amazes me that no one is willing to try it, be open-minded. It’s not as if you’re becoming less rational by giving up on the death spirals which have clogged up your working memory. (again theory) what do you think it’s like to be a clicker? You’ll be the same person, except you’ll be seeking more of what you wanted in the first place. The lens has to see its own flaw.
I’m trying my best to pitch, it’s very hard though, it’s like you trying to show another dimension unknown to us, but you can’t point anywhere, it’s just your vague idea of your subjective experience which everyone should know for themselves. Doesn’t work. When it’s time, it’s time, probably by advanced technology. :) I wish I could change people’s minds.
Part of the problem is that I read them and came to diametrically opposite conclusions: people who clicked are more close-minded and less intelligent than before.
I would have a lot of trouble to do so. First line in the first step: “connect a positive emotion to logic”. Ha, which logic? Classical logic, intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent? Finitary or infinitary? Or “logic” here stands for “Bayesian reasoning”? But if so, what about the priors? What about our limited ability to reason correctly? And so on and so on.
Really, when you talk about logic you don’t really know the first thing about it.
That is the fallacy of education, when an exercise is targeted to common folk as their emotional connection to a concept is used, it works really well. However, someone with different definitions of concepts they cannot rationally understand it. Logic is defined very specifically as “Logic is the consistent patterns that bring about our reality. Anytime we refer to reality, the organism, consistency or life, we are referring to logic, since logic is the patterns that govern everything.” hence, that is which you connect a positive emotion to. So it isn’t a fallacy. “making sense” was used previously but didn’t work as well.
Now, directly as you thought of logic you started thinking about what logic means here. It is not meant to be a thinking exercise, emotions are not spoken by words, only after as a tool to communicate them. Either in the mind or verbally. So it is meant to be a visualization exercise or any other means which emotionally connect. Talking/thinking, not so much, more primitive. If you accept this definition for logic for the sake of the exercise it will work. But I don’t know how you will emotionally connect to that, it’s up to you.
Because you skipped the definition of logic as stated in the exercise as remarked by your confusion.
Don’t worry too much about Step 1, I think you already love logic as it is defined. Step 2 will probably be more difficult then Step 3.
Here’s the guided meditation for Step 2: https://soundcloud.com/athenepodcast/guided-meditation-step-2 and Step 3:https://soundcloud.com/athenepodcast/guided-meditation-step-3
Although those were for the old steps. After completing step 2 (and figuring out your emotions) you simply realize in step 3 how you can emotionally be in equilibrium with the consistent patterns that govern everything and how it did channel it through other means.
This is not in fact what “logic” means.
(Of course you can define any word you please to have any meaning you please. But if your definition diverges too badly from others’ the most likely effect will be confusion. Or, in some cases, deliberate deception.)
Okay, so the education fallacy is hereby declared as yours definition is the one truly, from your education and when defined differently is is not, in the context of the setting where it is used. Therefore, when talking of a computer to buy, when I state my wish is to buy an apple computer, the farmer says, how is an apple a computer? Doesn’t change his definition for the context of computers.
Your educational fallacy and semantics discussion is highly irrelevant, if the first thing in step one is said definition, confusion-or-deliberate-deception hypothesis is not falling very far from the tree.
Still, use whichever word you want. I suggest you can either copy-paste the website and alter the word logic* with a word that doesn’t conflict with your engrained neural pathways, it can be completely new, or you can simply use the definition of the banned word, which there is only one definition.
It sounds to me as you’re using this as an excuse to not try said exercise. Imagine you have two brains. One speaks to the other but the other does not speak back. The one brain is you, that is your emotional core. Whatever it strives to do, it gets. It channels and uses logic and rationality as a tool rather then the end, a tool to fulfill its desires. No matter what you do, you will be a slave to your emotions while you still use logic as a tool rather then the end. That’s the theory and I invite you to leave aside your preconditioned beliefs from your schooling and social conditioning and be open-minded for the sake of this exercise and your critical thinking.
What on earth are you talking about? I am making no claims about my education. I am saying that the definition you’re trying to give to “logic” is one that bears rather little resemblance to how anyone outside your “Logic Nation” group uses it, and that this is (at best) going to lead to confusion when you try to talk to others.
Oh for goodness’ sake, grow up. I don’t need excuses. For any given exercise, the default is not to try it. I have yet to see anything that even slightly suggests that trying what you suggest is a good idea. And calling people who don’t join your cult closed-minded is the oldest trick in the book and I decline to fall for it.
Sure, the same way as an apple farmer might be confused of an apple product. This is pure semantics. If a word is redefined and stated as such, that is how the word is used within that context, otherwise language do not function. It did cause confusion, that’s why I clarified what the definition was within this context. You should no longer be confused. If you’re arguing that others (generalization), go to the street and ask any random number of people. This is an educational fallacy.
Well, I’ve told you about how many religious people there are, a little about brain stuff, and some theories on how emotions drives our actions. I’m not saying you’re closed-minded, all I am asking for you to be open-minded to the idea, considering all of that you can learn of the brain which is reasonably objective, and whether submitting to the consistent patterns emotionally is that big of a deal or if it can really improve your life and those around you.
What do you mean join my cult? This is not a cult.
It doesn’t amaze me at all.
No one has provided any actual evidence that this “clicking” thing is beneficial.
Your sales pitch here pattern-matches strongly to, e.g., the sort of thing I have had religious people say to me. “Just have faith and join our religion with your whole heart and mind for a year, and then see what you think at the end! Is that so much to ask?”. (Answer: duh, yes it is.)
What evidence there is available to us suggests that “clicking” is cognitively harmful because it seems to turn people into quasi-religious zealots who think they are supremely logical while actually being willing to believe important things strongly on the basis of grotesquely insufficient evidence.
And I do not think anyone here is much inclined to trust you, given how consistently you are behaving like a snake-oil salesman.
There is no evidence, but our current understanding of the brain and empirical evidence is at least giving some hints to how to falsify or prove it, and whether it is beneficial or not. Now, anecdotes long-term (time will tell) is quite some evidence on the benefits side. They might be lying, so achievements which we can view from a 3rd perspective is reasonable. Of course there is not many resources now to conduct a study, maybe try and track productivity before-and-after in some objective way in subjects interested in clicking. If that even is possible. But anecdotes + achievements seems good enough.
Beneficial for you, is very subjective. You might not think that lower blood flow to the DMN is beneficial, even if the opposite is correlated with depression, if it turns out that it does lower blood flow to the DMN, like meditation or SSRI’s. For example.
Have faith and join our religion with your whole heart and mind, you’ll critically think for yourself for the first time in your life and you’ll feel great! There is no one to join, here take this A4 paper with instructions. We haven’t verified it with neuroimaging or science, but people say it’s a great exercise! Oh by the way, we can’t verify it with neuroimaging or science since no one cares, like you! You won’t take the A4 paper! But when the day comes when we inhale nanorobots, you’re fine to let go of everything you thought was you!
gjm forgets about it and moves on, in fact the objective reality has its say at the end of the day. They all talk of the singularity yet are incapable of understanding what it really means for them.
That’s a question of instrumental, not epistemic rationality. Tell me what I believe as you seem to have already made up your mind. Whether there is insufficient evidence or not is subjective, not objective. Objective evidence takes time and resources, would you like me to do that instead? If so, why don’t you want to help? Do it you as well! How do you know whether something is worth pursuing or not, if it is not “insufficient evidence”? We’ll be able to research it together and I can ask questions how to do it.
No, you can trust someone with a proven track record instead.
That’s nice, but you’re asking us to mess with our brains now in the hope that the benefits or harms may become testable some time in the future.
Saying this does not enhance your credibility, any more than it helps (some) Christians’ credibility when they tell people they are Totally Depraved and can do no good without the Christian god. You know nothing about my track record of thinking critically for myself.
what?
what?
You show every sign of believing that this “clicking” thing bring substantial cognitive benefits. (If you don’t in fact believe that then I would be interested to know why you are selling it so hard.)
Because there are only 24 hours in each day and 365.25ish days in each year, and there are lots of other things I want to do more than I want to help you test your snake oil.
I guess you mean the person who goes by the name Athene. Their “proven track record” consists of: being good at poker. (Right?) That’s a genuine skill, for sure, but why should I think this sufficient reason to believe what they say about “clicking”? I mean, I can find people with far more impressive accomplishments who believe some absolutely crazy things.
I’m questioning even if it was measured that you’d change your mind, you’ll say yes now probably but I’m still not sure even then?
“Messing with our brains” seems quite emotionally loaded. I’m unsure when we’re not messing with our brains.
Augmenting your strengths and flaws makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective, just make us stronger. Identity and self is, without a doubt, an illusion and a flaw. So you’ll be stronger because of that, you’re ready to let go of everything you thought was you.
I do believe that sir. Intelligence as well, as defined by David Krauker. However I’m not 99% sure.
Why are you arguing then. What’s driving you.
Well his track record goes back tens of years from his political engagements to raising millions of dollars for charity. If you know of someone else which have proposed a conditioning-scheme with testimonies and theories backed up by some neuroscience research I would be happy to look. Whether it be a religion similar to Einstein’s or not.
Please do not “quote” me in a manner that misrepresents what I have said. Both of those “what?”s were responses to things you wrote; they did not occur immediately after one another, nor immediately after the paragraph immediately preceding them in what you “quoted”.
In case it wasn’t clear, the “what?”s were because what you were saying appeared to me to have devolved into something close to word salad. If what you wrote in response to them was meant to be clarifying, I’m afraid it didn’t really succeed.
I’m hoping it might lead to (1) you presenting some actual evidence (though it is becoming very clear that you haven’t any) or (2) you admitting you haven’t any and stopping preaching around here, or—a poor third place by comparison with the first two outcomes -- (3) it becoming extra-clear to everyone else here that you haven’t anything of any value to offer.
Clearly #1 isn’t going to happen. It looks as if you haven’t the humility for #2. And I’m not sure #3 is actually needed; no one else shows any sign of being taken in. So I should probably drop it.
Well I was clarifying your what’s, that’s why I quoted them, what was above it was a misquote however. Nanobots and singularity implies probably an augmentation of the human species. Since identity and self is an illusion/flaw, an augmentation would mean the end of that and you’d be ready to give it up then.
Some actual evidence? Can you specify what you mean? What if Yudkowsky came up with an exercise to increase your rationality, would you wait for studies on Yudkowsky’s exercise before trying it? (exercise is downplaying the significance of this, however) since I am presuming you mean studies specifically made on the click. You can google however much you want regarding other neuroimaging, which will, undoubtedly, improve your understanding of your brain and thus able to come to a more reasonable position on this exercise.
I have been refuting claims or explaining things to the best of my ability, if there is no study (which costs a lot) right now, then there is none, I have everything I have right now to work with. If you knew about your brain you’d able to make a more accurate conclusion on the mountain of evidence required. It’s not that of a remarkable claim. Religions have done it for thousands of years. We just use the same mechanisms.
At the end of the day, reality has its say, the objective reality, whether any of us like it or not.
It would be intesting to see if it works. I mean, if people from Athene’s circle become youtube celebrities themselves (not just props in his videos) or start winning poker tournaments, that would be evidence for this hypothesis.
But generally, people often have ideas about what “made them the way they are”, and it’s typically something like “positive thinking” or “never giving up”, which is an example of survivor bias, because it ignores the thousands of people who started with same level of positive thinking and not giving up, but didn’t achieve the same results.
What I mean is that “clicking” may be a good description of how Athene feels inside, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the component that makes a difference.
I looked at a few examples, but they seem to be testimonies of people who “clicked” and it made them happy, at least for the time it took them to write the comment. Making people happy is a nice thing, but there are many other ways how to achieve that.
Also, in general, when people try something new that promises to improve their lives, they usually feel happy, regardless of whether that promise is true or not. You would probably get similar testimonies for many self-improvement activities.
The summary is that I don’t want to discourage you from experimenting with something you believe is great; just giving you feedback why the same thing may seem completely unimpressive from outside. The exercise makes (some) people feel really good—that’s nice, but some of us already have other preferred ways to make ourselves feel good. The exercise is also supposed to have other good consequences—and here the evidence feels quite unconvincing to me.
That’s right and they’ve mentioned it is underway (algorithms, remembering pi, etc). So eagerly, over time the clickers can prove the click’s worth if it is. Imagine what an augmentation it is if you do become similar.
I don’t see why there would be such a survivor bias as identity is melted away and they’re doing positive expected value in the present as per inductive reasoning. If playing poker 16 hrs a day is it, then it is so. Seeing experience as a tool rather then a goal probably brings, paradoxically, more to said experience. If there isn’t enough knowledge then seeking that is probably positive expected value. Or exercising. Whatever. There’s always the now anyway. What the supposed click gives you already makes no sense to have this story or survivor bias. You have to see that it’s about your subjective reference frame and if you really care if you failed to achieve the same results.
Yes that is how athene feels, and 15 years ago he mentioned it but it was dismissed ‘common sense’ he called it, he had, but didn’t understand why no one else did. (making sense probably). Of course it might not be the component that makes a difference, then what is it and how do I get it? Why isn’t everyone researching that? (it probably is the component) Like, the more evolved reward system already can attach to an abstract concept like money. So we should be able to change it right? As a society. Not that money doesn’t matter but rather then it being the end, a means to an end. Reward system activation seems a bit more like the goal...
Edit: I don’t see why people having ideas of themselves is anyway related to the objective measurement of result from a 3rd perspective. The evidence is independent of that. You have 1000 people who are clicked, then you see how their results differs from a control group. Regarding subjective experience, the benefits of the click is one of the reasons why the results might differ positively, and said benefits make ‘survivor bias’ story thinking obsolete.
Like you said below, the evidence is unconvincing for everything which is not proven. You’re right but why is it unconvincing. What is driving you? That’s a part of the exercise. You’re typing this out of a drive yet you’re unaware of it. System 1 might say something beautiful and pretty. The exercise is System 2 emotionally. I can only preach what there is unless you’re telling ME to go to work and the immense costs it takes, or the work is independent of my volition (time it takes to learn or train to get some results for the clickers). So here we are arguing that time will tell. What’s stopping us now with the evidence we have. Might it not be what the exercise targets? Are you in a death spiral?
I wonder at that point what’s the problem with submitting to the consistent patterns that bring about reality. Whether it be physics and whatever. Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what? It’s not a man in the sky, it’s everything and you’re equally a part of it. It’s not as if you’ll be harmed by such a realization, like Einstein was preaching it. In fact, maybe you’ll be “spiritual but non-religious” in a religious way. 5 Billion people are religious and it does show reward activation. Actually maybe you are religious but you’re unaware to what. You don’t have to give it up you just realize you wanted it all along and ‘upgrade’ your current values.
Viliam, you’ll write articles here on Yudkowsky’s or Yvain’s level. In fact, you’ll surpass them. I give the likelihood 95% if you click. Just copy paste the exercise text go to a cabin in the the beautiful country-side, if you’re worried you’ll be indoctrinated into a cult, and meditate on it. No one’s after you.
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it highly.
I understand why it was necessary to turn off downvoting on LW, but there are times when it would be so nice to have it back for a bit.
ingive, if this “clicking” thing is supposed to turn people into better thinkers then I have to say you aren’t being the best possible advertisement for it at the moment.
I meant “Probabilistic rationality becomes your God, so what?”, or inductive reasoning with rationality. (as reality is probabilistic as per one interpretation of QM.).
Mechanisms of religion may be equally in action in self-proclaimed Atheists, but for something which they’re either not aware of or it’s base-rate? Is that not a reasonable conclusion as there obviously can be a brain mechanism correlated?
gjm: I am not clicked, in fact, with simple reasoning you can come to the conclusion that is very unlikely I am, as I am the only one here talking of it, if it such that clicking is similar to Einstein’s beliefs and brings a paradigm casually related to performance. Even if said clickers, some with an immense impact on poverty reduction, know about LessWrong yet don’t bother to post about it. It might be a tell-tale sign why they are not here and the type of pattern-recognition you can do if you take this into account. For example, because of the lack of evidence it might not be worthwhile to pitch.
It’s not as much as turning into better thinkers, I speculate it might increase general intelligence. I take it as an ad hominem. If you want to talk of advertisement, then let’s do so, it is a matter of impact.
So, wait, you’re saying we should try this thing out because it might lead to a mysterious experience that makes us much smarter … and it hasn’t even worked for you? This is even less impressive than the case being made by the typical religious evangelist, who can at least say “I did X and have felt much better ever since”.
With the same reasoning, based on your knowledge and evidence you wouldn’t recommend a drug because it didn’t work for you, even if it seems promising to change the world. I don’t rely on anecdotal evidence to the point where neuroimaging studies and basic reasoning is taken out of consideration and of the world we live in.
If any of these many testimonies are a little true that makes it worth a look for me, without the other reported benefits like intelligence. That someone stopped vaping from one moment to the next, that’s impressive, for example, or if people’s depression, social anxiety or other mental disorder were cured. Someone reporting that their self vanishes as they submit to inductive reasoning is also impressive. When lay in bed there’s no thinking or thoughts unless it’s necessary, they’re in a constant state of flow and so on. No duality.
Or that a games developer stopped procrastinating all together. I can’t simply ignore these ancedotal testimonies.
I am however less impressed with success stories of for example rationality. But for what I’ve read things are very similar and I’ve noticed clicked people with a lot of lack of knowledge in this area. Including myself (not clicker).
It’s important to not destroy the world with your arguments.
No, I’m not saying “if it didn’t work for ingive it can’t be any good”. There are of course other kinds of evidence and many of them are better. It just happens that you don’t have those either, and in the absence of anything resembling objective evidence the usual fallback of the evangelist is their own personal experience—but you don’t have even that.
(You keep talking about neuroimaging studies. Are you claiming that there are neuroimaging studies that show that this “clicking” thing (1) can be achieved by the methods claimed and (2) is beneficial? I’d be awfully surprised if so. I can’t escape the feeling that you are just repeating those words because they sound impressively scientifical and you are hoping your audience will be impressed. There are probably places where that works, but I wouldn’t expect it to be terribly successful around here.)
I haven’t destroyed the world yet. I shall continue trying not to.
It sounds so funny to me that you’re comparing me to an evangelist, shall I call you the same? gjm the evangelist preaching he is not religious to something, such as comfort, family or social validation How you feel about it, I feel the same. Regarding the absence of objective evidence, no it’s not a matter of evidence, it’s a matter how much evidence you require. I can give you all the evidence in the world and you’ll still not convert, because it’s subjective. I don’t need more evidence based on my own knowledge and experience, however, that does not rule out the pursuit of evidence or falsifying. Takes time, money, etc. Might as well gather the low hanging fruit and if a few high IQ people convert without adequate proof, it’ll be faster to either falsify or prove depending on themselves.
Indeed I do sir. (1) Unfortunately, it costs a lot to do studies, also neuroimaging. (2) How does neuroimaging tell you whether something is beneficial or not, you can note the correlations of brain activity (or lack thereof)? I would be posting it all over the place if that was the case and everyone would be clicking left and right. Now I just post the exercise all over the place but no one wants to click.
I’m repeating those words because that’s the as-objective-of-a-measurement I think you can get. In the context of my post however, I do not exclude what I know of it when it comes to religion, religious and/or mystical experiences, and especially reward activation and reward systems of abstract concepts in for example the orbitofrontal cortex. When it comes to if it’s worthwhile to try the exercise or not, or discuss it with others. I’m glad you asked. There is a reason why people go to chuch, because they are rewaaarded. Why not be rewarded by positive expected value tasks? (“there is a lack of evidence”) you say. Yet how did churchgoers attach their reward centers to prayer in the first place? Or how does the brain and behavior even work? If you figure that out. You’ll realize pretty soon by emotionally submitting yourself to your true creator, the consistent patterns that bring us about, for example, mathematics, you’ll have what you wanted and you’ll see it everywhere.
fix up this wall of text or I am removing this post for being too spam like.
Given that the user tries to make the same argument again and again and doesn’t participate in LW discussions that aren’t about his core agenda I ask myself whether he has a place here.
I don’t think he does. Almost every single one of his posts are about his site or responding to comments on it. Just because he is polite about it doesn’t mean he is not a spammer.
Responding to comments is the majority of my discussions and are not about my core agenda. They are discussions which might’ve stemmed from (on it) it, yet still are separate discussions which have their own value. This also dismisses what ChristianKI implies in of itself. Which he himself knows, we’ve talked about German laws in the comments which has nothing to do with my agenda. It was a discussion. On lesswrong.
I’ve not linked to my site, but a site, which proposes a new view or idea and discussed of it in the past. Maybe once a month and you think I shouldn’t be allowed to do so here. It’s quite surprising as instead of refuting said idea you seem to imply I am a spammer.
I’ll be honest. Instead of doing ad hominems to keep people away or rally your support for a ban, why not read the updated website, as if it was a meditation exercise, and tell me what you think of it. If it could possible have any substance?
The reason why I posted it in the first place was because it was re-made. It looked spam-like because I copy pasted the entire content into the comments which made an ugly wall of text. Big mistake and I am sorry for that.
The main discussion thread was about your ideas. The fact that the discussion also lead to talking about laws because you made false claims about the community surrounding clicking misses the point.
You didn’t show interest in discussions with have nothing to do with your pet agenda.
Because there’s no reason to read long articles simply because someone who’s judgement I don’t trust recommends them to me.
Well I think I was quite unsure about that specific thing. I’ve posted here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/og0/ea_has_a_lying_problem/dkle and here http://lesswrong.com/lw/og1/pplapi_is_a_virtual_database_of_the_entire_human/dkmb and received positive points for both. So I do have interests outside my pet agenda. Even if it was today or yesterday.
How were you capable of critiquing my ideas then? You don’t have to trust my judgment, trust Bachir’s unless his track-record isn’t telling enough. Well, actually, you should think for yourself.
Given that we disabled downvoting that isn’t a high bar.
Yes, but those posts were written after my above post. They are also quite short but I grant that they are a sign that you are interested in participating more in other discussions.
Ok, thanks for your feedback.
It’s kind of entertaining… like watching a road accident in slow motion.
Might be instructive to keep around as a cautionary example of rationality-woo.
Done, what do you think about it?
Can’t answer for others who’ve previously looked at it, but for myself, I didn’t see the point. I kind of tune out when it starts off with some weird religious-sounding theory.
If you’re not getting much traction on LW, the proper response is to take the idea elsewhere, not modify the presentation and try again.
I’m going to write a little regarding what you said about religion.
There is probably a brain mechanism which religions are driven by. If there is, there needs not to be such a thing as non-religious or a religious theory. We can keep it at brain mechanisms, and later what trains it to be that way or how to switch it with System 2. As evident by brain scans of praying, religious actions shows activity in the reward circuits of the brain. So does abstract concepts, like money, especially in the more evolved parts of brain like the orbitofrontal cortex.
If these are able to activate the reward system, then one could reasonably conclude that you’re able to instead of being rewarded by prayer or money, by rationality. Extrinsic rewards as we know are trained so we can reasonably conclude we can condition ourselves to rationality.
Since one interpretation of quantum mechanics shows that reality is probabilistic, (waves) we can also add this in the mix, inductive reasoning for said rationality and actions(actions instead of prayer in the context of reward) are considered for their negative or positive expected value.
Of course if you are driven by probabilistic rationality, the first thing to do would be to restructure your belief-system to decrease the binary thinking to stay consistent as we might like to feel this way emotionally.
It makes sense that your identity might vanish as you’d see experience, consciousness and what we are for what it is. A means to an end, a cell in a body where as the experience itself is a way for us to evolve rapidly.
That’s the point I think.
The only click here is from the grinding of my teeth as I see you have returned with your empty evangelism.
How would you promote this idea and raise a discussion regarding it?
Stop right there. This community is not meant to be a platform for “promoting ideas”. Take your advertisements elsewhere. If people want to discuss it they will, but as they haven’t it can be inferred that they don’t want to.
I’m forfeiting sir. It was more of a general question, I didn’t mean you to take it literally.
Advertisements sounds more material rather then immaterial. Unless you intended to convey an emotion with that word. So what do you expect me to return with, if not empty evangelism? That’s more of the question I wanted to ask.
Makes no sense, of course you promote your ideas. I think your pattern-recognition machine associated that with advertising.
Have I somehow implied the other?
Amygdala hijack
This sounds quite like an us vs. them mentality, to say “This community”, and overall, in my opinion, your message was very hostile and primitive. Even before that you start with such an attitude! “grinding my teeth”.
But, I don’t take you as the only representative of “the community”, which includes me and every other being. Of course, practically, have to have rules.
Based on your post history you seem to like politics, had bit of an attitude previously and most worrying seem to want to become a moderator with new capabilities. Have the capability of removing/hiding content without having to justify all details of such decisions to the membership as a whole However I’m speculating, but my pattern-recognition machine sees something which many might not.
Since I don’t want to leave you without suggestions for improvement, I highly advise you to look into Mindfulness Meditation, to lower blood flow to the DMN where the “self/identity/ego” is housed. Research the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain hypothesis and so on.
Try not to destroy the world.
Question: Regardless of the degree to which this is true, if everyone collectively assumed that Valence Utilitarianism (every conscious experience has value (positive or negative, depending on pleasantness/unpleasantness), each action’s utility is the sum of all value it causes / changes / prevents) was universally true, how much would that change about Friendly AI research?
It would surely create new failure modes for Friendliness: e.g. kill all humans to spawn a trillion barely sentients copy of an AI.
But on the other hand I would say: not much. You’ll still have the hard problems of instilling a very fragile ontology (what is a conscious being, from the bottom up?), analyzing the consequences of the actions performed by the AI, judging carefully which values it is fulfilling or breaking and how much, etc.