infotropism

Karma: 434

infotropism Jul 14, 2009, 8:57 PM
0 points
in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Our society lacks good self-preservation mechanisms

hypothetical “disasters”, civilisation doesn’t end—it is just that it is no longer led by humans

You’d think that’s actually pretty much what most of us humans care about.

infotropism Jul 14, 2009, 7:08 PM
2 points
in reply to: taw’s comment on: Our society lacks good self-preservation mechanisms
Whether those catastrophes could destroy present humanity wasn’t the point, which was whether or not near misses in potential extinction events have ever occurred during our past.

Consider it that way : under your assumptions of our world being more robust nowadays, what would count as a near miss today, would certainly have wiped the frailer humanity out back then; conversely what counted as a near miss back then, would not be nearly that bad nowadays. This basically means, by constraining the definition of a “near miss” in that way, that it is impossible to show any such near miss in our history. That is at best one step away from saying we’re actually safe and shouldn’t worry all that much about existential risks.

Speaking of which, when arguing the definition of an existential risk, and from that arguing that such catastrophes as a nuclear war, aren’t existential risks, blurs the point. Let us rephrase the question : how much would you want to avoid a nuclear war, or a supereruption, or an asteroid strike ? How much effort, time, money should we put into the cause of avoiding such catastrophes ?

While it is true a catastrophe that doesn’t wipe out humanity forever, isn’t as bad as one that does, such an event can still be awfully bad, and deserving of our attention and efforts, so as to prevent it. We’re talking billions of human lives lost or spent in awful conditions for decades, centuries, millennia, etc. If that is no cause to serious worry, pray tell what is ?

infotropism Jul 12, 2009, 4:38 PM
1 point
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Our society lacks good self-preservation mechanisms
Though that doesn’t immediately make it non fictional evidence, dysgenic pressure (as well as the flynn effect and the possibility of genetic engineering as possible counters) is also being briefly mentioned in Nick Bostrom’s fundamental paper Existential Risks − 5.3.

infotropism Jul 12, 2009, 11:13 AM
1 point
in reply to: taw’s comment on: Our society lacks good self-preservation mechanisms
Well, there possibly was the Toba supereruption, which would fit being a near miss.

Arguably, we were very close too during the cold war, and several times over—not total extinction, but a nuclear war would’ve left us very crippled.

infotropism Jun 15, 2009, 5:21 PM
1 point
on: The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It
Minor quibble, interesting info :

“like expecting the orbits of the planets to be in the same proportion as the first 9 prime numbers or something. That which is produced by a complex, messy, random process is unlikely to have some low complexity description”

The particular example of the planet’s orbit is actually one where such a simple rule exists : see the law of Titius Bode

infotropism Apr 27, 2009, 5:25 PM
3 points
on: Theism, Wednesday, and Not Being Adopted
In maybe 15 years of time, Wednesday comes to this place, or what this place has become by then. She is still a Mormon, and is welcomed. She is interested in participating, because she is open minded enough, educated, and the community is tolerant and helpful. So she gets to learn about rationality, and is taken into the process of becoming a rationalist herself, and a productive, healthy member of the rationalist community.

My question : and after a few months or years of that, does she still remain a Mormon, or a believer in the supernatural ?

If yes, how does she reconcile that with the fact that a few of the priors behind religions are wrong ? That religion requires self deception to work, at some level ? Will there be some projects in which she won’t be able to participate, simply because they are at odds with those beliefs ?

If not, then how does she reconcile that with her past life ? How will it impact her already established relationships ? How easy or difficult will it be for her to change her mind ?

infotropism Apr 27, 2009, 1:45 PM
0 points
in reply to: Scott Alexander’s comment on: Excuse me, would you like to take a survey?
I agree with Vladimir too, you can’t always pinpoint people like that.

I’d say I’m uncommitted too. By that I mean to encompass the general idea that I agree with a lot of the ideas that come from, for instance, libertarianism, and at the same time, with a lot of the ideas behind communism. As I never heard of a good synthesis between the two, so I stand uncommitted.

infotropism Apr 26, 2009, 12:15 AM
2 points
on: “Self-pretending” is not as useful as we think
Self fulfilling prophecies are only epistemically wrong when you fail to act upon them. Failing, maybe out of cynicism, sophistication or simply being too clever, rationalizing them away; the result will be the same.

There’s a potential barrier there. You can tunnel through it, or not. Tunneling can sound magical and counterintuitive. It’s not. There are definite reasons why it can work.

Sometimes, however, you don’t know those reasons, but can observe it appears to work for other people anyway. Then you may want to find a way to bootstrap the process, like self pretending. Or trying to copy someone else

I can say these words but not the rule that generates them, or the rule behind the rule; one can only hope that by using the ideas, perhaps, similar machinery might be born inside you.

For instance, the party example. This might not apply to everyone but, I think the issue starts with even trying to find that optimal way to attract a partner. Do you expect to find a way to be attractive enough to score on your first try ? Perhaps, to really minimize the risk of being rejected ?

Different people have different tastes, and even a single person may react differently to the same stimulus, depending on the conditions in which they find themselves.

Some people don’t have an issue with that. They are ready to try as many times and different people as it takes to find one receptive, moving on as soon as it appears as though it won’t work with this person in particular.

Not only will they eventually find someone—and some will indeed have to search for longer—but will also act with more confidence, knowing they will succeed at some point.

I know that’s how it works for me anyway. I can’t take failure, nor rejection. So I try my very best to avoid it, and this involves trying to push the efforts I invest in a single encounter, to their limits, which isn’t as efficient as trying as many different persons as is needed to succeed.

infotropism Apr 24, 2009, 11:11 AM
4 points
in reply to: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s comment on: This Didn’t Have To Happen
Do you also, simply, desire to live ?

Or do you mean to say that if your life didn’t possess those useful qualities, then it would be better, for you, to forfeit cryonics, and have your organs donated, for instance ?

And I’m actually asking that question to other people here as well, who have altruistic arguments against cryonics. Is there an utility, a value your life has to have, like if you can contribute to something useful, in order to be cryopreserved ? For then that would be for the greatest good for the greatest number of people ?

A value below which, your life would be best not cryopreserved, and your body, used, for organ donations, or something equally destructive to you, but equally beneficial to other people (and certainly more beneficial than whatever value you could create yourself if you were alive) ?

infotropism Apr 23, 2009, 4:06 PM
1 point
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Go Forth and Create the Art!

where rationality is easily assessed it is already well understood; it is in extending the art to hard-to-assess areas that the material here is most valuable.

My question is : as well understood as it is, how much of it do any single individual here, know, understand, and is able to use on a recurring basis ?

We’ll want to develop more than what exists, but we’ll build that upon—once we have it—a firm basis. So I wonder, how much knowledge and practice of those well understood parts of rationality, does it require of the would-be builders of the next tier ? Otherwise, we stand the risk, of being so eager as to hurriedly build sky high ivory towers on sand, with untrained hands.

infotropism Apr 23, 2009, 3:48 PM
2 points
in reply to: Paul Crowley’s comment on: Go Forth and Create the Art!
This article is definitely relevant—I hadn’t seen anyone dare being honest about how most of philosopher’s thoughts, of old, are not to be blindly revered, and are indeed highly flawed. They aren’t right, they aren’t even wrong. Thanks for the link.

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 10:15 PM
0 points
in reply to: steven0461’s comment on: Open Thread: April 2009
Don’t you find it more aesthetically appealing that way ? Also, I’m French :-)

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 10:00 PM
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Open Thread: April 2009
Be that as it may be, what is a captial ? I understand the need for proper grammar and orthography in our dear garden, but there’s something intriguing going on there :-)

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 9:47 PM
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Open Thread: April 2009
So a lack of captials deserves a downvote ?

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 9:44 PM
1 point
in reply to: pangloss’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
I get error 403 trying to access it. But I suppose you meant this : remember santa

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 6:04 PM
1 point
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
I don’t place any confidence in my intuition as a general, indiscriminately good-for-everything case. I try to only have confidence on a case by case basis. I try to pay attention to all potential bias that could screw my opinion, like anchoring. And try to not pay attention to who wrote what I’m voting upon. Then I have to have a counterargument. Even if I don’t elaborate it, even if I don’t lay it down, I have to know that if I had the time or motivation, I could rather reply, and say what was wrong or right in that post.

My decisions and arguments, could, or could not be more informed than those of the average voter. But if I add my own in the pool of votes, then we have a new average. Which will only be slightly worse, or slightly better. Could we try to adapt something of decision markets there ? The way they’re supposed to self correct, under the right conditions, makes me wonder if we could dig a solution in them.

And maybe someone could create an article, collecting all the stuff that could help people make more informed votes on LW, that’d help too. Like the biases they’d have to take into account, stuff like the antikibitzer, or links to articles such as the one about aumann voting or this very one.

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 5:24 PM
0 points
in reply to: byrnema’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
If I were in your shoes, I’d be fairly scared of posting about this again if I’d expect to be shot down. But please don’t be afraid. I think such a post would really be interesting.

If it is shot down, that’s a fact about the ideas, or maybe how they were laid down, not about you, after all. In that case, it’s up to the people who disagree, to explain how they think you’re wrong, or why they disagree.

If you hold the ideas you’re exposing, as dear, or part of your identity, it may even hurt a bit more than simply being rebuked, but even then, really, I think it’ll only help the community, and you, to move forward, to add them on the mat, and see where it leads.

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 5:00 PM
4 points
1
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
That was my first idea. But I am not the only player here. I know I overcompensate for my uncertainty, and so I tend to never downvote anything. Other people may not have the same attitude, for down, and upvoting. Who are they ? Is their opinion more educated than mine ? If we all are too scrupulous to vote when our opinion is in fact precious, then our occasional vote may end up drowned in a sea of poorly decided, hastily cast ones.

Besides, I am still only going to downvote if I can think of a good reason to do so. For sometimes, I have a good reason to downvote, but no still no good reasons, or even no time, to reply to all ideas I think need a fix, or those which are simply irrelevant to the current debate.

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 4:03 PM
2 points
in reply to: CannibalSmith’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
Obeying. Even though I had some strong reasons to upvote. Edit : you’re running for a record there—the most downvoted comment on LW :-)

infotropism Apr 21, 2009, 3:36 PM
6 points
in reply to: MrHen’s comment on: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism
Don’t overcompensate ? Reversed neutrality isn’t intelligent censorship, and downvoting people more than usual, just to obey the idea that now you should downvote, won’t work well I think. Take a step back, and some time to see the issue from an outside view.