ingive

Karma: 2

ingive 18 May 2017 4:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Open thread, May 15 - May 21, 2017
Eating tasteless food might be useful in weight loss and health. Vegetables usually have phytonutrients, which evolved to be for example insect repellents. However many of these phytonutrients have, for example, anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory mechanisms in our body, Sapiens. Like Curcumin and Sulforaphane. Since IQ goes down by age, though crystallized not so much, it might be worthwhile to try and include these foods. Curcumin can pass the blood brain barrier in certain instances.

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

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

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

ingive 17 Mar 2017 8:44 UTC
0 points
in reply to: madhatter’s comment on: Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017
I’m not sure if intelligence and consciousness are one and the same thing, and with your words, consciousness/intelligence is information processing. If you conclude that intelligence is information processing, then this might be an aspect of the body, an attribute, in roughly the same way as consciousness. Then that aspect of the body is evolving in machines, called artificial intelligence, independent of conscious experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ingive 14 Mar 2017 1:11 UTC
0 points
on: Open thread, March 13 - March 19, 2017
Important insight which LessWrong can comment on: link

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

ingive 12 Mar 2017 20:04 UTC
0 points
on: Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017
The Marlet Protestors crash Effective Altruism debate

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

ingive 8 Mar 2017 1:22 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017
As an intervention, I suppose by the number of applicants. It’s was mostly about changing one’s essence or awareness rather than it changing itself by taking action, being responsible and not making excuses. Of course, ‘clickers’ can still apply but this is the new stuff, regarding non-clickers.

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

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

ingive 6 Mar 2017 20:01 UTC
2 points
on: Open Thread, March. 6 - March 12, 2017
MrMind now ‘the singularity group’ has changed focus, rather than making people change their awareness and thus do EA actions, they instead ask to do the right EA action in every single moment. So people who are interested can apply and go over, meditate, exercise work etc according to a schedule until the right action disciplined has transitioned to the EA awareness. I think 12 hours of work a day (of course not physical labor).

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

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

ingive 5 Mar 2017 14:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
Yes, you are right on the point. I wanted to ask:

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

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

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

ingive 4 Mar 2017 22:40 UTC
0 points
on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
This is a stupid question, but if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say ‘polls were wrong’ ‘predictions were wrong’ if it turns out that B won?

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

ingive 3 Mar 2017 11:36 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
Yes, you are right. I’m sorry. The weight loss per day slows down over time. I wish I knew math so I could say what that curve is.

ingive 2 Mar 2017 15:51 UTC
0 points
in reply to: MrMind’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
If you want to be serious, buy a food scale and measure all of your food and eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight and then maintain. This means you’ll have to keep it up forever. You can eat whatever you want as long as you hit the target. Processed food that has nutrition labels are also applicable to this method. In regards to not eat more, it depends where you eat. At home, you cook the amount you need, in processed restaurants with nutrition labels you order as much as you need.

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

ingive 28 Feb 2017 0:51 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017
My wishing for the world is intellectual masturbation, so my practical actions in this consensus reality matter the most (instrumental rationality). But if thinking stops (epistemic rationality by persistent non-symbolic experiences) I do not care in a sense, I go insane in relation to the consensus reality but sane to the non-symbolic way of being.

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

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

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

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

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

ingive 28 Feb 2017 0:16 UTC
0 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
Meditation is supposed to be fun, something you do practice being here and now. That doesn’t mean you can’t meditate while using the computer or other activities. In fact, when meditators are asked to start meditating while scientists are doing an MRI scan, they might laugh that -they are always meditating-.

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

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

ingive 27 Feb 2017 7:12 UTC
5 points
on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
MrMind, and the LessWrong community, it seems as I was wrong on many things as you said, by hearing more about the productivity of the people at the house. I’m not sure if you have yet started to compile information on it.

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

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

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

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

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

ingive 27 Feb 2017 6:12 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Elo’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 27 - March 5, 2017
What about an hour meditation and 30 min in assistance of this practice? If you have time, watch this video about self-inquiry I’m sorry there is no transcript available.

ingive 26 Feb 2017 10:17 UTC
0 points
in reply to: tristanm’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017
I’ve had the overall impression that the older you become the stronger you hold your beliefs, a metaphor can be the hardening of neural networks. I am making a relation right now between that and the part of the personality known as ‘openness’ which according to Roland R. Griffiths decrease as people become older.

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

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

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

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

ingive 26 Feb 2017 9:40 UTC
0 points
in reply to: JenniferRM’s comment on: Stupidity as a mental illness
Non-iodized sea salt is trendy everywhere, I blame partly the TV cooks using it in the iconic “grab a pinch”-fashion. I’m not sure sea salt should be mandatory iodized, but areas affected more by IQ loss probably eat processed food which is iodized anyway compared to the new age health crowd.

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

ingive 25 Feb 2017 12:50 UTC
0 points
on: Stupidity as a mental illness
Rather than forcing people to undergo an alteration of, for example, their genes, you can simply make it a requirement to receiving funding. For example in welfare states (or in a libertarian society, private charities). Other enhancements can be done in a similar fashion, or voluntarily obviously.

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

ingive 25 Feb 2017 8:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017
You seem to imply that my comment is a cost but not to which extent. I acknowledge that I am not a writer which is able to facilitate this to you in the LW-lingo and better English. But, it also matters to a cost to what and benefit to who? I’m not writing with my brain wired from the perspective of the community of lesswrong. But, frankly, I have seen it very strongly in its users like you. It might seem like I am confronting you but then I offer you the opportunity to see it in another way.

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

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

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

ingive 24 Feb 2017 4:01 UTC
0 points
on: Open Thread, Feb. 20 - Feb 26, 2017
There is a lot of wishing with what I wish for the world, so then I understand that the best option for me is to figure out the best course action over my lifetime, as that’s what I have access to (indirectly via bandwidth to a keyboard-computer-internet-etc-you) but at the same time disconnecting from this belief. Because wishing isn’t the best option, neither is the best course of action. Realizing that it’s useful practically sometimes to attach to thinking, but not for the majority of the time. (p.s I made an excuse for my attachment to my thinking lol)

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

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

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

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

ingive 8 Feb 2017 17:54 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017
I’m sorry if I don’t understand, but multiplying my debt with a greater debt leads to no debt. It is true as the mathematics show. If we say to the bank, check account A debt and multiply with account B debt, account A will have no debt. It is independent on how you want to phrase it.

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

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

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

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

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