ingive

Karma: 2

ingive Feb 8, 2017, 3:42 PM
0 points
in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017

And −2 * $-1 = $-2, yes.

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

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

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

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

ingive Feb 8, 2017, 12:36 PM
0 points
on: Open thread, Feb. 06 - Feb. 12, 2017
Consistency in Arithmetic

Double the debt: 2 −1 = −2 *Ok

But: −2 −1 = 2 *Ok?

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

2 −1 + −2 − 1 = (2 − 2) −1 = 0 −1 = 0

But...

2 −1 + −2 −1 = −2 + −2 * −1 = 0

Therefore...

-2 * −1 = 2

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

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

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

A Musico-Logical Offering

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

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

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

Is the water going up or down?

ingive Jan 28, 2017, 4:58 PM
2 points
on: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness
Maybe it was DID in the original studies. Consciousness is certainly an interesting phenomenon.

ingive Jan 28, 2017, 6:20 AM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
That’s interesting. You haven’t simply pointed out my errors in my thought processes. I have yet to see you simply point them out, rather than arguing with assumptions that I can refute with basic reasoning. It’s cute that you, for example, assume I don’t have an answer to your hypothetical scenarios because I simply point out that it’s a waste of time. Hypotheticals are intellectual entertainment. But it might’ve been a better choice to answer your questions from the mindset I was speculating of.

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

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

ingive Jan 25, 2017, 3:41 AM
0 points
in reply to: plethora’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

What?

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

ingive Jan 25, 2017, 3:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ingive Jan 19, 2017, 6:27 PM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

ingive Jan 19, 2017, 5:11 PM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
1. With that interpretation, not Copenhagen. I’m unsure, because inherently, can we really be certain of absolutes because of our lack of understanding of the human brain? I think that how memory storage and how the brain works shows us that we can’t be certain of our own knowledge.
2. If you are right with that the universe is deterministic then what ought to be is what is. But if you ought to do the opposite from what ‘is’ tell us, what are you doing then? You are not allowed to have a goal which is not aligned with what is because that goes against what you are. I do agree with you now however, I think that this is semantics. I think it was a heuristic. But then I’ll say “What is, is what you ought to be”.

ingive Jan 19, 2017, 3:51 PM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
If someone wins the Nobel prize you heard it here first.

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

ingive Jan 19, 2017, 3:07 PM
0 points
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
I think then you should ask what can you do about it (or do the most effective action).

ingive Jan 19, 2017, 2:55 PM
0 points
in reply to: plethora’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
You’re welcome to explain why this isn’t the case. I’m thinking mostly about neuroscience and evolutionary biology. It tells us everything.

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 9:26 PM
0 points
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
I agree. Now I’d like the password for username2.

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

-niceguyanon

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 8:46 PM
0 points
in reply to: niceguyanon’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
It’s unlikely that it’s not the same person, or people on average utilize shared accounts to try and share their suffering (by that I mean have a specific attitude) in a negative way. It would be interesting to compare shared accounts with other accounts by for example IBM Watson personality insights. In a large scale analysis.

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

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

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 8:35 PM
0 points
in reply to: niceguyanon’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

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

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

Probably not at all.

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

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 8:10 PM
0 points
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
No, you don’t. A perfect rationalist is not a sociopath because a perfect rationalist understands what they are, and by scientific inquiry can constantly update and align themselves with reality. If every single person was a perfect rationalist then the world would be a utopia, in the sense that extreme poverty would instantly be eliminated. You’re assuming that a perfect rationalist cannot see through the illusion of self and identity, and update its beliefs by understanding neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Complete opposite, they will be seen as philanthropic, altruistic and selfless.

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

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

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

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

Still apply. Doesn’t matter.

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 7:54 PM
0 points
on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
a

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 5:40 PM
0 points
in reply to: niceguyanon’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 2:37 PM
0 points
in reply to: plethora’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

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

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

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

ingive Jan 18, 2017, 11:28 AM
0 points
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016

Replace all humans with machines.

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

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

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

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

ingive Jan 17, 2017, 10:33 PM
0 points
in reply to: moridinamael’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 16 - Jan. 22, 2016
Yeah, it’s also called ‘Enlightenment’ in theological traditions. You can read the testimonies here. MrMind has, for example, read them, but he’s waiting a bit longer to contact these people on Reddit to see if it sticks around. I think the audio can work really well with a good pair of headphones and playing it as FLAC.