qmotus

Karma: 76

qmotus Sep 6, 2016, 5:22 PM
0 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Open Thread, Sept 5. - Sept 11. 2016
Wouldn’t that mean surviving alone?

qmotus Sep 3, 2016, 12:36 PM
−1 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing
MUH has a certain appeal, but its problems as well, as you say (and substituting CUH for MUH feels a little ad hoc to me), and I fear parsimony can lead us astray here in any case. I still think it’s a good attempt, but we should not be too eager to accept it.

Maybe you should make a map of reasons for why this question matters. It’s probably been regarded as an uninteresting question since it is difficult (if not impossible) the test empirically, and because of this humanity has overall not directed enough brainpower to solving it.

qmotus Aug 24, 2016, 10:31 AM
4 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug. 22 − 28, 2016
Uh, I think you should format your post so that somebody reading that warning would also have time to react to it and actually avoid reading the thing you’re warning about.

qmotus Aug 18, 2016, 5:20 PM
0 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug. 15. - Aug 21. 2016
With those assumptions (especially modal realism), I don’t think your original statement that our simulation was not terminated this time doesn’t quite make sense; there could be a bajillion simulations identical to this, and even if most of them we’re shut down, we wouldn’t notice anything.

In fact, I’m not sure what saying “we are in a simulation” or “we are not in a simulation” exactly means.

qmotus Aug 2, 2016, 11:56 AM
0 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug. 1 - Aug 7. 2016

It all looks like political fight between Plan A and Plan B. You suggest not to implement Plan B as it would show real need to implement Plan A (cutting emissions).

That’s one thing. But also, let’s say that we choose Plan B, and this is taken as a sign that reducing emissions is unnecessary and global emissions soar. We then start pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the climate.

Then something happens and this process stops: we face unexpected technical hurdles, or maybe the implementation of this plan has been largely left to a smallish number of nations and they are incapable or unwilling to implement it anymore, perhaps a large-scale war occurs, or something like that. Because of the extra CO2, we’d probably be worse off than if we had even partially succeeded with Plan A. So what’s the expected payoff of choosing A or B?

As I said, I’m a bit wary of this, but I also think that it’s important to research climate engineering technologies and make plans so that they can be implemented if (and probably when) necessary. The best option would probably be a mixture of plans A and B, but as you said, it looks like a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma.

qmotus Aug 2, 2016, 10:15 AM
0 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug. 1 - Aug 7. 2016
I would still be a bit reluctant to advocate climate engineering, though. The main worry, of course, is that if we choose that route, we need to commit to in the long term, like you said. Openly embracing climate engineering would probably also cause emissions to soar, as people would think that there’s no need to even try to lower emissions any more. So, if for some reason the delivery of that sulfuric acid into the atmosphere or whatever was disrupted, we’d be in trouble. And do we know enough of such measures to say that there safe?. Of course, if we believe that history will end anyways within decades or centuries because of singularity, long-term effects of such measures may not matter so much.

Also, many people, whether or not they’re environmentalists strictly speaking, care about keeping our ecosystems at least somewhat undisrupted, and large scale climate engineering doesn’t fit too well with that view.

But I agree that we’re not progressing fast enough with emissions reductions (we’re not progressing with them at all, actually), so we’ll probably have to resort to some kind of plan B eventually.

qmotus Aug 2, 2016, 10:04 AM
0 points
in reply to: Artaxerxes’s comment on: Open Thread, Aug. 1 - Aug 7. 2016
I think many EAs consider climate change to be very important, but often just think that it receives a lot of attention already and solving it is difficult, and that there are therefore better things to focus on. Like 80 000 hours for example.

qmotus Jul 21, 2016, 5:14 PM
0 points
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Earning money with/for work in AI safety
Will your results ultimately take the form of blog posts such as those, or peer-reviewed publications, or something else?

I think FRI’s research agenda is interesting and that they may very well work on important questions that hardly anyone else does, but I haven’t yet supported them as I’m not certain about their ability to deliver actual results or the impact of their research, and find it a tad bit odd that it’s supported by effective altruism organizations, since I don’t see any demonstration of effectiveness so far. (No offence though, it looks promising.)

qmotus Jul 5, 2016, 8:50 AM
0 points
in reply to: turchin’s comment on: The map of future models
I wouldn’t call cryonics life extension; sounds more like resurrection to me. And, well, “potentially indefinite life extension” after that, sure.

qmotus May 28, 2016, 3:18 PM
1 point
in reply to: Houshalter’s comment on: Open Thread May 23 - May 29, 2016
I bet many LessWrongers are just not interested in signing up. That’s not irrational, or rational, it’s just a matter of preferences.

qmotus May 3, 2016, 4:37 PM
2 points
in reply to: woodchopper’s comment on: Open Thread May 2 - May 8, 2016

either we are in a simulation or we are not, which is obviously true

Just wanted to point out that this is not necessarily true; in a large enough multiverse, there would be many identical copies of a mind, some of which would probably be “real minds” dwelling in “real brains”, and some would be simulated.

qmotus Apr 27, 2016, 3:29 PM
0 points
in reply to: woodchopper’s comment on: Does immortality imply eternal existence in linear time?

If I copied your brain right now, but left you alive, and tortured the copy, you would not feel any pain (I assume). I could even torture it secretly and you would be none the wiser.

Well.. Let’s say I make a copy of you at time t. I can also make them forget which one is which. Then, at time t + 1, I will tickle the copy a lot. After that, I go back in time to t − 1, tell you of my intentions and ask you if you expect to get tickled. What do you reply?

Does it make any sense to you to say that you expect to experience both being and not being tickled?

qmotus Apr 25, 2016, 5:17 PM
0 points
in reply to: woodchopper’s comment on: Does immortality imply eternal existence in linear time?
1. Maybe; it would probably think so, at least if it wasn’t told otherwise.
2. Both would probably think so.
3. All three might think so.
4. I find that a bit scary.
5. Wouldn’t there, then, be some copies of me not being tortured and one that is being tortured?

qmotus Apr 25, 2016, 11:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: woodchopper’s comment on: Does immortality imply eternal existence in linear time?
Let’s suppose that the contents of a brain are uploaded to a computer, or that a person is anesthesized and a single atom in their brain is replaced. What exactly would it mean to say that personal identity doesn’t persist in such situations?

qmotus Apr 25, 2016, 10:18 AM
0 points
in reply to: woodchopper’s comment on: Does immortality imply eternal existence in linear time?
If there’s no objective right answer, you can just decide for yourself. If you want immortality and decide that a simulation of ‘you’ is not actually ‘you’, I guess you (‘you’?) will indeed need to find a way to extend your biological life. If you’re happy with just the simulation existing, then maybe brain uploading or FAI is the way to go. But we’re not going to “find out” the right answer to those questions if there is no right answer.

But I think the concept of personal identity is inextricably linked to the question of how separate consciousnesses, each feeling their own qualia, can arise.

Are you talking about the hard problem of consciousness? I’m mostly with Daniel Dennett here and think that the hard problem probably doesn’t actually exist (but I wouldn’t say that I’m absolutely certain about this), but if you think that the hard problem needs to be solved, then I guess this identity business also becomes somewhat more problematic.

qmotus Apr 24, 2016, 6:15 PM
0 points
in reply to: woodchopper’s comment on: Does immortality imply eternal existence in linear time?
Isn’t it purely a matter of definition? You can say that a version of you with one atom of yourself is you or that it isn’t; or that a simulation of you either is or isn’t you; but there’s no objective right answer. It is worth nothing, though, that if you don’t tell the different-by-one-atom version, or the simulated version, of the fact, they would probably never question being you.

qmotus Apr 15, 2016, 6:55 AM
2 points
in reply to: James_Miller’s comment on: Open Thread April 11 - April 17, 2016
I suppose so, and that’s where the problems for consequentialism arise.

qmotus Apr 13, 2016, 6:04 PM
0 points
in reply to: RowanE’s comment on: Open Thread April 11 - April 17, 2016
What I’ve noticed is that this has caused me to slide towards prioritizing issues that affect me personally (meaning that I care somewhat more about climate change and less about animal rights than I have previously done).

qmotus 11 Apr 2016 12:11 UTC
2 points
on: Open Thread April 11 - April 17, 2016
Past surveys show that most LessWrongers are consequentialists, and many are also effective altruism advocates. What do they think of infinities in ethics?

As I’ve intuitively always favoured some kind of negative utilitarianism, this has caused me some confusion.

qmotus 5 Apr 2016 16:13 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Lesswrong 2016 Survey

Peak oil said we’d run out of oil Real Soon Now, full stop

Peak oil refers to the moment when the production of oil has reached a maximum and after which it declines. It doesn’t say that we’ll run out of it soon, just that production will slow down. If consumption increases at the same time, it’ll lead to scarcity.

If you are trying to rebuild you don’t need much oil

Well, that probably depends on how much damage has been done. If civilization literally had to be rebuilt from scratch, I’d wager that a very significant portion of that cheap oil would have to be used.