Edit: the author has clarified that their post is meant as an introduction to a larger work, so it would make sense for them to introduce their view alongside others’ without justifying why just yet.
This was interesting. I enjoyed reading it. However,
Let us accept some version of Alexander’s eschaton: the final level of the Reality Game is beaten by compelling or convincing a “god” (either a machine god or an actual divine being) to transform the cosmos into an everlasting paradisal garden. How will we win—through work (coercion or argument) or through līlā, through rational intelligence or creative mêtis?
This paragraph confuses me. First you’re saying:
“ok, let’s think about Alexander’s ‘gardener’ solution to the problem”,
then you ask the question:
“how do we solve the problem on our own?” (meaning without the ‘gardener’)
These belong to different branches of discussion (from one view.../on the other hand...), but the second part is presented as though it’s salient to the first. It scans as if the author forgot what he was thinking partway through, and picked up on a different thread.
Am I being excessively pedantic? well,
this stuck out to me, because usually when different views are presented in a text (from one view.../on the other hand...), the author must decide in favour of one (or none) of the those presented, and explain why. This, the author has not done. Which is strange, given the apparent effort (and I believe, evident skill) this essay represents.
The above paragraph marks the part where the author is finally offering their own opinion, having explored those of others. Except it begins in just the place where we expected them to explain why they disagree with Alexander. Which should be the most interesting part, because this is Lesswrong, the place with
unusually strong norms around how people should form their beliefs, and
unusually high frequency of people who disagree with the Author’s conclusion vehemently.
I will take blame for not making it clear that this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought. If there is a vagueness and incompleteness to it, that’s because it’s one essay and not the full book.
Here is a comment I made on my blog that more directly explains my thesis.
“Game theory and evolution give us pretty clear null hypothesis for the future and it ain’t pretty—the strongest always survive, the mighty are always righty. Weakness and “delusion” (e.g. art, spirituality, love, mercy, compassion) get optimized out of existence as the number of competing agents asymptotes towards infinite; similarly, as technological power asymptotes towards infinity so does infinite corruption.
That sucks. More than anything, it’s just fucking boring—nothing surprising ever happens, the underdog never wins, the story always ends the same way. But this is just a null hypothesis—as they say, you don’t play the games on paper.
I want to live in a universe where surprising things happen and the aforementioned delusions still have a place. In some sense, I want to turn the world and its ways upside down—I want the weak and the deluded to win—but how? Not through rational intelligence or “work” because that is exactly how the null hypothesis becomes fulfilled. Reality is like a chinese finger trap, struggling only deepens your entrapment.
Workfulness/playfulness, adultiness/childliness—all of this is about realizing the ludic/dramatic dimension of reality (as opposed to giving in to the machinic dimension of reality in which might inexorably makes right). If this seems paradoxical/delusional—well, so is reality, that’s the game of it all. This idea that reality is illusive/delusive and is something more like a trick or game is almost the default pre-modern view (Hindus, Greeks, Aztecs, etc.) - it is only us moderns believe who what you see is what you get (that reality is a problem to be solved).
There’s a lot more to unpack and I will eventually take this in all kinds of wild directions but that’s the jumping off point.”
this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought.
Oh! In light of that, my criticism is diminished. I’ll edit my comment to reflect this.
I really want to believe that the hopes you express are well founded. But, I also want to believe what’s true. LW taught me to be (cutious/skeptical) when this happens, that’s why I was critical. I hope that my comment was useful as feedback, if not as critique.
Edit: the author has clarified that their post is meant as an introduction to a larger work, so it would make sense for them to introduce their view alongside others’ without justifying why just yet.
This was interesting. I enjoyed reading it. However,
This paragraph confuses me. First you’re saying:
“ok, let’s think about Alexander’s ‘gardener’ solution to the problem”,
then you ask the question:
“how do we solve the problem on our own?” (meaning without the ‘gardener’)
These belong to different branches of discussion (from one view.../on the other hand...), but the second part is presented as though it’s salient to the first. It scans as if the author forgot what he was thinking partway through, and picked up on a different thread.
Am I being excessively pedantic? well,
this stuck out to me, because usually when different views are presented in a text (from one view.../on the other hand...), the author must decide in favour of one (or none) of the those presented, and explain why. This, the author has not done. Which is strange, given the apparent effort (and I believe, evident skill) this essay represents.
The above paragraph marks the part where the author is finally offering their own opinion, having explored those of others. Except it begins in just the place where we expected them to explain why they disagree with Alexander. Which should be the most interesting part, because this is Lesswrong, the place with
unusually strong norms around how people should form their beliefs, and
unusually high frequency of people who disagree with the Author’s conclusion vehemently.
Why? why do you think this, and not that?
I will take blame for not making it clear that this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought. If there is a vagueness and incompleteness to it, that’s because it’s one essay and not the full book.
Here is a comment I made on my blog that more directly explains my thesis.
“Game theory and evolution give us pretty clear null hypothesis for the future and it ain’t pretty—the strongest always survive, the mighty are always righty. Weakness and “delusion” (e.g. art, spirituality, love, mercy, compassion) get optimized out of existence as the number of competing agents asymptotes towards infinite; similarly, as technological power asymptotes towards infinity so does infinite corruption.
That sucks. More than anything, it’s just fucking boring—nothing surprising ever happens, the underdog never wins, the story always ends the same way. But this is just a null hypothesis—as they say, you don’t play the games on paper.
I want to live in a universe where surprising things happen and the aforementioned delusions still have a place. In some sense, I want to turn the world and its ways upside down—I want the weak and the deluded to win—but how? Not through rational intelligence or “work” because that is exactly how the null hypothesis becomes fulfilled. Reality is like a chinese finger trap, struggling only deepens your entrapment.
Workfulness/playfulness, adultiness/childliness—all of this is about realizing the ludic/dramatic dimension of reality (as opposed to giving in to the machinic dimension of reality in which might inexorably makes right). If this seems paradoxical/delusional—well, so is reality, that’s the game of it all. This idea that reality is illusive/delusive and is something more like a trick or game is almost the default pre-modern view (Hindus, Greeks, Aztecs, etc.) - it is only us moderns believe who what you see is what you get (that reality is a problem to be solved).
There’s a lot more to unpack and I will eventually take this in all kinds of wild directions but that’s the jumping off point.”
Oh! In light of that, my criticism is diminished. I’ll edit my comment to reflect this.
I really want to believe that the hopes you express are well founded. But, I also want to believe what’s true. LW taught me to be (cutious/skeptical) when this happens, that’s why I was critical. I hope that my comment was useful as feedback, if not as critique.
No worries—critique/feedback are much appreciated.
see the back and forth with Ape in the coat below for further discussion