I see. Then I remain unable to resolve your provided definition with the items you assert to be applause lights.
Yes, neither were very good examples.
I am curious as to why you feel it is a good idea to so misrepresent my statements. Could you explain?
I sincerely apologise. I was not trying to misrepresent them, I think that what you say is not surprising (as in agree with most of it), so the bits I quoted were what I thought to be the relevant parts, and the rest was “obvious” (and I agree with it).
To my knowledge (and Google searching) my post is the first and only mention of the term “mnemotechnics” on LessWrong.
Thanks for introducing it to us. I believe that LW has considered memory-enhancement techniques even without using the term.
Providing a label to a specific memeplex can in and of itself be a useful activity.
Yes! Definitely! But you don’t need a 750 word post to define a new word. Especially when the post is on a website where the memeplex is of its central tenets. For example (this is a rewrite/summary of your post):
I have been thinking about how to best explain the idea LW has that a person should try to be the best possible person they can (i.e. optimise every aspect of themselves). To do this, I have been using the word “acrohumanism”* (cf. “transhumanism”, “posthuman”). I think that it is a useful way of encapsulating a person with (and committed to obtaining): high physical health, good memory, control and understanding of their emotions, etc.
*using “acro-” which approximately means “highest”
(And I would have some more detail on why inventing a new word was necessary (e.g. how it is different to “rationalist”, or “transhumanist”))
Are you sure this is true?
Yep, the existence of at least one intelligent person who is also irrational was not under debate.
I think that what you say is not surprising (as in agree with most of it), so the bits I quoted were what I thought to be the relevant parts, and the rest was “obvious” (and I agree with it).
I had a strong suspicion this was the case, which is why I have made several statements very similar to this. Perhaps I failed to sufficiently convey that what I was contributing wasn’t something that was meant to be “un-obvious” in any specific detail, but rather was meant to be a new manner of thinking about those items.
In other words; I was hoping to introduce a new higher-order goal and maybe kick off organized efforts towards establishing goals in alignment with said goal.
For example (this is a rewrit/summary of your post):
… I can see how you would find that to be valid, but I do have a few thoughts here:
The notion of acrohumanism—though not by this name—predates my knowledge of the LessWrong community and most assuredly is not limited to it. Where LW agrees with its agenda(s), my history of thought and LW are in agreement.
The rephrasing of “reaching the upper bounds of the human condition” to “try to be the best possible person you can be” robs significant meaning from the statement, related to directional focus. Even with the additive caveat of “i.e.; optimise every aspect of themselves”, I’m not sure the idea retains my intended message. Certainly, Google results for the query, “be the best person you can be” gets seven million hits, whereas “reach the upper bounds of the human condition” gets zero. This speaks to the dilution of the message. While they appear superficially related, the “best person” formulation implies that this is a minimization of flaws, whereas the “upper bounds” formulation implies the maximization of utilities.
2.a. -- Corollary: this touches on why I am leary of defining what the optimal human condition even is: it becomes a moral dilemma.
2.b. -- There is a secondary implication that ‘reach the upper bounds of the human condition’ implies that it is not the normal state for an arbitrary human being to be in this state. So, as trite as it seems, I’m discussing the idea of “being more human than human”
Yes! Definitely! But you don’t need a 750 word post to define a new word.
I’m sure. But I also wanted to do more than merely provide the definition; I wanted to give practical examples and encourage the discussion of other practical skills or “tools”. Which is why I discussed examples of such skills and their potential benefits.
Thanks for introducing it to us. I believe that LW has considered memory-enhancement techniques even without using the term.
Definitely so. But it’s mostly instances of re-inventing the wheel, with a rather “grab-bag” / haphazard approach with no ideal model of what the end-goal such efforts are tending towards aside from (what I can discern) “becoming a better rationalist”
Given the current state of the dialogue, I think it’s time that I start putting an eye towards a potential future re-submission of this notion for consideration. I’ve gotten some good materials from you to digest towards that end, even if I did fail at sparking the dialogue I had hoped for.
The rephrasing of “reaching the upper bounds of the human condition” to “try to be the best possible person you can be” robs significant meaning from the statement, related to directional focus
Make that substitution then (as far as I can tell, what you mean by your phrase is identical to what I meant by mine).
I’m sure. But I also wanted to do more than merely provide the definition; I wanted to give practical examples and encourage the discussion of other practical skills or “tools”. Which is why I discussed examples of such skills and their potential benefits.
I think this post could do with some editing to make this clear, and “encouraging discussion” on several different specific skills and tools with a long monolithic post is unlikely to work very well. A smaller discussion post with something like (for example) “I know we know that SRS seems to work, but does anyone know anything about these other mnemotechnic techniques? ” might work better.
(I probably haven’t conveyed this very well, but I don’t dislike most of your post (I quite like the word “acrohumanism”, for example))
Make that substitution then (as far as I can tell, what you mean by your phrase is identical to what I meant by mine).
Yeah, that’s going to be something of a problem. I’m not sure how to properly emphasize the notion of the focus on not only being the best you can be but improving the range of the “bestness” that you can have to the upper limits of what is humanly possible.
If it helps any, a different perspective would be to consider this a “pure software” approach to transhumanism.
(I probably haven’t conveyed this very well, but I don’t dislike most of your post (I quite like the word “acrohumanism”, for example))
I can hardly fault someone else for poorly conveying themselves when that’s the majority of what got me in ‘trouble’ with this post in the first place. Thank you for the affirmation of the term, at least! :)
Yes, neither were very good examples.
I sincerely apologise. I was not trying to misrepresent them, I think that what you say is not surprising (as in agree with most of it), so the bits I quoted were what I thought to be the relevant parts, and the rest was “obvious” (and I agree with it).
Thanks for introducing it to us. I believe that LW has considered memory-enhancement techniques even without using the term.
Yes! Definitely! But you don’t need a 750 word post to define a new word. Especially when the post is on a website where the memeplex is of its central tenets. For example (this is a rewrite/summary of your post):
(And I would have some more detail on why inventing a new word was necessary (e.g. how it is different to “rationalist”, or “transhumanist”))
Yep, the existence of at least one intelligent person who is also irrational was not under debate.
I had a strong suspicion this was the case, which is why I have made several statements very similar to this. Perhaps I failed to sufficiently convey that what I was contributing wasn’t something that was meant to be “un-obvious” in any specific detail, but rather was meant to be a new manner of thinking about those items.
In other words; I was hoping to introduce a new higher-order goal and maybe kick off organized efforts towards establishing goals in alignment with said goal.
… I can see how you would find that to be valid, but I do have a few thoughts here:
The notion of acrohumanism—though not by this name—predates my knowledge of the LessWrong community and most assuredly is not limited to it. Where LW agrees with its agenda(s), my history of thought and LW are in agreement.
The rephrasing of “reaching the upper bounds of the human condition” to “try to be the best possible person you can be” robs significant meaning from the statement, related to directional focus. Even with the additive caveat of “i.e.; optimise every aspect of themselves”, I’m not sure the idea retains my intended message. Certainly, Google results for the query, “be the best person you can be” gets seven million hits, whereas “reach the upper bounds of the human condition” gets zero. This speaks to the dilution of the message. While they appear superficially related, the “best person” formulation implies that this is a minimization of flaws, whereas the “upper bounds” formulation implies the maximization of utilities.
2.a. -- Corollary: this touches on why I am leary of defining what the optimal human condition even is: it becomes a moral dilemma.
2.b. -- There is a secondary implication that ‘reach the upper bounds of the human condition’ implies that it is not the normal state for an arbitrary human being to be in this state. So, as trite as it seems, I’m discussing the idea of “being more human than human”
I’m sure. But I also wanted to do more than merely provide the definition; I wanted to give practical examples and encourage the discussion of other practical skills or “tools”. Which is why I discussed examples of such skills and their potential benefits.
Definitely so. But it’s mostly instances of re-inventing the wheel, with a rather “grab-bag” / haphazard approach with no ideal model of what the end-goal such efforts are tending towards aside from (what I can discern) “becoming a better rationalist”
Given the current state of the dialogue, I think it’s time that I start putting an eye towards a potential future re-submission of this notion for consideration. I’ve gotten some good materials from you to digest towards that end, even if I did fail at sparking the dialogue I had hoped for.
Make that substitution then (as far as I can tell, what you mean by your phrase is identical to what I meant by mine).
I think this post could do with some editing to make this clear, and “encouraging discussion” on several different specific skills and tools with a long monolithic post is unlikely to work very well. A smaller discussion post with something like (for example) “I know we know that SRS seems to work, but does anyone know anything about these other mnemotechnic techniques? ” might work better.
(I probably haven’t conveyed this very well, but I don’t dislike most of your post (I quite like the word “acrohumanism”, for example))
Yeah, that’s going to be something of a problem. I’m not sure how to properly emphasize the notion of the focus on not only being the best you can be but improving the range of the “bestness” that you can have to the upper limits of what is humanly possible.
If it helps any, a different perspective would be to consider this a “pure software” approach to transhumanism.
I can hardly fault someone else for poorly conveying themselves when that’s the majority of what got me in ‘trouble’ with this post in the first place. Thank you for the affirmation of the term, at least! :)