once flipped the box experiment and made ey the jailor. he blocked me immediately and forever.
AndyWood
Karma: −4
I am being stupid when my eye looks at this illusion and I interpret the data in such a way to determine distinct colors.
Not at all. In the context of the scene that this picture represents, A and B are absolutely different shades. On the contrary, I think your perceptual system would be poor indeed if it did not reconstruct context, and under-interpreted the picture as a meaningless 2D array of pixels.
(BTW, as with the necker cube, I find that I can consciously exert to experience the interpretation that I choose, without too much difficulty.)
Seconded. If this post had merely failed to add a significant new angle to the debate, I would have simply ignored it. I down-voted it because it comes off as a sort of political attack against another member, and I would really rather not see that flavor of discourse here.
At the risk of sounding naive, I’ll come right out and say it. It completely baffles me that so many people speak of this game as having an emotional toll. How is it possible for words, in a chat window, in the context of a fictional role-play, to have this kind of effect on people? What in god’s name are you people saying to each other in there? I consider myself to be emotionally normal, a fairly empathetic person, etc. I can imagine experiencing disgust at, say, very graphic textual descriptions. There was that one post a few years back that scared some people—I wasn’t viscerally worried by it, but I did understand how some people could be. That’s literally the full extent of strings of text that I can remotely imagine causing distress (barring, say, real world emails about real-world tragedies). How is it possible that some of you are able to be so shocking / shocked in private chat sessions? Do you just have more vivid imaginations than I do?
It’s important to understand the intended context of these rules. They’re mostly about how to rise within established hierarchies. At one time that would have meant the nobility of a country. In modern developed nations, that means a large corporation, or a governmental bureaucracy. Anyone who has spent time playing inside that kind of game will recognize most of these rules and understand what they’re about.
The rules can’t be gotten round, because anybody who comes in and plays by them will beat out anybody who doesn’t. It’s just game theory. It can’t be circumvented, because in an environment like a large corporation, there are always real limits on how many people each person can know well enough to trust. Absent intimacy and trust, the dynamics revert to each person playing a hand that only they can see.
In such a hierarchy, the question of whether this behavior is optimal, or “good” or “evil” is, in practice, moot. If you don’t figure out and follow the rules, you’ll be trampled, and pushed either down or out. If you discover a different set of rules that work better, then you can write a book about it. And yes, it is zero-sum. It has to be zero-sum, because there is much less space in the top of a pyramid than there is in the pyramid. There’s no outcome where everybody gets to be a boss.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you’re likely to get much informed insight on this topic on LW, given our apparent demographics. College students taking math and physics just won’t have the experience. Internships aren’t enough. I’ve only scratched the surface myself, just from studied observation during my 5 years at Microsoft. You need to talk to some 30-50 year old general managers / executives that have risen through the ranks of an organization like IBM, Lockheed, Microsoft, Citigroup, etc.
And who filtered that particular and exceptionally coherent set of “other people’s ideas” out of a vastly larger total set of ideas? Who stated them in (for the most part) clear anti-jargon? I would not even go into the neighborhood of being dismissive of such a feat.
Originality is the ultimate strawman.
I sit in absolute awe of the epic lack of sense of humor in the replies to this.
I’m, ‘gratified’ I guess, to see other comments here about autism. As I read through the post, I immediately began having the impression that “rationalist community” was being used like a euphemism for “community with high rate of autism”. I know it isn’t, literally, but there are aspects of rationalism and this type of explicit communication that I have always thought of as ‘gifts’ that people on the autism spectrum bring to humanity.
I think it shows that status can be contextual. If a small group begins competing over who has the worst illness, then illness becomes a de facto status marker in that gathering. It doesn’t mean that illness is a global status marker among humans in general. In context, it may be no more than saying “I am the most superlative!”
Please. Generating so many paragraphs here displaying this sort of smug assurance in your own conclusions about highly controversial topics is the exact opposite of “overcoming bias”.
One person doesn’t need to pretend that he doesn’t grasp something until a certain critical mass of the “right” people catch up. Correctness isn’t up for a vote, and the feeling that it is is nothing more than an artifact of social wiring.
You do not have to accept the conclusion. You also do not have to insist that someone else mimic your own uncertainty about any given topic. At the least, perhaps you should go and make sure his reasoning is flawed before you do.
That is pretty close. If I understand them right, I think the difference is:
Tu Quoque: X is also guilty of Y, (therefore Z).
False Equivalence: (X is also guilty of Y), therefore Z.
where the parentheses indicate the major location of error.
This point seems very important to me. I wonder how much disagreement is due to this, which I see as conflation.
How should I act? and How should I assign blame/praise? are very different questions. For one thing, when asking how to assign blame/praise, the framework for deciding blame/praiseworthiness is obviously key. However, when asking how oneself should act, the agent will have any number of considerations, and how praise or blame will be assigned by others may be a small or non-existent factor, depending on the situation.
In general, it seems like praisers and blamers will tend to be in a position of advocating for society, and actors will tend to be in a position of advocating for their individual interests.
Is there some motivation for wanting to unify these differing angles under one framework?
Your repeated references to your own background in physics as a way of explaining your own thinking suggests to me that you may not be hearing what other people are saying, but rather mistranslating.
I don’t see anybody saying they think unfreezing will definitely work. By and large, I see people saying that if you greatly value extending your life into the far future, then, given all the courses of action that we know of, signing up for cryonics is one of the best bets.
Evidence is knowledge that supports a conclusion. It isn’t anything like proof. In that sense, there is evidence that unfreezing will work someday, which is not to say that anybody knows that it will work.
I won’t be able to do it justice in words, but I like to try.
If you value your current makeup as a “rationalist”—LSD will not necessarily help with that. Whatever your current worldview, it is not “the truth”, it is constructed, and it will not be the same after you come down.
You can’t expect a trip to do anything in particular, except maybe blow your mind. A trip is like finding out you were adopted. It’s discovering a secret hidden in plain sight. It’s waking up to realize you’ve never been awake before—you were only dreaming you were awake. It’s finding out that everything familiar, everything you took for granted, was something else all along, and you had no idea.
No matter how much you’ve invested in the identity of “rationalist”, no matter how much science you’ve read… Even if you know how many stars there are in the visible universe, and how many atoms. Even if you’ve cultivated a sense for numbers like that, real reality is so much bigger than whatever your perception of it is. I don’t know how acid works, but it seems to open you in a way that lets more of everything in. More light. More information. Reality is not what you think it is. Reality is reality. Acid may not be able to show you reality, but it can viscerally drive home that difference. It can show you that you’ve been living in your mind all your life, and mistaking it for reality.
It will also change your sense of self. You may find that your self-concept is like a mirage. You may experience ego-loss, which is like becoming nobody and nothing in particular, only immediate sensory awareness and thought, unconnected to what you think of as you, the person.
I don’t know about health dangers. I never experienced any. Tripping does permanently change the way you view the world. It’s a special case of seeing something you can’t un-see. Whether it’s a “benefit” … depends a lot on what you want.
Folks seem to habitually misrepresent the nature of modern software by focusing on a narrow slice of it. Google Maps is so much more than the pictures and text we touch and read on a screen.
Google Maps is the software. It is also the infrastructure running and delivering the software. It is the traffic sensors and cameras feeding it real-world input. Google Maps is also the continually shifting organization of brilliant human beings within Google focusing their own minds and each other’s minds on refining the software to better meet users’ needs and designers’ intentions. It is the click data collected and aggregated to inform changes based on usage patterns. It is the GIS data and the collective efforts and intentions of everybody who collects GIS data or plans the collection thereof. It is the user-generated locale content and the collective efforts of everyone contributing that data.
To think of modern distributed software as merely a tool is to compartmentalize in the extreme. It is more like a many-way continuously evolving conversation among those creating it, between those creating it and those using it, and among those using it - plus the “conversation” from all the sensors, cameras, robots, cars, drivers, planes, pilots, computers, programmers, and everything else feeding the system data, both real-time and slow-changing. Whether the total system is “an agent” seems like a meaningless distinction to me. The system is already a continually evolving sum of the collective, purposeful action of everybody and everything who creates and interacts with Google Maps.
And that’s just one web service among thousands in a world where the web services interact with each other, the companies and individuals behind them interact with each other, and so on. Arguing about the nature of the thingy on the phone or the monitor does not make any sense to me in light of the 100,000′ view of the whole system.
This seems impossible. If you respect those who “can be of no possible value” to you, and this causes others to hold you in higher regard, and if the esteem of others confers any value to you, then those you respected were valuable to you in that way.
Here’s a question that I sure hope someone here knows the answer to:
What do you call it when someone, in an argument, tries to cast two different things as having equal standing, even though they are hardly even comparable? Very common example: in an atheism debate, the believer says “atheism takes just as much faith as religion does!”
It seems like there must be a word for this, but I can’t think what it is. ??
Does the question of “why” simply not enter into a deontologists thinking? My mind seems to leap to complete the statement “you should do what’s right” with something along the lines of “because society will be more harmonious”.
Also, I wish that psychopaths would do what’s right, but what seems to be missing is any force of persuasion. And that seems important.
I was never able to do it with this one before, either. What I’m doing now is concentrating hard on the two tiles of interest, until the rest of the picture fades into the background. The two tiles then seem to be floating on a separate top layer, and appear to be the same shade.
This mucking around with surface connotation has a feel-good quality that I find drastically unappealing and to be avoided like cancer.
This is overwhelmingly how I perceive most people. This in particular: ‘reality is social’.
I have personally traced the difference, in myself, to receiving this book at around the age of three or four. It has illustrations of gadgets and appliances, with cut-out views of their internals. I learned almost as soon as I was capable of learning, that nothing is a mysterious black box, things that seem magical have internal detail, and there are explanations for how they work. Whether or not I had anything like a pre-existing disposition that made me love and devour the book in the first place, I still consider it to have had a bigger impact on my whole world view than anything else I can remember.