“If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.”—Leslie Lamport
Declan Molony
Karma: 1,467
Thanks for bringing this up! I just added this line to the post to make things clearer for others:
Or if you’re unsure exactly what you believe, I’d recommend just writing down everything you do with respect to the problem. That’ll reveal what you believe about it.
If “beliefs” seem too opaque or undefined, I’d recommend just writing down everything you do with respect to the problem.
The simping was a clear example of that in my opinion—the nerd kept doing the same thing over and over; that was his entire interaction with the cheerleader. If he can recognize his behavioral pattern by observing what he consistently says/does, that gives him the opportunity to try something else.
or any number of other ineffable signs subtler than an em dash.
I just started using em dashes (at the recommendation of my older brother) in my writing circa 2022 before I even knew about LLMs. I like using them—I’m not giving them up!
I thought about your comment for a few days, especially the line “You are fighting ghosts.”
That’s probably more true for prisoners than most. To be locked in a cell for the rest of your life, wondering, ruminating, if things could have been different...
How lucky the rest of us are to merely ruminate over a lost love, or from upsetting a friend.
For prisoners, their mistake was serious. It’s not just in their heads. They’re haunted.
The book ‘Death with Interruptions’ is a 2005 speculative fiction novel written by Portuguese author José Saramago.
Because of this post, I checked out ‘Death with Interruptions’ from the library and read it this month. Wow, a really good read—thanks!
“All cats are equal, but some cats are more equal than others.”—George Pawwell, Animal Farm
“If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.”—Leslie Lamport
“I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want catnip.”—Aldous Clawxley, Brave New World
I am the ultimate rationalist! My willingness to sacrifice for someone follows a perfect distribution along kinship genetic similarity:
Siblings: share 50% of their genes, so I’d be willing to take a 50% chance of dying if it meant their genes could potentially live on and reproduce
First cousins: share 12.5% of their genes, so I’d be willing to take a 12.5% chance of dying
So what about for a random friend? If they could just take a quick DNA test, then our genetic relatedness would determine my willingness to sacrifice for them.
Supposing that I die while saving them, I would want a guarantee that they propagate their genes in proportion to our genetic similarity:
Siblings: I would want them to have at least 2 kids
First cousins: I would want them to have at least 8 kids
Random friend with 1% genetic similarity: That’s right! 100 kids please! 😉
Great post, and great cat philosopher quotes :)
“To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others...unless it’s concerning that dastardly neighbor cat.”—Albert Cameow
If you would be willing to experiment, I’d like to know if your experience of dreaming is affected by screen usage before bed.
You could just copy what I’ve done, which is eliminating screen time 1-2 hours before bed, then report back here any qualitative/quantitative changes in dreaming. I’m curious what you’ll find! (even if there’s no change)
I reached the opposite conclusion, that “normal” people are misfortunate
When looking for the positives of aphantasia, I recognize that it’s probably a lot easier for me to meditate since I can’t be distracted by mental imagery.
Hm, it sounds like as if you were grieving a loss… How did you come to the conclusion that there is anything of substance that is desirable to have that you cannot have?
Nope, no grieving of losses. Ultimately, I can’t change my neurological structure so I’ve come to accept it. Yet it’s also nice to see images now if only in my dreams.
Many years ago, I wrote down a list of successive feats I could accomplish to overcome social anxiety:
Say hi to the barista at a coffee shop when I order.
Ask a customer for the time.
Ask someone what they’re working on or reading, then start a small conversation from there.
^I did this over a week and slowly desensitized to meeting and talking to new people. Baby steps got me there.
Also, as someone with aphantasia, your post heavily discussing visualization was mildly frustrating for me lol. Like, I want to participate!
Somehow I stumbled upon being friends with the CEO of a construction company who is twice my age. We get coffee together regularly on the weekends. I tell him about what I worked on that week, and he either gives me approbation, or withholds praise, depending on if he thinks I spent my time wisely. In this way, I get feedback from a person IRL.
With parasocial relationships, it’s entirely one-sided. We give online personas our tacit approval by repeatedly consuming their content; they sit back and watch their view counts go up and receive implicit validation. We, in turn, receive the semblance of a friendship but with none of the reciprocal validation that humans thrive on to determine if our actions are worthwhile.
Solution? Continue to seek out new friendships IRL and tap into their networks.
You make a good point: advanced surveillance tools are more likely to be a problem for people living under autocracies. Without markets principally driving the measure of employee competency, submitting to strict social norms shows that you’re not going to rock the (autocratic) boat too much. So for those people, it’s even more important to regulate their social presence. E.g., the Communist Bloc in the 20th century; any society described in a Kafka novel.
I agree that human intervention in hiring is not the most likely outcome in market-based economies. But, I did follow that example by saying:
These two examples presuppose that humans will always be the ones initiating employment discrimination. But with AI increasingly taking an active role in hiring, algorithms could make decisions on their own without humans ever directly being involved.
So in market-based economies, I contend that we have more to fear from algorithmic, non-human hiring decisions.
You want a story about a lumbering, towering, sweaty, intimidating, bulky, no nonsense investigator grappling with eco-terrorists, a conspiracy, and also raising and protecting her family?
Try “Hummingbird Salamander” by Jeff Vandermeer!
The “Expert Fallacy” (sometimes known as “Argument from Authority”) is when an expert goes outside of their domain of expertise to opine on a topic.
Common examples:
Movie stars (who are good at acting) getting involved in politics.
Scientists that are experts in one domain commenting on an entirely different field.
Happens commonly on podcasts...
Without looking it up:
I assume so, up to a certain point. As long as the apple is able to germinate successfully, then it’s cells are probably still alive.
As it decays/decomposes, cells walls probably deteriorate. Eventually, it loses the ability to germinate?
Idk, I haven’t taken a biology class since 7th grade. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“To Explain the World” is a great book by Steven Weinberg. Every page goes down smooth, even the technical notes. Part of what makes it work is Weinberg’s clear prose, granting an unobscured view into a mind well the equal of its words. Nothing is made obscure or complex, including technical ideas. It also helps that Weinberg has an appendeix of technical notes to illustrate what’s going on, with plentiful figures. Another part is the multi-layered narrative. At a small scale, ideas are placed in the context of the lives of scientists, for whom Weinberg gives a mini-biographies. At a large scale, we progress through time from Ancient Greece, Hellenistic Greece, the Islamic Caliphates, the Renaissance and England on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. Finally, there’s Weinberg’s dry wit, which had me laughing throughout the book.
From a reader’s perspective, this post did not capture my attention. The first sentence does not explain what the book was about. Nor did the second sentence, nor the third...etc. It’s not until the seventh sentence with “At a large scale” am I able to intuit that this book is about world history. Before then, I was just reading your opinions on a subject matter that was not made clear to me.
The first sentence of a blog post is the most important one—it should induce someone to read the next sentence. Your first sentence is that there exists a great book. Okay? There are a lot of great books, but you didn’t explain why I should care about this one. I didn’t read the rest of your post for this reason.
I’ve been enjoying many of your posts this month :) But this one lost me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reading this with Mozart’s Requiem playing elevates this post to a whole nother level: