denisbider

Pop­u­lar re­li­gions sug­gest ex­trap­o­lated vo­li­tion is non-ex­is­tence and wireheading

• denisbider 18 Feb 2014 12:12 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: arundelo’s comment on: Hu­mans can drive cars

  Sorry, I don’t check this place often.

  To some extent, I think what you described does happen for snippets of code that are largely the same, and which one might write all the time. For example, I can write a “Hello world” program while maintaining conversation. However, as soon as you ask me to write something new, then I do have to start thinking about how to put pieces together, and can’t continue conversation.

  But this also happens with driving. Speaking for myself at least, I can only maintain conversation while driving in a way that does not require me to make any decisions: (1) a route I’ve driven many times before, (2) a straight piece of road that might be unfamiliar, but does not require making any decisions.

  If you put me in a new city where I don’t know where the streets are and how the traffic works, my conversational ability is much decreased (unless sitting at a red light, and perhaps even then, if I’m wondering where to turn next).

  Programming tends to be like driving in new cities all the time. The difference we observe is really that we do most of our driving as a chore (same route, similar conditions each time) whereas we usually try to avoid that in programming (re-writing code we’ve already written several times, in similar conditions each time).

• denisbider 30 Jan 2014 21:20 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: shminux’s comment on: Hu­mans can drive cars

  Programming is one of them. Even after doing it for decades, people are still as consciously engaged in it as they did in the beginning.

  My experience disagrees with this. After about 20 years of experience with C/​C++, I have internalized many of the aspects of programming in this language, which allows me to write complex software factors of magnitude faster than 20 years ago, and factors of magnitude more safely.

  I notice how much I have internalized when I switch to a different language that isn’t “my own”, and find myself immediately bogged down in all sorts of details for which I don’t know how exactly they work, and what is the best way to approach them.

  In my experience, programming skill, especially in a particular language, does get internalized, much like dancing.

• denisbider 21 Sep 2012 5:42 UTC

  −3 points

  in reply to: bcoburn’s comment on: Min­i­mum vi­able work­out routine

  It doesn’t only work for me. It’s how most people I know, who are into fitness, manage their weight. The “Calories In” part is not eating too much. The “Calories Out” part is maintaining your metabolism by eating small meals regularly, exercising, and eating lots of protein to gain and preserve muscle mass.

  It works. It works for a lot of people.

  In fact, aside from gastric bypass surgery, it’s the only reliable way to lose weight that I know. And gastric bypass surgery is a form of CI:CO!

  And then we have a bunch of people on Less Wrong, all of whom appear to be convinced that human bodies can somehow violate the rules of thermodynamics. Or that the calorie content of foods varies so wildly no one can ever track it well enough to lose weight. Then when challenged, you resort to arguments like this:

  • The sun is dark green.

  • No, it’s bright yellow, I saw it this morning.

  • That’s anecdotal evidence. It’s no good as science. It’s green, stop spreading your bullshit.

  • I’m pretty sure that it was yellow every time I saw it in my life. It was never green.

  • More anecdotal evidence. What you see is not what other people see. Learn to science, man!

  Ad hominems are the last thing to resort to, but this conversation has become so ridiculous, I am left with no more credible explanations for this denialism than that you guys are chronically fat, and hiding behind excuses because you lack the will power to stop slurping Double Diet Mountain Dew. Then, you make endless posts about beating akrasia.

• denisbider 21 Sep 2012 2:39 UTC

  −11 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Min­i­mum vi­able work­out routine

  In particular, adding up the numbers on the labels of the things you eat is not a sufficiently accurate method of determining caloric intake,

  If that’s the case, why does it work?

  I agree that calorie content of any particular meal is hard to measure accurately, but over time, the calorie content of many meals should gravitate towards the average.

  You’re going overboard by stating, not just that CI:CO is hard, but that it’s impossible.

  You’re saying that my positive experience with CI:CO over the past 5 years, which I was able to confirm numerous times, is a fluke.

  That’s you being offensive and arrogant. Yes, you should be tapping out.

• denisbider 21 Sep 2012 2:17 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Ghatanathoah’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Plea­sure Alone

  Sorry for the late reply, I haven’t checked this in a while.

  Please don’t fight the hypothetical.

  Most components of our thought processes are subconscious. The hypothetical question you posed presses a LOT of subconscious buttons. It is largely impossible for most people, even intelligent ones, to take a hypothetical question at face value without being influenced by the subconscious effects of the way it’s phrased.

  You can’t fix a bad hypothetical question by asking people to not fight the hypothetical.

  For example, who wants to spend an eternity isolated in space? That must be one of the worst fears for many people. How do you disentangle that from the question? That’s like asking a kid if he wants candy while you’re dressed up as a monster from his nightmares.

  There are lots of regretful heroin users.

  Because not all components of the heroin experience are pleasant.

  Wouldn’t it be even better to constantly be feeling this bliss, but also still mentally able to pursue non-pleasure related goals?

  I suppose, yes. Valuable X + valuable Y is strictly better than just valuable X.

• denisbider 21 Sep 2012 1:47 UTC

  −4 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Min­i­mum vi­able work­out routine

  I haven’t checked this thread for a while, so sorry for the late reply.

  You make it out as though diet by CI:CO is too difficult to be practical. Maybe it is, for people who can’t track stuff to save their lives.

  For me, it’s been easy. When I’m dieting, I have a spreadsheet where I record the calorie and protein content of everything I eat.

  Yes, calculating calorie content for homemade meals is a fair amount of work, and takes dedication. It takes me up to 30 minutes of lookups and calculations to calculate calorie and protein content in a meal, and that’s after my wife has weighed and recorded all the ingredients.

  Because of this complexity, I stick mostly to prepared foods that display their calorie content, or homemade meals made of well-known ingredients in well-known proportions.

  I have a fair amount of confidence in my calorie calculations. I know from experience that when I keep the daily sum of calories under a certain level, my waist size goes down. It works.

  I don’t know anyone else who brings this level of dedication to their diet. I know people who don’t, and so they’re fat.

  I accept your argument that CI:CO is hard for people lacking conscientiousness, but this is different from saying that CI:CO doesn’t work.

  Also, for people lacking conscientiousness, chances are that no diet is going to work.

• denisbider 22 Jun 2012 6:43 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: dbaupp’s comment on: Less Wrong used to like Bit­coin be­fore it was cool. Time for a re­visit?

  Presumably the company in question could easily manufacture a whole bunch for itself and get a significant portion of the bitcoin market

  They can get 100% of the mining and transaction fees market by snapping their fingers. Once they’ve made their initial investment into manufacturing the chip, the marginal cost of making more of them is minimal. Far below the $30k they’re selling the 1 TH solution for.

  They can grab 50%+ of the mining market for themselves pretty easily. Then, they can increase their capacity to keep up with the growth of the network for cheap—all while they sell their processors to others, who pay much more for the mining capacity they get, than it costs for Butterfly Labs to make more.

  (although it would have to be careful about destroying the currency’s value).

  It’s possible to crash the currency if you’re in a position where you can reliably mine more than 50% of the blocks. When you have more than 50% of the network’s computing power, you can exclude other miners—gain 100% of the market by simply ignoring everyone else’s blocks. The P2P network will respect your chain, because it’s longer. Then, you can impose any transaction fees you like, or refuse to process any transactions at all.

  However, unless you intentionally do things like that to crash the currency, its value doesn’t come from the miners. It comes from people who use it for transactions and for storing value, which aren’t necessarily the same people who mine the currency.

• denisbider 22 Jun 2012 6:16 UTC

  −11 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Min­i­mum vi­able work­out routine

  Congratulations. I revived this account, which I haven’t used for years, just to downvote your crazy ass.

  The evidence for the general principle—that weight change tracks the difference between calories eaten and calories expended—is overwhelming.

  I have seen no fitness advice that suggests it isn’t true. I have seen no fit person who doesn’t accept it.

  For the past 6 years, I have reduced weight and controlled it very effectively based on this principle. Time and time again, I have become fatter when I stopped counting calories and ate to my heart’s content. Time and time again, I got my weight under control after I resumed calorie restriction.

  If you want to show that calorie restriction doesn’t work, you first have to overthrow conservation of energy. And then, explain how come no one was fat in Dachau.

• denisbider 23 Jun 2011 8:08 UTC

  −1 points

  on: Not for the Sake of Plea­sure Alone

  Then they will blast you and the pleasure machine into deep space at near light-speed so that you could never be interfered with. Would you let them do this for you?

  Most people say they wouldn’t choose the pleasure machine.

  Well, no wonder. The way the hypothetical scenario is presented evokes a giant array of ways it could go wrong.

  What if the pleasure machine doesn’t work? What if it fails after a month? What if it works for 100 years, followed by 1,000 years of loneliness and suffering?

  Staying on Earth sounds a lot safer.

  Suppose the person you are asking is religious. Will they be forfeiting an eternity in heaven by opting for passive pleasure in this life? They would say no, yet they are ultimately after eternal pleasure (heaven).

  If you want to be fair to the person to whom you’re talking, propose a pleasure machine they can activate at their convenience, and deactivate at any time. In addition, phrase it so that the person will remain healthy as long as they’re in the machine, and they’ll receive a minimum-wage income for spent time.

  I suspect that, with these much safer sounding provisions, most people would opt to have access to the machine rather than not, and would eventually use it for 100% of the time.

  Religious people may still not, if they fear losing access to heaven.

  Personal example: The greatest feeling of bliss I have experienced is dozing off in a naturally doped up state after highly satisfying sex. This state is utterly passive, but so thoroughly pleasant that I could see myself opting for an eternity in it. I would still, however, only opt for this if I knew it could not end in suffering, e.g. by becoming immune to pleasant states of mind in the end

• denisbider 11 May 2011 0:33 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Strange7’s comment on: Hel­pless Individuals

  I don’t think the lack of scientists is the issue. The issue is others providing all the engineering and support that scientists need—to survive in the first place, and then to get science done.

  If you want to continue your example of sacrificing a child, a more effective proposal would be to have extra children and bond them into near-slavery, taxing them at some high amount so as to support those who do science.

  But that would be a real sacrifice, and most would not find the idea pleasing.

• denisbider 10 May 2011 15:37 UTC

  5 points

  on: The Bias You Didn’t Expect

  The Economist reported on the Israeli study too:

  http://​​www.economist.com/​​node/​​18557594

  The article makes an argument which I find persuasive: that it’s not about food as much as it’s about difficult decisions tiring the brain. When the brain is tired, it resorts to the easy and safe option.

  Check out the Economist article for more.

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 23:54 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: UNPC’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  They do in some of the handful of transracial adoption studies, and don’t in others. Rushton and Jensen et al hype the Minnesota study, because it’s the one that supports their case, and note data quality problems with the other studies. Nisbett and Flynn do the reverse. But very little work is done in this area (yes, because of PC issues with funding bodies), so the data is still too thin to be very confident either way.

  Agreed. More data would be nice.

  I am open to a different explanation, it’s just that the genetic one seems most compatible with what I do know at this time.

  Seeing a prosperous and competent country arising out of Africa would surely be nice. I would prefer living in a universe like that. It’s just that I don’t see it happening—regardless of the aid—at this time.

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 23:44 UTC

  4 points

  1

  in reply to: Jack’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  Most of your criticisms here appear to be resulting from “morally repugnant”, which means that I hold a view wildly different from that which you find acceptable, but you can’t quite figure out why. If you test me, you may find that my views are neither ill-defined, nor poorly thought out, nor dumb; nor even morally repugnant.

  Your criticism about politeness is valid however. I do not try to be polite unless the other person is already polite, which creates a sort of vicious circle half the time. I’d like to improve that.

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 23:34 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: UNPC’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  Good points. But then why don’t African Americans perform much better when adopted and raised by non-African parents? If it’s about parent pressure, then an African American kid adopted by Asian parents should perform at about Asian level. Why do they not?

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 23:24 UTC

  −13 points

  in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  No one is powerless unless they are physically or mentally incapacitated.

  To give an example of someone who is physically incapacitated. A pig. He’s smart, but he doesn’t have thumbs and can’t speak. Are you out to help him?

  For another example of someone who is mentally incapacitated. A chimpanzee. He has thumbs, but he’s not so bright. Are you out to help him?

  If you believe that Africans are somehow physically or mentally incapacitated, then you should treat them much the same as you treat chimpanzees.

  On the other hand, if you believe that they are not incapacitated, then they aren’t powerless. If they aren’t powerless, they can organize their community any way they like.

  They haven’t yet created any highly functional societies over the past few decades, whereas many others have. So apparently, they’re either incapacitated (so proper treatment = same as chimps), or they’ve decided that their current situation is what they want.

  Either way, foreign aid is inconsistent. Either we should be helping animals as much as we help Africans, or else, they are people who have the power to better themselves, and do not need aid.

  Edited to add: Again, people downvoting, but nary a peep about why this logic is wrong. Focus on the essence, rather than the blasphemy? Anyone?

  Sigh...

  I think I’m just going to give up on this community. Good luck with your goals, everyone. ;)

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 23:11 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: UNPC’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  I find Flynn and Nisbett’s position unconvincing. Asians are obviously different and were heavily discriminated against, yet have integrated in America regardless, and now have comparable or better outcomes. There must be a more substantial reason why Africans haven’t done the same, and the most plausible reason so far for me is genetics.

  Pretty much the one major argument against genetics is that people just don’t want this to be the case, because it’s one of the least hopeful explanations. But this is bias. Once you eliminate it, it becomes strikingly evident what the most likely explanation is.

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 23:01 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: UNPC’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  African-American IQ in the 80s, with only 20% European admixture, shows that African IQs are depressed by environment.

  I wouldn’t say so. I think it shows that genes for higher IQ are inherited dominantly.

  This has also been proposed as an explanation for the Flynn effect—whole countries getting “smarter” over time—being due to the gene pool mixing more in cities, and thus with dominant pro-IQ genes gaining ground.

  The same mechanism has been proposed for the increasing height.

  Animals have short lives so it wouldn’t work well, and I care less about them than people with long term plans hopes and fears.

  See, that’s fine with me. You want to indulge in X because you like it, not because of rationalization Y or Z. Just like I want to indulge in chocolate. That’s fine with me.

  I just don’t like the claim that it is morally superior. Or that it’s something everyone should do. Or that it’s how resources “should” be spent. If it is an indulgence, though, then indulgences are fine with me.

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 22:51 UTC

  −1 points

  in reply to: CarlShulman’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  If the recipients are highly functional and creative thereafter, they should make money. If they make money, even if you don’t want it, they can pay you back.

  I do approve of charity which gives to things that do go on to create more than was invested. An example would be investing into basic research that isn’t going to pay off until decades later. Investing in that is, I think, one of the most commendable charitable acts.

  Most charity, however, is not that. It is more so charitable indulgence; it is spending money on something that is emotionally appealing, but never provides a return; neither to the giver, nor to anyone else.

  I despise the travesty of such acts being framed as morally valuable charity, rather than as an indulgent throwing of resources away.

• denisbider 11 Feb 2010 22:41 UTC

  5 points

  1

  in reply to: Nick_Tarleton’s comment on: Shut Up and Divide?

  I’m sure this is often the case, but please don’t overgeneralize.

  True; point taken. I find it likely that many (perhaps most here) are not like that.

  Your grandparent post is at +2 as I write this.

  True. But overall, I’m down about 50 karma today, and still counting. :)