Yes, I think so. It surely depends on exactly how I extrapolate to my “transhuman self,” but I suspect that its goals will be like my own goals, writ larger
fiddlemath
Karma: 1,287
Not quite so! We could presume that value isn’t restricted to the reals + infinity, but say that something’s value is a value among the ordinals. Then, you could totally say that life has infinite value, but two lives have twice that value.
But this gives non-commutativity of value. Saving a life and then getting $100 is better than getting $100 and saving a life, which I admit seems really screwy. This also violates the Von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms.
In fact, if we claim that a slice of bread is of finite value, and, say, a human life is of infinite value in any definition, then we violate the continuity axiom… which is probably a stronger counterargument, and tightly related to the point DanielLC makes above.
In that case, it sounds very, very similar to what I’ve learned to deal with—especially as you describe feeling isolated from the people around you. I started to write a long, long comment, and then realized that I’d probably seen this stuff written down better, somewhere. This matches my experience precisely.
For me, the most important realization was that the feeling of nihilism presents itself as a philosophical position, but is never caused or dispelled by philosophy. You can ruminate forever and find no reason to value anything; philosophical nihilism is fully internally consistent. Or, you can get exercise, and spend some time with friends, and feel better due not to philosophy, but to physiology. (I know this is glib, and that getting exercise when you just don’t care about anything isn’t exactly easy. The link above discusses this.)
That above post, and Alicorn’s sequence on luminosity—effective self-awareness—probably lay out the right steps to take, if you’d like to most-effectively avoid these crappy moods.
Moreover, if you’d like to chat more, over skype some time, or via pm, or whatever, I’d be happy to. I’m pretty busy, so there may be high latency, but it sounds like you’re dealing with things that are very similar to my own experience, and I’ve partly learned how to handle this stuff over the past few years.
It has also been depressing, though, because I’ve since realized many of the “problems” in the world were caused by the ineptitude of the species and aren’t easily fixed. I’ve had some problems with existential nihilism since then and if anyone has any advice on the matter, I’d love to hear it.
You describe “problems with existential nihilism.” Are these bouts of disturbed, energy-sucking worry about the sheer uselessness of your actions, each lasting between a few hours and a few days? Moreover, did you have similar bouts of worry about other important seeming questions before getting into LW?
I did, at first; and rethought it before I posted. And I figured that the same response was also roughly correct if it was a “dig at Alicorn.” Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, so arch comments about someone not doing so would be silly.
Given that everyone around here is usually pretty reasonable, if prone to fallacies of transparency, I therefore assume that Eliezer’s actually giving straightforward applause, rather than being ironic. (If I’m wrong … well, that’d be useful to learn.)
If it is a dig, it ought not be. Doing useful drudgery despite bystander effects is remarkable and surprising, and should be applauded!
Wear comfortable shoes and, if you have one, a watch!
Do you have examples in mind? I’d very much like them—those would be highly valuable places to double-check assumptions.
NGR?
Certainly!
On the other hand, this is at someone’s apartment, and I know that might be an odd way to first meet folks. If you prefer, the next meetup will probably be at a coffee shop; in general, I’ll schedule meetups in public places at least once a month.
Then again, if you’re interested, and unfazed by the setting, then feel free to drop in!
I agree connotatively, but disagree denotatively. The version for LessWrongians might go a little more like this:
When you feel overconstrained, question your constraints, make peace with the consequences of breaking them, and attend your options, not your panic.
In particular, in situations where your panic at fearful outcomes is worse than one of those outcomes, just accept that outcome instead of accepting the panic.
I’m anti-impulsive by default. In the face of new things to try or do or see, saying no is easy, saying yes is hard. I usually enjoy new experiences when I have them, and I crave them in general, but I have to steel myself to have them. I’m afraid of doing things wrong because they’re new, I’m afraid of looking silly because I don’t know what I’m doing, I’m afraid of doing things suboptimally, or paying too much, or spending too much time at something, and so on and so on. Reflectively, I endorse none of these fears to the degree I have them. And so:
Awkward and fresh beats comfortable and stale.
I run this in my head, and get some distance from those little fears, and that often suffices to do awesome things.
Has anyone had experiences in which similar reasoning was useful?
I suspect it is, and often, for someone with this mental habit. I lack this habit, so I don’t easily know what opportunities I’ve missed. I’d like to teach the habit to myself and others, but I will need a handful of motivating cases.
I’d run screaming from a talk on “using frangibility.”
Since I can’t reply to two people at once: I’ve been using melatonin, and auto-shutdown at midnight, and getting more exercise, and I am finally getting some traction on falling asleep before 1am every night. Can make these things work.
It would just be an argument over the definition of “I”. Here, tabooing “I” is probably a useful exercise.
As it’s a year after attending last year’s minicamp, I’ve slowed down the pace that I attempt new optimizations to only one or two things at a time. :) Still, sharing more widely is a good idea. Every morning, for the next few weeks (necessarily barring next week), my morning routine will be as follows:
Wake up at 7:30am. Do not touch the bed.
Don my contacts, and some morning clothes. Do not touch the bed.
Go make coffee. Do not place my forehead on the countertop.
Sit on my little porch, with coffee, and write in my journal for at least 15 minutes, or until I’ve stopped having more things to write down.
If writing has spawned todo items, add those. (Only boot my computer in a plain terminal; do not load the GUI or connect to the network.)
If writing has spawned items to add to my deck of “things to focus on”, go ahead and make those cards.
Do not touch the bed.
If it’s a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, go running.
Shower.
Going to do this, every morning, until it’s habit. Going to do a couple of hours of research before noon, every morning. Going to have more time.
Closely related, and well-written: Errors vs. Bugs.
The Phantom Tollbooth is enjoyably mind-opening, if handed to a child at about the right age. It’s very light-hearted, but is liable to instill thinking about thinking. I read it when I was 10, and again at 12, and again at 14, and again at 16, getting deeper appreciation each time.
Also, I suspect the Tiffany Aching books are ideal—but I’m a huge Discworld fan, ymmv.
To try to answer the title’s question, rather than directly answer the post’s problem:
For the general problem of discerning pseudo-science from science, there’s Massimo Pigliucci’s Nonsense on Stilts. What I’ve read (and heard) by him seems like pretty sound stuff, but I haven’t read the book itself. Does anyone have strong opinions about this book?