In philosophy, persistent impediments to solving a problem can result from a variant of this. There is an answer called Crazyism: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2011/07/crazyism.html
Crazyism means noticing and accepting when every branch of a metaphysical dilemma leads to something Crazy, and accepting that we might, then have to accept something Crazy in order to progress.
I hear they’ve implanted some monkeys. Have they talked about what they’ve been able to get the monkeys to do? Controlling high-dexterity mechanical arms, for instance?
though there’s something to be said for semi-independent reinvention.
(I am delighted because constructivism is what is to be said for semi-independent reinvention, which aleksi just semi-independently constructed, thereby doing a constructivism on constructivism)
Aye, I suppose the answer is; many cognitive processes in humans need repetition because they seem to be a bit broken? (Are there theories about why human memory (heck, higher animal memory in general) is so… rough?)
Since hypermnesics do exist, my theory is that that used to be a common phenotype, but our consciousness was flawed, it was too much power, we became neurotic, or something, and all evolution could do to sort it out was to cripple it.
I did think, as I wrote, that the beginning of the comment would be a good summary, but you’re right, not enough would be visible in the preview.
Perhaps if the comment previews were a bit longer.
Seeing half a line of a comment is usually not enough information to decide whether reading the whole thing is worth while
I want to argue that this is a huge problem with the way people write here. If I have to read the whole comment to find out what the whole comment is about, that really limits the speed at which I can search the corpus. Sometimes, not only do you have to read the entire comment, carefully, you then have to think about it for a minute to decode the information. Sometimes it turns out to just a phrasing of something you already knew, in a not-interestingly different form.
If you don’t make a body of writing easy to navigate with indexes and summaries, people who value their time just wont engage with it. They wont complain to you, they’ll just fade away. They might even blame themselves. “Why can’t I process this information quicker”, they will ask. “I feel so lost and tired when I read this stuff. Overall I don’t feel I’ve had a productive time.”
Why would any working cognitive process require repetition? The feeling I get when I see that is that the process doesn’t know enough about what its pursuing to get there efficiently, and it might never.
Sometimes a cognition doesnt know much about what it’s pursuing due to low conscious integration.. sometimes I guess I have to accept it’s just because of whatever ignorance puts it in the position of pursuing a thing. We could hardly expect, for instance, a person looking for the key to a box in an object archive, to ask for a list of keys of a particular length, because they wouldn’t know how long the key is, nor would they ask for keys with a particular number of peaks, for they could not know how many points it has, they can maybe give us an estimate of its diameter, or its age, but their position as a key-seeker means that there are certain Good Questions that they necessarily cannot know to ask.
Their search may seem repetitive, but repetition is not the point. Our job as the archivist is to help them to narrow the list of candidates to the fewest possible.
I’m not sure Single Line Comments are completely necessary. Liberal use of the [-] hide button is a pretty good alternative for browsing threads in a similar way- read a summary, move on, see the whole of the thread before dwelling on any of the details and descending into a subthread- but I do like it, it’s probably a step forward.
In light of my reply here (“so I guess even children don’t know how to ask good questions”), I wonder if they’re reaching for something more than answers, maybe my impulse to tell them they shouldn’t ask questions they don’t really care about the answers to, is actually well placed. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe they want to learn about asking questions, and the process can’t start to mature until you let them know that they’re kind of doing it wrong.
(I’m aware that there’s a real risk, if this theory is wrong, of making the child explore less freely than they’re supposed to, which I will try to hold in regard.)
Getting the impression that not even children know how to ask good questions. It’s a crucial skill that I’ve never seen taught, and I know that I don’t have it.
I’m in the same room as one of my heroes, I know they’re full of important secrets, I know they’re full of vital techniques, I could ask them anything, but nothing comes, I just smile, I say, “nice to meet you”, I spend all of my energy trying to keep them from seeing my finitude. I come away no bigger than before. I never see them again.
I want to learn to be better than this.
An agency can put its end-goals away for later, without pursuing them immediately, save them until it has its monopoly.
It’s not that difficult to imagine. Maybe an argument will come along that it’s just too hard to make a self-improving agency with a goal more complex than “understand your surroundings and keep yourself in motion”, but it’s a hell of a thing to settle for.
Had some thoughts. I’ll start with the entropy thing.
Anything that happens in a physics complex enough to support life constitutes transitioning energy to entropy. ANYTHING. That process does not draw a distinction between living and non-living, between entropy-optimising agency and a beauty-optimising agency. If you look at life, and only see spending energy, then you know as little as it is possible to know about which part of the universe count as life, or how it will behave.
Humans do want to spend energy, but they don’t really care how fast it happens, or whether it ever concludes.
Humans really care about the things that happen along the way.
Some people seem to become nihilistic in the face of the inevitability of life’s eventual end. Because the end is going to be the same no matter what we do, they think, it doesn’t matter what happens along the way.
I’m of the belief that a healthy psyche tries to rescue its utility function. When our conception the substance of essential good seems to disappear from our improved worldmodel, when we find that the essential good thing we were optimising can’t really exist, we must have some method for locating the closest counterpart to that essence of good in our new, improved worldmodel. We must know what it means to continue. We must have a way of rescuing the utility function.
It sometimes seems as if Nick Land doesn’t have that.
A person finds out that the world is much worse and weirder than he thought. He repeats that kind of improvement several times (he’s uniquely good at it). He expects that it’s never going to end. He gets tired of burying stillborn ideals. Instead of developing a robust notion of good that can survive bad news and paradigm shifts, he cuts out his heart and stops having any notion of good at all. He’s safe now. Philosophy can’t hurt him any more.
That’s a cynical take. For the sake of balance: My distant steelman of Nick Land is that maybe he sees the role of philosophy as being to get us over as many future shocks as possible as quickly as possible to get us situated in the bad weird what will be, and only once we’re done with that can we start talking about what should be. Only then can we place a target that wont soon disappear. And the thing about that is it takes a long time, and we’re still not finished, so we still can’t start to Should.
I couldn’t yet disagree with that. I believe I’m fairly well situated in the world, perhaps my model wont shatter again, in any traumatic way, but it’s clear to me that my praxis is taking a while to catch up with my model.
We are still doing things that don’t make a lot of sense, in light of the weird, bad world. Perhaps we need to be a lot better at relinquishing the instrumental values we inherited from a culture adapted to a nicer world.
against orthogonality is interesting
the anti-orthogonalist position [my position] is therefore that Omohundro drives [general instrumental goals] exhaust the domain of real purposes. Nature has never generated a terminal value except through hypertrophy of an instrumental value. To look outside nature for sovereign purposes is not an undertaking compatible with techno-scientific integrity
I remember being a young organism, struggling to answer the question, what’s the point, why do we exist. We all know what it is now, people tried to tell me, “to survive and reproduce”, but that answer didn’t resonate with any part of my being. They’d tell me what I was, and I wouldn’t even recognise it as familiar.
If our goals are hypertrophied versions of evolution’s instrumental goals, I’m fairly sure they’re going to stay fairly hypertrophied, maybe forever, and we should probably get used to it.
Any intelligence using itself to improve itself will out-compete one that directs itself towards any other goals whatsoever
Unless the ones with goals have more power, and can establish a stable monopoly on power (they do, and they might)
Can Nick Land at least conceive of a hypothetical universe where a faction fighting for non-omohudro values ended up winning, (and then presumably, using the energy they won to have a big non-omohundro value party that lasts until the heat death of the universe) is it that he just think that humans in particular, in their current configuration, are not strong enough for our story to end that way?
I think an argument could be made that they have left subtle visible effects, and we just haven’t been able to reach consensus that that’s what it is, and one of these days we’re going to correlate the universe’s contents, and when we do, we’re going to be a bit upset.
We don’t seem to be sure what the deal was with oumuamua, and we’re constantly getting reports of what look like alien probes on earth, but we (at least, whatever epistemic network I’m in) can only shrug and say “These things usually aren’t aliens.”
Ecosystems do not have a goal
Ecosystems are not optimised for diversity, they produce it incidentally
Ecosystems do not cross-breed distant members
Ecosystems have no one overlooking the transmissions being made and deciding whether they’re good or not. Memeplexes have all humans all doing that all of the time
I do share an intuition that there are relevant insights to be found by studying ecosystems, but I think you’d have to go really deep to get it and extract it.
I don’t remember the comment, but it reminds me of something I think I might have read in Crucial Confrontations… which might have been referred to me by someone in the community, so that might be a clue??? haha, idk at all
Looking at this.. I think I can definitely imagine a good open world game. It’d feel a little bit like a metroidvania- fun and engaging traversal, a world that you get to know, that encourages you to revisit old locations frequently- but not in any strict order, and more self-organised. I just haven’t seen that yet.
It’s worth noting that the phrase “open world” doesn’t occur in the article, heheh.
“open world” in games mostly refers to shams. In every instance I’ve seen, the choice is between “whatever forwards the plot” (no choice) and “something random” (false choice). The “something random” gives the player too little information about the choices for them to really be choices in the bayesian sense. You usually only get a vague outline of a distant object and when you arrive it’s usually not what you were expecting. What information you do get is too shallow by the standards of any good game; there’s no way to get really skilled at wielding it.
(And the reason genuine choice is rarely present is you end up needing to make multiple interleaved games, which is a huge design challenge that multiplies the points of failure, complicates marketing, and is very expensive if providing one experience for all will do the job just as well.)
This shamness could absolutely be transferred to educational documents. University felt this way to me; you can pay to stay on the path, or you can stray, and straying is generally fruitless, in part due to the efforts of the maintainers of the path, which unjustly reinforces the path.