Nanashi

• Nanashi 10 Feb 2015 13:48 UTC

  2 points

  on: The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World

  I find this method to be intellectually dangerous.

  We do not live in the LCPW, and constantly considering ethical problems as if we do is a mind-killer. It trains the brain to stop looking for creative solutions to intractable real world problems and instead focus on rigid abstract solutions to conceptual problems.

  I agree that there is a small modicum of value to considering the LCPW. Just like there’s a small modicum of value to eating a pound of butter for dinner. It’s just, there are a lot better ways to spend ones time. The proper response to “Well, what about the LPCW?” is, “How do you know we are in the LCPW?” I think there is far more value in having a conversation that explores our assumptions about a difficult problem rather than indulges them.

  Q: Consider the Sick Villager problem. How do we know that the patients won’t die due to transplant rejection? A: Oh, well, Omega says so. Q: Okay. So, how do we know Omega is right? A: Because Omega is omniscient. Q: If Omega is omniscient, why can’t it tell us how to grow working organs without need for human sacrifice? A: Because there are limits to how much it knows. Q: Ok, so if I knew in advance that Omega is omniscient but has these limitations, why on earth am I working in a village helping 10 villagers instead of working on advancing Omega to the point where it doesnt have those limitations. (And if I don’t know this in advance, why would I suddenly start believing some random computer that claims it is Omega?) A: I don’t know, because it’s the LCPW.

  That conversation yields a lot more intellectual value; it trains you to think creatively and explore all possible solutions, rather than devise a single heuristic that is only applicable in a 5d-corner case. As I indicated above, it can actually be dangerous because novice rationalists may feel compelled to apply that narrow heuristic to situations where a more optimal, creative solution is present.

• Nanashi 10 Feb 2015 15:19 UTC

  9 points

  on: Wel­come to Less Wrong! (7th thread, De­cem­ber 2014)

  Hi all,

  I’ve been following EY and LW for about four years now. I’m fairly new to posting though. I started out as a “republican” in elementary school, then turned into a “libertarian” in high school because I didn’t care for many conservative positions. Then an “objectivist” in college, because I didn’t care for the fact that libertarianism only extended to politics and not ethics. Then I became frustrated with the Objectivist community and their inability to adapt to the real world so I became a “all the people I’ve met who self-identify as one of these labels has turned out to be really obnoxious so I really don’t want to convolute discussions by using a label”-ist. It wasn’t until recently that I discovered Rationalism and so far it has been the most accurate label and also the most complete system so far.

  My end-game is to end death (and if entropically possible, reverse it). Which is a pretty big practical problem. As such, I don’t have a ton of interest in many of the ethical questions because more often than not, my answer is: “If we can end or reverse death, it doesn’t matter.” .Short-term, my goal is to become rich enough to retire fairly early and have a significant amount of money that can be used to fund various worthy causes and allow me to continue this path full-time. I’m probably 75% of the way there. When I’m not trying to build wealth, most of my free time is spent tinkering with various AI algorithms, exploring number theory, or building prototypes of various gadgets (my latest one is a hard drive that stores data using energy rather than matter. Nevermind the fact that it can only store about 16 bytes.).

• Nanashi 10 Feb 2015 23:41 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Nornagest’s comment on: The Least Con­ve­nient Pos­si­ble World

  The point of ethical thought experiments like the sick villager problem is.… to illuminate seeming contradictions in our values.

  That’s fair. I understand the value: it exposes the weakness of using overly rigid heuristics by presenting a situation where those heuristics feel wrong. And I agree that it’s an evasion to nitpick the thought experiment in an attempt to avoid having to face the contradiction of your poorly-formed heuristics.

  My standard response to thought-experiment questions is: “I would do everything possible to have my cake and eat it too.” In many cases, that response satisfies whoever asked the question. Immediately defaulting to the LCPW is putting words into the other person’s mouth by assuming they wouldn’t be satisfied with that ethical approach.

  Making the LCPW something “normal” seriously underestimates how world-bendingly different it would be from reality. If we truly lived in the LCPW, in most cases it would be such a different reality from the one we exist in that it would require a completely different set of ethics, and I just haven’t really thought hard enough about it to generate a new system of ethics for each tailor-made LCPW.

  Incidentally I don’t have a problem with the LCPW when it’s actually realistic, as is the case with the “charity” example.

A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 14:57 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: caffemacchiavelli’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  Is there a consensus on the whole brain backup identity issue?

  No, and thank you for pointing out the potential for confusion in this post. I have edited some key wording: “results in the continuation of the perception of consciousness.” has now been changed to “results in a perception of consciousness functionally indistinguishable to an outside observer,” which much more closely reflects my intent.

  So in other words, if John Doe went into a locked room, created a copy of himself, incinerated the original version, disposed of all the ashes, and then walked out of the room, the copy would be indistinguishable from the original John Doe from your perspective as an outside observer.

  How John Doe himself perceives that interaction is an extremely difficult question to answer (or even to really formulate scientifically).

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 15:52 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  In an infinite universe all possibilities occur. In a large universe many possibilities occur. Among the possibilities is a prior or subsequent or even simultaneous brain just like mine.

  Depending on your version of the MWI, that’s actually not quite accurate.

  Consider the “man at the cliff” statistical thought experiment: A man is standing at the edge of a cliff, blindfolded. At any given time, he has a 10% chance of taking a step forward (and thus falling off the cliff), and a 90% chance of taking a step backward. If that man takes an infinite number of steps, what is the probability that at some point he falls off the cliff? One may be tempted to answer: “In an infinite number of steps, all possibilities occur and thus the probability must be 1,” but that is incorrect. The actual probability that the man falls off the cliff at some point is 11.1..%

  You have to be careful when tangling with infinity because there are different degrees of “infinity”. A “man on the cliff” taking an infinite number of steps is a constrained infinity. Depending on your interpretation of many-worlds, it’s likely that you’re dealing with a similarly constrained infinity. So “infinite universes” does not imply a guarantee that possibility X will occur.

  That doesn’t mean X WON’T happen. It just means it’s not guaranteed.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 16:29 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  I’ll start with the positive: I understand that there’s a certain “sci-fi bullshit” feel to my original post. I expect that many people will be turned off by the tone of it, and I appreciate the feedback in that regard. If my post comes across as too cosmic and thus causes people to not pay attention to it or dismiss it out of hand, I need to work on that.

  But, I really get the sense that you did not actually read the post and simply skimmed it. The three major points that you made were all either thoroughly addressed preemptively in my post, or thoroughly inapplicable.

  RE your collection problem: Collect what? There is no empirically-validated working model for consciousness, you do not know what you need to collect.

  I know that there is no empirically proven model for consciousness, which is why I explicitly said “the brain” is meant as a hypothesis, not the answer. Implicit in solving the Collection Problem is correctly creating a valid model.

  In what sense would a simulation of your physiology constitute immortality? etc. etc. etc.

  I was quite specific about wanting to avoid the “Is simulated consciousness the same as real consciousness debate”. I acknowledged it as a potential solution, and further acknowledged it may not be the correct solution, then went on to explain why it didn’t matter. Let’s say you are correct regarding your criticism of simulation as a valid means of reproducing consciousness. It doesn’t change the nature of the Creation Problem. The problem still exists, and an answer still exists.

  What is the argument that you’d be able to create… a brain or mind from that static image?

  That is, quite literally, a rephrasing of the Creation Problem (“Once we have that information, how do we create a physical representation of it?”) I don’t have an answer to that question. If I did, it wouldn’t be a “problem”.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 16:41 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  The root cause is disagreement among the living over how to use resources.

  If humans didn’t need resources to live, why would there be any disagreement?

  edit: Didn’t realize I posted this. I folded this point into my above post.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 16:49 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  Again, I’ll start with the good. Anything stylistically that causes people to immediately disregard my writing without actually reading it should be avoided at all costs. So thank you for pointing this out to me. Next time I will not lead with an incidental sweeping statement that has the potential to derail someone’s train of thought. And I’m not being a smartass here, I do appreciate you telling me why you stopped reading, rather than simply downvoting.

  But that said, if you had literally just read the very next sentence you would have seen that we are actually on the same page here. Of course most ethical dilemmas are centered around resources. But if no one died due to starvation, we wouldn’t be having any disagreement as to whether or not it’s okay to steal a loaf of bread to save one’s starving family.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 17:08 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  That’s very true. In that regard the Man on the Cliff probably wasn’t the best example. It was meant to show that infinite iterations does not guarantee an infinite possibility set or that all possibilities will be realized. So in this context, the MWI doesn’t guarantee that any scenario you can envision is happening in an alternate world.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 17:41 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  Sure, I’ll concede that in the edge case that we figure out how to prevent death, and have not in the process, figured out how to eliminate hunger pains (or if Christian Hell exists) then you’re 100% right.

  Either way though, stylistically that was a poor choice of opening sentences on my part. It doesn’t add anything to the piece, and it’s too easy to dispute it, thus distracting from the overall point.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 18:46 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Epictetus’s comment on: A ra­tio­nal ap­proach to the is­sue of per­ma­nent death-prevention

  I agree. And it’s entirely possible that the early stages of this technology would be destructive reads. I tried not to delve too much into the specific mechanisms of each scenario in my post, because as one commenter already pointed out, it already has a bit of a “sci-fi” vibe to it. I think talking about all the different ways we might be able to scan a brain would push it right into that territory.

• Nanashi 11 Feb 2015 23:21 UTC

  3 points

  on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Just gonna throw a suggestion out there:

  Be genuine with your tone. If it doesn’t sound like something you’d actually say out loud, don’t say it. Or at least come up with a different way to say it that’s not all BS-y.

  People aren’t stupid, they know when you’re being phony even they don’t realize they know it. For example the OP kinda comes across a little affected, which is why I think people are down voting it. (I didn’t, by the way). Someone said that the confident tone doesn’t match the subject matter, and I agree with that 100%

• Nanashi 12 Feb 2015 11:38 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: b1shop’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Don’t get me wrong, I think most of what you suggested was actually pretty useful. That’s why I was a bit surprised that your post got down voted so quickly and heavily. Once I read through it again, that’s when I noticed the tone came across weird.

  PS. I wouldn’t get discouraged by people who are pointing out all these edge cases where your suggestions are wrong. If a “guide” is helpful, say, 80% of the time, I think that’s a pretty good start.

• Nanashi 12 Feb 2015 11:49 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: polymathwannabe’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Your post is more correct than the OP. But it’s also less helpful. You point out that there are exceptions to pretty much all of the OP’s suggestions, which is totally true. But it would be useful if you pointed out examples of what some of those exceptions actually are.

• Nanashi 12 Feb 2015 12:07 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Kindly’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Let me try to argue for the opposite: keep as many words as you can. I have found the strategy of keeping words superior when writing exposition on a dense topic.

  This realllllllllly depends on your goal. If it’s persuasion (e.g. a recommendation, a proposal, a bid, an argument), then it would be a good idea to remember that brevity implies confidence, and confidence is persuasive. Also, the more incidental points you make, the more likely it is your audience will get hung up on one of those points instead of what you’re actually talking about.

Some sec­ondary statis­tics from the re­sults of LW Survey

• Nanashi 12 Feb 2015 17:23 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: Some sec­ondary statis­tics from the re­sults of LW Survey

  On the LW Survey: “How much money, in number of dollars, have you donated to charity over the past year?” On the IRS Report: A list of what they consider a charity is here: http://​​nccsweb.urban.org/​​nonprofit-overview.php

• Nanashi 12 Feb 2015 19:10 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Some sec­ondary statis­tics from the re­sults of LW Survey

  Good catch; that axtually applies to both graphs. I will need to drag up some numbers on how many households have two income earners (as that is the only case where it would differ from the current setup). Of course, in absence of individual earner data broken out by age and income bracket (which I don’t think is out there), any attempt to adjust will be just a guess.

  Before I go out and try to find data, I’ll say in advance the method and hypothesis: take the % of overall tax returns that involve two income owners. Increass the sample by that much: if 20% of 100 households have dual earners, that accounts for 120 total individual income earners. I predict that it will bring the national average down to be much more comparable with LW’s stats.

  (Forgive poor style, typing this from my phone)

• Nanashi 12 Feb 2015 20:56 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Some sec­ondary statis­tics from the re­sults of LW Survey

  Looks like ~29% of households are dual-income. Meaning we would need to adjust the mean income and contributions for the “US Household” columns by a factor of 1.29. The contributions/​income stay the same though.

  There’s really not a good on-the-fly adjustment one could make for the median measurements. The best approximation I could come up with was 15%, (which is the national median househould income divided by the national median individual income).

  I have updated the original post with these adjusted numbers. It looks like my hypothesis was incorrect. An average LWer makes less and donate less than the average American.

  Note: I know this is not a perfect method for transforming household income into individual income. But after two iterations, the end result is much the same, and I really don’t like the idea of creating ad hoc methodologies just because I don’t like the results.