Just because you don’t remember something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect you. (Just because you don’t know X about yourself, doesn’t mean the sentence “you possess the property X” isn’t true.)
going online and fishing around for functional substitutes,
setting up GoFundMe pages,
This sounds like something that people who can read this article (online) can do.
Since no one else seems to be answering this question...
Other humans’ values have much in common with our own, and if the world were completely destroyed, no life could arise from it again. (Also, not everyone around here is worried about paperclips. Aside from worry, there is also the question of which one you can affect more.) I am not sure what you mean by “worse-than-existential threat”, and would be interested in hearing more about this, and why you believe religion is significantly heritable.
You might find this interesting: The Flynn effect.
The Table of Contents is an amazing idea.
I feel like I must be missing something in my understanding of Solomonoff induction.
Compare the length of the description “a witch did it” + (a description of it), and the description by itself. It is worth noting that a lot of ideas or activities humans think of as simple are really complicated, and things people think of as really complicated can be really simple—especially if they’re counterintuitive.
Thanks for the NVC example.
Did you miss more pings before or after? (Or no affect?)
May have high engagement because it’s a social game, and that sucks people in. Maybe that helps things get done because more people are engaged, maybe it’s more counter-productive.
More examples from RAZ: applause lights, and discussion of 1984.
In a sentence: If it’s aligned, and things go wrong, maybe you can still turn it off.
Transhumanism imposes on territory that’s traditionally been metaphysical or philosophical. The assumption is that it does so because of or in accompaniment with metaphysical or philosophical reasoning.
I see how it follows that it will be “attacked” on such grounds.
I don’t follow why “thinks differently” implies “neurological differences”. Why should we suppose it is hardware rather than software? I would be interested in seeing those studies, as well.
As it has always been a part of my experience, I don’t know what its absence from my experience would be like, and whether I would prefer this state. I don’t like headaches, and I enjoy in person communication. I also view Irreversible Changes as risky.
in a community where friends are more replaceable
Wouldn’t this help people open up? If you’re worried about losing people you might try to be more careful. If the replacement cost of something is lower, then you can afford to take more risks.
I grew up in a culture where “fuck you” is actually a fairly important and common part of communication, and removing it results in the sort of language you’d use towards 10 year olds.
This culture sounds interesting.
(I’ve wondered how much more productive things could be if “Shut up” was a part of language that everyone used and it wasn’t rude.)
far-reaching unity doesn’t seem to exist.
What do you mean by far-reaching unity?
Also, great post. (Here are some of my thoughts that seem related.) There are a number of frameworks I’ve seen for conflict:
1. Fundamental Value Differences. (Someone is 100% against criticism? What happened to Free Speech?)
Failure: And then people go to war (or flame war) because they have just discovered the world contains evil—people who do not share their values. (Or signal in-group-ness.)
A suggested solution: if you really disagree with someone, try living on separate islands, so you won’t fight each other. (Separate communities based around “Happiness (no criticism)” and “Free Speech” which allow people to come and go.)
2. “Language.” Sometimes other people use it differently, and so they misunderstand what you say, because if they were saying what you mean, they’d say it differently (or they’d never say something like that). (I actually think this is about “Culture”s − 1) being open to criticism versus 2) viewing it as a an attack 2a) unless it comes with a proposed solution. 3) Proposed solutions are viewed as criticisms of the person who came up with the prior, imperfect solutions/whatever.)
Failure: And then someone proposes that we solve the problem of people miscommunicating because they’re using different systems by forcing everyone to move to the speaker’s preferred system. This then sets people off because “it’s censorship” / being forced to talk in a foreign language means they can’t express themselves.
A suggested solution: work on coming up with ways to communicate more effectively with everyone (1 language) or several “intermediate languages”. (Come up with a way for Culture A to talk to culture B—an AB language?)
3. Different People come from different backgrounds/have had different experiences, so since they’ve been in places with different problems/have experienced different problems, and this is why people are focused on different issues/have different focuses. Since the world has more than one problem, people being worried about different problems happens.
3a) Different People may have different problems.
Failure: And somehow people end up fighting over what’s most important and no/less work gets done.
4) Common Knowledge Problems. Shakespeare-like Tragedies are the result of miscommunication. It’s important to reach a consensus / get everyone on the same page.
Failure: and consensus is reaching by splitting up into highly polarized groups that fight each other to the death. The group that survives will be filled with purpose, and possess the skills and experience necessary to conquer the world...
EDIT: If anyone has other frameworks or comments on such, please comment.
Could a blockchain system eliminate bias within the proctoring committee?
(I understand how the blockchain can be used for currency*, or perhaps like a decentralized google docs**, but “eliminating bias” I don’t get. (Though that would be really amazing.)
*blockchain keeps track of how much money there is
blockchain keeps track of who has been given permission to view documents
Are the Sequences being re-run?
At a guess—there may be a difference in skill/s required to make the really good decisions versus telling if decisions aren’t the best, or are “motivated”.
I use it occasionally.
In your post, after where it says:
Given these, let’s imagine a few situations:
There is a list that’s numbered: