I have to say this discussion has me intrigued. Feel free to post the results of the discussion here. I am interested in hearing how it all turns out.
rysade
Karma: 183
Sorry, that was a bit of a dense quip on my part. Let me deconstruct it.
I got the impression SithMasterSean was deriving his idea of Nietzsche’s writings from other people’s interpretations of Nietzsche’s writings. Typically those ideas seem to be flat wrong. From what I understand, the Nazis seem to be the most famous misinterpreters Nietzsche, so I thought I’d make a bit of a joke about that, and also try to make a bit of comedic use out of argumentum ad hitlerum while I was at it.
Really, I was just joking around.
What really seems to pay off on LW is clarity, clarity, clarity. I kick myself every time something like this happens. Sorry.
I might be stepping in over my head here, and I want to make it clear I am taking NO ONE’S side. But this seems like a legitimate concern to me. Are we really here for the community, or are we really here for the truth? Which configuration of power best serves the community, and which best serves truth?
EDIT: Given the vast amount of very clear thinking I’m seeing in these comments, I want to say I don’t really see this thread as the most appropriate place to pose a question like mine anymore. If I see a real Truth vs.Community controversy, you can expect this comment to appear there.
I can agree with this. There was a time when I considered ‘a conversation with a random person’ to be more or less a dangerous situation. It took a lot of brain hacking to get myself out of THAT.
Okay. I think that perhaps you could benefit from reading R. J. Hollingdale’s biography, Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy
Nietzsche’s language may be controversial, but his points are quite benign. Take Will to Power for example. As I’m interpreting Will to Power right now with my limited exposure to his writings, Will to Power is just his explanation for why living beings don’t just stop at mere survival. Think about it: Evolution does not favor those who do the mere minimum for survival, it favors those who excel. Will to Power is therefore the foundation, basis, and cause of all life in an ultimate sense. You could say Richard Dawkins restated Nietzsche’s point when Dawkins coined the term ‘The Selfish Gene’ and elaborated on how life really works at a basic level.
The following is running the risk of stepping into mere speculation because, like I said, I haven’t read all his works yet:
Since we are ‘gene machines,’ and we are programmed by them in countless ways, it follows that we are inherently selfish; that we have a Will to Power of our own. Sit down and watch people sometime and you’ll find this plays out fairly nicely. It’s not perfect of course, but who are we to say that the deviant behavior of selflessness is ‘good’ if the true cause of life is selfishness? This plays into his arguments concerning ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and how transient they both are. All cultures, Nietzsche says, have had different values and the cultures of the future will have values different from us. Perhaps what we should be doing is exercising some of our power to ‘revalue all values,’ something that he admitted he was not up to the task of. To be honest, I think he was mostly thinking in the same direction the transhumanist community of today largely thinks in. We DO need to revalue all values. We need someone SMARTER than us to do it...
Though I probably should have said this at the beginning, I still highly doubt Nietzsche’s methods. He does not seem to have followed the rationalist’s path. He was a classical philologist by education and an artistic biographer for much of his writing career. What I’m saying is, maybe he didn’t have rigor at the heart of his philosophy. It’s easy to get the impression from his writing style that this is all just stuff he ‘made up.’ But I don’t know. I plan on finding out.
P.S. SithMasterSean, Nietzsche’s writing has been praised by Nazis. You wouldn’t want to be a Nazi, would you?!
I’m working on coming up with my own advice for you, chimera. First, I would like to ask some questions.
What prompted this post? Have these concerns always been with you, but have recently found a voice? Alternatively, did you realize that you had these problems as a result of something you read on Less Wrong or some other recent event?
I get the impression that you posted this after realizing that you were in a funk and had no idea how to get out. How long have you felt the way that you felt when you posted this, or if you feel that way still, the way you feel now?
What about the time leading up to this funk? Did you feel that were accomplished, progressing in your life, accomplishing your goals? Do you feel that you recently lost an important part of yourself, as if a bit of your self image was dissolved?
In the last year or so, has anything changed in your physical surroundings or routine? These will be keys to discovering why you feel the way you do.
I’m a fan of moving forward, just like everyone on Less Wrong, but it’s likely the proximate cause of your situation will give us a hint at it’s ultimate cause, and may point us in the direction of a solution.
Ouch. Halfway through that list I started wincing. A lot of what chimera has said resonates with me, and plenty of your observations fit me as well!
Chimera, I can say that lots of the advice so far on this topic are things I tried and they worked like charms. I mean ‘charm’ quite literally. It was like magic.
That’s interesting. I’m reading Thus Spake Zarathustra right now and noticing a couple things that don’t exactly jive too well with our rationalist paradigm here. Still, I didn’t expect a comment like this to be downvoted this much based on what I’ve read from Nietzsche so far.
Is it mostly because of the antisocial tone of this comment, or is it Nietzsche himself that caused the downvotes?
I can say that the ‘reward system’ is laughably easy to defeat as long as you are aware of it’s existence. Hint: the winning move is not to play.
Your typical game based on a reward system will cater to those who are playing the game for the lever, while other games will cater to other other audiences. They are pretty easy to spot.
I consider the primary use of video games to be a kind of virtual sport, with rules for victory, guidelines for possible and impossible actions, etc. Other wonderful uses are as a storytelling medium, a virtual world to explore or exploit, or three dimensional puzzles.
Seconded. As someone who plays a fair amount of First Person Shooter games, I can tell you that there are all types of games and all types of players. The popular Call of Duty games are pretty good examples of life-wasting time sinks. They require little skill and less strategy. However, the recently released Halo: Reach is a deep game with satisfying multiplayer combat that continues to surprise me as I progress in skill. Anyone who is interested in competition and outside the box thinking should definitely take up playing games online. They require speed, accuracy, strategy, teamwork and most of all creativity.
I agree. I think this will be changing my writing style subtly.
While I understand that this risks making the site more complicated, I suppose it’s at least worth suggesting that we move the links to a separate section of the site altogether. It could be “Main, Discussion, Links” for example. Or maybe the Discussion menu could expand to “Posts, Comments, Links.”
Would the bump happen because of a comment, because of karma, or because of both?
I would like to avoid the diseased Facebook sorting algorithm at all costs here. Some arbitrary assessment of posts and karma should not be used to bring topics to the top.
Perhaps we could make it possible to select from a list sorted by most recent comment, most recent karma and most recent post?
You’re welcome.
I’m interested in analyzing a Google spreadsheet like this one is linked to. I use a form like this for a daily self-survey. Are there any tricks you know of to analyze the data on these things bit more effectively than just reading through them? The charts feature on Google Docs seems a little weak.
BTW, filled out the survey. It’s nice but the last ‘blank field’ type question is a duplicate.
I concur.
The beginning of games typically have next to no worthwhile activities.
Wired’s article on the making of Halo 3 describes the process of leading the player along a set path using ‘no return’ strategies exactly like the one displayed here. The motive for doing so in Bungie’s case was to make it so the player did not get confused and wander around endlessly. In this case, the no return strategy is supposed to be symbolic of something, of an irrecoverable loss. However, if nothing is being lost, then it fails to symbolize in any meaningful way.
I would say in order to get the ledge to symbolize that loss meaningfully, you’ll have to fill the beginning of the game with worthwhile and engaging activities. Mini-games if you will. That way, falling down the ledge will be a kind of ‘Ender burrowing through the Giant’s eye’ sort of moment. It will move the game past the time-wasting distractions of the beginning and it can start to take on real meaning.
Now, I definitely don’t want to introduce any elements of scope creep into your development, but I do think that if you want to tell the story you are trying to tell, then there has to be something for the player to give up.
Alright. That makes sense.
Sort of like changing your name through common usage.
I hate to comment before reading the body of your post, but the title of the post quite literally says “Friendly Artificial Intelligence Frequently Asked Questions Questions.”
I’m just pointing it out to get it out of the way, though… It doesn’t really bug me that much.
The main thing I think folks are objecting to here is the idea of ‘swallowing the NLP pill.’
You’ll see plenty of self hacks and hacks that work on others (dark arts, etc) but none of it will be labeled NLP. I imagine plenty of the techniques we have here were even inspired in one way or another by NLP.
But here’s my main point. We have kept our ideas’ scope down for a reason. We DO NOT WANT lukeprog’s How To Be Happy to sound authoritative. The reason for that is if it turns out to be ‘more wrong’ it will be that much easier to let go of.
Introducing the label NLP to our discussions will lend (for some of us) a certain amount of Argument from Authority to the supporters of whoever takes the NLP side, and we really do not want that.
I agree that phlogiston was not likely thought of as a mysterious answer at the time. I think that what justifies calling it a mysterious answer today is that we could justifiably notice that we are confused.
Whether it’s confusing quality is a good reason to categorize it as a mysterious answer is a different issue, however.