Unreal

• Unreal 29 Feb 2020 3:12 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: elityre’s comment on: Coron­avirus: Jus­tified Prac­ti­cal Ad­vice Thread

  This ar­ti­cle at­tempts to an­swer this: https://​​medium.com/​​@adamgries/​​how-to-de­cide-when-to-take-pre­cau­tion­ary-ac­tion-about-coro­n­avirus-covid-19-and-what-to-do-an-78d8bf231ebb

  Quot­ing from it:

  The United States: how COVID-19 could play out

  The US cur­rently has 15 con­firmed COVID-19 in­fec­tions but what we want to know is the num­ber of in­fected at large.

  Let’s try to es­ti­mate this num­ber.

  Around 3M Chi­nese visit the US an­nu­ally not count­ing other for­eign­ers or Amer­i­can cit­i­zens who travel to China and re­turn.

  Be­fore US Borders were closed to China trav­el­ers the virus was already preva­lent for at least ~14 days dur­ing which in­fected peo­ple trav­eled freely.

  That im­plies at least 115,068 vis­i­tors who had re­cently been to China en­tered the US from Jan 9th — Jan 23rd. To guess how many may have been in­fected I noted that China’s ini­tial quaran­tine area en­com­passes 60M peo­ple which is 1/​23rd of China’s pop­u­la­tion.

  There­fore ~5,000 sus­pected per­sons ar­rived in the US from af­fected ar­eas. As­sum­ing the in­fec­tion rate was around 0.5%, we can guess there were around 25 in­fected peo­ple at large by Jan­uary 23rd. But which 25 of the 5,000??

  Note: some in­fected may con­tinue to come in from China but only if they are US per­ma­nent res­i­dents or cit­i­zens (and they are forcibly quaran­tined in mil­i­tary in­stal­la­tions). The US does not cur­rently limit ar­rivals from Thailand or Sin­ga­pore how­ever, as op­posed to Is­rael, which was the first to an­nounce such limits to­day.

  In an as­sertive sce­nario the US gov­ern­ment would track down all 5,000 sus­pected in­fec­tions above as well as any­body they in­ter­acted with and put them all in quaran­tine.

  I have heard no re­ports in that vein and be­lieve it’s likely not the case. On the other hand, there have been re­ports of dan­ger­ous mis­takes, such as in­cor­rectly re­mov­ing an in­fected per­son from a hos­pi­tal in San Diego.

  Even worse, we can’t tell how many peo­ple are now in­fected but don’t have a rea­son to sus­pect they have it. They may have been around an asymp­tomatic in­fected per­son who came from Wuhan or touched a con­tam­i­nated sur­face.

  If in fact COVID-19’s “asymp­tomatic R0” is over 1, a sin­gle in­fected per­son would start an epi­demic cas­cade. I think it is highly prob­a­bly this is hap­pen­ing now but that we are in the early stages of the ex­po­nen­tial curve and there­fore the prob­lem is in­visi­ble.

  Fur­ther­more, be­cause most cases are mild, in­fected per­sons may be mis­di­ag­nosed or not seek treat­ment. The virus may go through 5–10 growth cy­cles be­fore we re­al­ize a city out­break is un­der­way.

  Once it’s clear there is an out­break in say Colum­bus, OH, it’s hard to say how many peo­ple the lo­cal in­fected per­sons have already spread the dis­ease to and it will be hard to find them all.

  That’s one rea­son why the CDC in­structed med­i­cal pro­fes­sion­als across the na­tion to re­port cases of flu-like symp­toms to mon­i­tor­ing cen­ters and also re­leased a di­ag­nos­tic test for COVID-19 that it’s dis­tribut­ing to 115 labs. How­ever, the test was faulty and for now sam­ples are still go­ing to At­lanta, which means re­sults will be de­layed.

  Sadly, a faster act­ing, re­li­able test that could be de­liv­ered to thou­sands of labs will take months to de­velop.

  My take is that if the num­ber of to­tal in­fected (not merely con­firmed in­fected) in a city ex­ceeds a few hun­dred, that city is in trou­ble.

  With 25–100 in­fected peo­ple at large who may be any­where in the US we should be very con­cerned.

  When I would take action

  If my city had more than 15 con­firmed cases, I would take 2nd mea­sures as noted below

  If my city had more than 20 con­firmed cases, which grew to 30 cases or more in less than 10 days, I would take 3rd mea­sures as noted below

  Pre­cau­tions: 1st, 2nd and 3rd Measures

  I’m cur­rently based in San Fran­cisco, a mere few blocks from UCSF, where two con­firmed COVID-19 pa­tients, di­ag­nosed in Santa Clara, were trans­ferred for treat­ment.

  1st Mea­sures (I’ve already taken these)

  Buy six weeks worth of food in case self-quaran­tine is necessary

  Cease at­tend­ing lo­cal group events such as gyms

  Cease us­ing pub­lic trans­porta­tion which I would oth­er­wise do ev­ery other day. In­stead I use my car or Lyft/​Uber

  Pur­chase $350 worth of masks for self and wife. Haven’t found a good solu­tion for daughter

  Avoid air travel to East Asia

  Min­i­mize air travel and when trav­el­ing, carry Lysol wipes to dis­in­fect seat­ing area, avoid us­ing the toi­let, wear a mask for the du­ra­tion of travel. Avoid eat­ing. Drink only from my own bot­tle.

  2nd Measures

  Ex­pand food stocks to 4 months

  Cease all air travel

  Cease eat­ing out at restaurants

  3rd Measures

  Self-quaran­tine for 2 weeks to ob­serve whether things are static or worsen. If in­fected num­bers are static, re­vert to 2nd Mea­sures, oth­er­wise keep self-quaran­tine.

• Unreal 3 Feb 2020 20:48 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Unreal’s comment on: Money isn’t real. When you donate money to a char­ity, how does it ac­tu­ally help?

  Some di­rec­tions I would go with this ques­tion my­self:

  • How does shared cul­tural nar­ra­tive af­fect hu­man be­hav­ior, and is it more re­li­able than money?

  • Can money buy com­mit­ment? Per­sonal de­vel­op­ment? Deep con­fu­sion and ques­tion­ing about one’s eth­i­cal choices?

  • What’s the con­nec­tion be­tween money and re­la­tion­ship-build­ing? (Espe­cially with re­gards to fundrais­ing.)

  • Can money buy co­or­di­na­tion? How much co­or­di­na­tion would it be able to buy? How re­li­able would it be?

  • What is a thing that is NOT money that can re­sult in co­or­di­na­tion, bet­ter shared nar­ra­tives, per­sonal de­vel­op­ment, a com­mit­ment to ethics, etc.?

• Unreal 3 Feb 2020 20:45 UTC

  10 points

  on: Money isn’t real. When you donate money to a char­ity, how does it ac­tu­ally help?

  I just want to say this is the best ques­tion I’ve seen asked on­line in a while.

  I’m sorry this com­ment doesn’t have any­thing much to add other than:

  Wow this ques­tion is amaz­ing, and I wish more peo­ple would ask it, and I’m bet­ter for hav­ing read it. So thank you for ask­ing it.

• Unreal 11 Jan 2020 19:55 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Circling

  My per­sonal un­der­stand­ing of ra­tio­nal­ity is that Ra­tion­al­ity(tm) was always open to be­ing dis­carded along the way to at­tain­ing the 12th virtue.

  If you speak over­much of the Way you will not at­tain it.

  To be clear, I still highly value truth-seek­ing, model-build­ing, win­ning, etc. I just don’t know what ‘ra­tio­nal­ity’ is ac­tu­ally try­ing to re­fer to these days. Maybe it feels small and in­com­plete to me, given my cur­rent per­spec­tives.

• Unreal 8 Jan 2020 19:48 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Cir­cling as Cousin to Rationality

  I feel like Cir­cling isn’t that much stronger than med­i­ta­tion on this par­tic­u­lar axis. You might be char­ac­ter­iz­ing “men­tal uni­verse” as very differ­ent from “in­ter­per­sonal uni­verse,” but to me they’re very similar—be­cause in both cases you have to use your sub­jec­tive ex­pe­rience as the medium of “ev­i­dence de­liv­ery” so to speak.

• Unreal 6 Jan 2020 13:13 UTC

  10 points

  on: Cir­cling as Cousin to Rationality

  I think some­one should maybe write a post de­scribing how med­i­ta­tion is a form of em­piri­cism, and then it should fol­low as a pretty easy corol­lary that Cir­cling is also a form of em­piri­cism.

• Unreal 19 Dec 2019 9:22 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Circling

  I gave some of those de­tails above. I don’t have fur­ther thoughts.

• Unreal 18 Dec 2019 23:53 UTC

  22 points

  on: Circling

  One of the founders of Cir­cling Europe sincerely and apro­pos-of-noth­ing thanked me for writ­ing this post ear­lier this year, which I view as a sign that there were good con­se­quences of me writ­ing this post. My guess is that a bunch of ra­tio­nal­ists found their way to Cir­cling, and it was benefi­cial for peo­ple.

  I’ve heard it said that this is one of the more ra­tio­nal­ist-friendly sum­maries of Cir­cling. I don’t know it’s the best pos­si­ble such, but I think it’s do­ing OK. I would cer­tainly write it differ­ently now, but shrug.

  At this point I’ve done 1000+ hours of Cir­cling, and this post isn’t that far off from what I cur­rently be­lieve about Cir­cling.

  I’m less clear on the con­nec­tion be­tween Cir­cling and ‘ra­tio­nal­ity’ be­cause I have lost some touch with what ‘ra­tio­nal­ity’ is, and I think the con­cept ‘ra­tio­nal­ity’ is less per­son­ally mean­ingful to me now.

  I do be­lieve that Cir­cling has a deep con­nec­tion to epistemics, be­lief for­ma­tion, and be­lief up­dat­ing, and can teach us many things about how those things work. Similar to med­i­ta­tion, Cir­cling can guide peo­ple to un­der­stand­ing per­cep­tion and see­ing through their own per­cep­tions (the lens that sees its lens that sees its lens etc).

  I be­lieve the pit­falls are still more or less ac­cu­rate, but I wouldn’t quite frame them the way I did. I think I was cater­ing to a ra­tio­nal­ist au­di­ence then. But yeah I don’t re­ally per­son­ally agree with the per­spec­tive I took.

  RE: how to learn about Cir­cling. Right now I would recom­mend heav­ily peo­ple start with some­thing like Aletheia or In­te­gral-style Cir­cling and then go on to try offi­cial Cir­cling Europe events in Austin or SAS. Or maybe on­line at Cir­cle Any­where. For my first ex­pe­rience, I would try go­ing to ‘offi­cial’ events and avoid ‘wild west’ style events /​ events with in­de­pen­dent fa­cil­i­ta­tors. That’s my per­sonal opinion.

• Unreal 6 Dec 2019 5:38 UTC

  15 points

  on: The Main Mus­cles of Move­ment, Dy­namic Align­ment & Balance.

  I ap­pre­ci­ate see­ing this post here! I am very in­ter­ested in this sort of topic, gen­er­ally.

  I’m con­fused why the post has such a low karma score. If noth­ing else, it seems like a use­ful refer­ence for hu­man anatomy.

  One thing this post suffers from is, like, it’s over­whelming for a noob to look at. Per­son­ally I’d much rather just hire some­one to teach me all this in per­son, if at all pos­si­ble.

  That said, it still seems like a great refer­ence for parts of hu­man anatomy, and it con­tains a very in­ter­est­ing hy­poth­e­sis. I wish LessWrong talked more about this stuff, as it seems very im­por­tant for hu­mans and how hu­mans think.

  Writ­ing about any­thing RE: biol­ogy, life, anatomy, etc. seems difficult be­cause it’s all very 3D in na­ture, and it’s best to have good vi­su­al­iza­tions. Which are not always available. That said, I am grate­ful that you put all this to­gether. It seems like it took a lot of work. And I hope to see more in the fu­ture.

• Unreal 5 Dec 2019 19:38 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: catherio’s comment on: 3 Cul­tural In­fras­truc­ture Ideas from MAPLE

  Worth not­ing here that the Sched­ule at MAPLE is very con­ducive for cre­at­ing these low-stakes con­texts. In fact, in­side the Sched­ule, you are always in such a con­text…

  There is a world-sav­ing mis­sion at MAPLE, but at MAPLE, it does not define peo­ple’s worth or whether they de­serve care /​ at­ten­tion or whether they be­long in the com­mu­nity. I think the is­sue with both the EA and ra­tio­nal­ist com­mu­nity is that peo­ple’s “out­put” is too eas­ily tied to their sense of worth. I could prob­a­bly write many words on this phe­nomenon in the Bay com­mu­nity.

  It is hard to con­vey in mere words what MAPLE has man­aged to do here. There is a clearer sep­a­ra­tion be­tween “your cur­rent out­put level” and “your de­serv­ing-ness /​ wor­thi­ness as a hu­man.” It was startling to ex­pe­rience this sep­a­ra­tion oc­cur­ring on a visceral level within me. Now I’m much more grounded, self-con­fi­dent, and less likely to take things per­son­ally, and this shift feels per­ma­nent and also on­go­ing.

• Unreal 3 Dec 2019 18:19 UTC

  13 points

  on: Circling

  Upon re-read­ing this post, I want to re­view this sen­tence:

  In my ex­pe­rience, be­ing in an SNS-ac­ti­vated state re­ally primes me for new in­for­ma­tion in a way that be­ing calm (PSNS ac­ti­va­tion) does not.

  I think this is true still, but I also sus­pect be­ing in a cer­tain calm, open PSNS state is also good for in­te­grat­ing new in­for­ma­tion.

  I don’t un­der­stand this fully yet. But some things:

  • Many ther­a­peu­tic modal­ities at­tempt to get me into a par­tic­u­lar open, peace­ful, “all-see­ing”, per­cep­tive state. Often re­lated to com­pas­sion + cu­ri­os­ity. Referred to as “Self” in IFS. From here, I have been able to in­te­grate many things that were pre­vi­ously “too hard” or “over­whelming.”

  • In Cir­cling, I have some­times been ba­si­cally do­ing CoZE and go­ing right up to the fence of my fears. Maybe look­ing at some­one ac­tively car­ing about me /​ un­der­stand­ing me while I feel shame /​ fear /​ self-judg­ment. For me, this is a very ac­ti­vat­ing situ­a­tion, like reach­ing the peak of a rol­ler coaster. From here, I have made some of my biggest up­dates /​ ex­pe­rienced my largest re­leases. And I at­tributed that to the level of ac­ti­va­tion /​ fear, in con­trast with the “drop”—there’s this big jux­ta­po­si­tion be­tween my feared/​pro­jected/​sto­ried re­al­ity and what is hap­pen­ing in front of me right now.

  Th­ese phe­nom­ena are mostly still mys­tery to me.

• Unreal 27 Nov 2019 23:05 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: 3 Cul­tural In­fras­truc­ture Ideas from MAPLE

  I think growth-train­ing pro­grams ac­tu­ally do work for the former.

  E.g. My CFAR work­shop wasn’t some­thing I de­cided to go to be­cause I was think­ing about train­ing lead­er­ship. But it none-the-less helped un­lock some of this “en­try level lead­er­ship” thing. Much of the same hap­pens with Cir­cling and other work­shops that help un­block peo­ple.

  So far what seems to work here is train­ing pro­grams that do any kind of de­vel­op­men­tal train­ing /​ lev­el­ing up. Ideally they work on you re­gard­less of what stage you hap­pen to be and just help pro­pel you to the next stage.

  Of course, not all the peo­ple who go through those pro­grams end up in­ter­ested in lead­er­ship, but this is prob­a­bly fine, and I sus­pect try­ing to pre-screen for ‘lead­er­ship po­ten­tial’ is a waste of effort, and you should just ride se­lec­tion effects. (Similar to how peo­ple who em­i­grate cor­re­late with hav­ing skill, re­source­ful­ness, and gump­tion.)

• Unreal 27 Nov 2019 22:23 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: 3 Cul­tural In­fras­truc­ture Ideas from MAPLE

  I feel very com­pel­led by this! I would love to help figure out how to ap­proach this bot­tle­neck. I have some ideas.

  My sense is that there are some use­ful fun­nels already in place that one could take ad­van­tage of for find­ing po­ten­tial peo­ple, and there are effec­tive, growth-y train­ing pro­grams one could also take ad­van­tage of. There are maybe bot­tle­necks in money + space in spe­cific train­ing pro­grams + get­ting the right peo­ple to the right train­ing pro­grams.

• Unreal 27 Nov 2019 20:37 UTC

  9 points

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: 3 Cul­tural In­fras­truc­ture Ideas from MAPLE

  It feels tractable to me. I feel like there are lots of lev­ers to play around with.

  Pie­ces I sus­pect may be load-bear­ing:

  • Hon­est se­lec­tion effects. This means send­ing ac­cu­rate, hon­est mes­sages, to at­tract peo­ple who are good fits and pass un­der the radar of those who aren’t. (With some flex­i­bil­ity at the edges, as some peo­ple might be on the fence /​ seem like not-fits but only on the sur­face; those peo­ple can run some cheap ex­per­i­ments, like vis­it­ing for a few days.)

  • There needs to be a big­ger point to it all. I don’t think this can all just be for the sake of “my own health” or “I feel less stress with a sched­ule” or some­thing like this. Th­ese per­sonal mo­ti­va­tions don’t stand up to enough pres­sure. At MAPLE, ev­ery­thing is ul­ti­mately for the sake of train­ing awak­en­ing and lead­er­ship. You signed up in or­der to grow in these ways, and so you’re de­vot­ing your­self to the train­ing. And more than that, the point of train­ing is to be­come a per­son who can help oth­ers /​ do good things when you leave—some­one who can be of benefit, be re­li­able, is trust­wor­thy, is com­pas­sion­ate. You’ll sac­ri­fice some op­tion­al­ity if there’s an in­spiring, higher pur­pose to the sac­ri­fice. If it only feels like “well I guess I could give up on some sleep in or­der to ex­er­cise be­cause it’s good for me...?”, then it could of­ten go ei­ther way. When there’s a higher pur­pose that’s big­ger than me, there’s always a North Star to be fol­low­ing, even if I’m not always on track.

  • Rea­son­able, skil­lful lead­er­ship. This thing prob­a­bly doesn’t work very well if de­ci­sions are all based on con­sen­sus or some­thing. So you’d want to find at least a few pretty re­li­able, trust­wor­thy, rea­son­able peo­ple to lead /​ hold the im­por­tant roles. Power should be spread around, but it seems fine for there to be a “fi­nal say-so” per­son, who ex­er­cises end-of-the-line power, but does so in­fre­quently. There are var­i­ous ways to play with this. The im­por­tant thing is hav­ing a few good lead­ers (maybe even just one? but this feels less ro­bust to me), who peo­ple would be will­ing to fol­low, and they should di­vide roles be­tween them in a sen­si­ble way. One per­son can be end-of-the-line de­ci­sion-maker tie-breaker (prob­a­bly the per­son with the Vi­sion).

  • Us­ing com­mit­ments wisely. If the lead­ers all have buy-in (be­cause they put in the most effort, money, etc.), but the fol­low­ers don’t, the thing will prob­a­bly fall apart. Get com­mit­ments from peo­ple, prefer­ably in writ­ing. And then make sure com­mit­ments re­ally mean some­thing, in gen­eral. In­clude in­tegrity in your list of virtues. Lead­ers should con­sis­tently demon­strate they care about com­mit­ments (big or small) and that when they them­selves break com­mit­ments, they take that se­ri­ously. Peo­ple should not break their com­mit­ments, but also they shouldn’t be shamed if they do. A bro­ken com­mit­ment is like a death. It’s no one’s fault, but it’s also worth try­ing to pre­vent. Oc­ca­sion­ally, it may be cor­rect to break a com­mit­ment, but there should be an ac­knowl­edge­ment of its sub­op­ti­mal­ity (e.g. per­haps it should have been differ­ently made origi­nally, or never made).

  • Feed­back cul­ture. It should be wel­come and en­couraged and also nor­mal to give and re­ceive feed­back from each other, daily. Ideal feed­back should be kindly given, rather than given out of an­noy­ance, su­pe­ri­or­ity, dis­ap­point­ment, sham­ing, or guilt­ing. Feed­back is ideally re­ceived as a gift. It is OK to fail in giv­ing/​re­ceiv­ing feed­back well, be­cause peo­ple can give feed­back on how you give/​re­ceive feed­back. At MAPLE, it’s part of the writ­ten com­mit­ment that you will give/​re­ceive feed­back. (Part of me sus­pects this works so well at MAPLE be­cause of the med­i­ta­tion train­ing, which helps peo­ple feel more equani­mous and calms egoic re­ac­tivity. If med­i­ta­tion train­ing is im­por­tant for grow­ing the skill of giv­ing/​re­ceiv­ing feed­back ease­fully, that might be a ma­jor con­straint.)

  • Fi­nan­cial vi­a­bil­ity. One thing about Dragon Army that I didn’t like was that Dun­can seemed to be hold­ing most of the fi­nan­cial bur­den, and his will­ing­ness and abil­ity to provide fi­nan­cial sup­port seemed cruxy to the thing stay­ing afloat. Now I un­der­stand bet­ter that it’s pos­si­ble to fundraise for pro­jects like this and also ap­ply for grants. My sense now is that if peo­ple don’t want to give you money for such a pro­ject, maybe it’s bet­ter to just not do it? On the other hand, if your pro­ject has vi­sion­ary and trust­wor­thy lead­er­ship—then you can prob­a­bly find peo­ple in­ter­ested in fund­ing it, even if they’re not di­rectly in­volved. If your pro­ject is in­spiring and benefi­cial to oth­ers, you’ll prob­a­bly find donors. I think it’s bet­ter not to rely on the re­sid­ing com­mu­nity mem­bers as the only source of fi­nan­cial sup­port. (Lev­er­age seems to work this way?)

3 Cul­tural In­fras­truc­ture Ideas from MAPLE

• Unreal 17 Aug 2019 18:40 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Zack_M_Davis’s comment on: Par­tial sum­mary of de­bate with Ben­quo and Jes­si­cata [pt 1]

  I see great need for some way to in­di­cate “not-an-ac­ci­dent but also not nec­es­sar­ily con­scious or en­dorsed.” And ideally the term doesn’t have a judg­men­tal or ac­cusatory con­no­ta­tion.

  This seems pretty hard to do ac­tu­ally. Maybe an acronym?

  Alice lied (NIANOA) to Bob about X.

  Not In­ten­tion­ally And Not On Accident

• Unreal 13 Aug 2019 17:36 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Ma­chine Learn­ing Anal­ogy for Meditation

  Thanks! This was helpful anal­y­sis.

  I sus­pect my slight trig­ger (1/​10) set off other peo­ple’s trig­gers. And I’m more trig­gered now as a re­sult (but still only like ³⁄₁₀.)

  I’d like to save this thread as an ex­am­ple of a broader pat­tern I think I see on LW, which makes hav­ing con­ver­sa­tions here more un­pleas­ant than is prob­a­bly nec­es­sary? Not sure though.

• Unreal 13 Aug 2019 14:52 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Ma­chine Learn­ing Anal­ogy for Meditation

  I ac­knowl­edge that it’s likely some­how be­cause of how I worded things in my origi­nal com­ment. I wish I knew how to fix it.

• Unreal 12 Aug 2019 21:21 UTC

  12 points

  in reply to: habryka’s comment on: Ma­chine Learn­ing Anal­ogy for Meditation

  Yeah I’m not im­ply­ing that Sys­tem 2 is use­less or ir­rele­vant for ac­tions. Just that it seems more in­di­rect or sec­ondary.

  Also please note that over­all I’m prob­a­bly con­fused about some­thing, as I men­tioned. And my com­ments are not meant to open up con­flict, but rather I’m re­quest­ing a clar­ifi­ca­tion on this par­tic­u­lar sen­tence and what frame /​ on­tol­ogy it’s us­ing:

  If you’re ex­pe­rienc­ing “mo­ti­va­tional is­sues”, then it stands to rea­son that it might be use­ful to keep an eye on which thoughts are lead­ing to ac­tions and which are not.

  I would like to ex­pand the words ‘thoughts’ and ‘use­ful’ here.

  Peo­ple seem to be re­spond­ing to me as though I’m try­ing to start an ar­gu­ment, and this is re­ally not what I’m go­ing for. Shar­ing my POV is just to try to help close in­fer­en­tial gap in the right di­rec­tion.

• Unreal 12 Aug 2019 14:44 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Ma­chine Learn­ing Anal­ogy for Meditation

  Hmmm. No.

  Ba­si­cally, as far as I know, Sys­tem 1 is more or less di­rectly re­spon­si­ble for all ac­tions.

  You can pre­dict what ac­tions a per­son will take BEFORE they are men­tally con­scious of it at all. You can do this by mea­sur­ing gal­vanic skin re­sponse or watch­ing their brain ac­tivity.

  The men­tally con­scious part hap­pens sec­ond.

  But like, I’m guess­ing for some rea­son, what I’m say­ing here is already ob­vi­ous, and Abram just means some­thing else, and I’m try­ing to figure out what.