Unreal

Karma: 2,918

Unreal 14 Jan 2026 21:51 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Richard_Ngo’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Would it be terribly rude for me to point out that … you guys are making up a lot of shit about Buddhism? It’s like stumbling into a meetup of Creationists randomly speculating about physics and biology. It’s so far removed that it isn’t worth correcting you. You should just scrap it and start over. Or use very different terminology to talk about what it is you actually wish to talk about. You guys aren’t even close to describing the differences between Theravada and Mahayana.
“Dismantling your motives” is an interesting phrase, but I don’t know what it means. What does this actually entail? How does one achieve this?
I used to suffer from burnout all the time before I started Buddhist training. After a lot of effort, I did ‘dismantle’ that pattern. Does this count as dismantling my motives? Are we certain that the culture that perpetuates burnout as a common pattern among otherwise young, healthy people isn’t the cultural program that ‘dismantles your motives’?

Unreal 13 Jan 2026 22:51 UTC
5 points
0
on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
REVIEW
LessWrong is stuck in looped ways of being and thinking, and this was AN attempt at opening the door a bit, but I have the sense it wasn’t a very effective attempt.
I still appreciate the attempt. I’m not that good at meeting LW where it is, but I care to try.
I am now thinking that using fiction or story would maybe be a better avenue.
The main sticking points seem to be
- how does letting go actually make someone more effective (does the ‘effectiveness’ need to be legible to lots of ppl? I dont think so personally, but effectiveness can be objective here, not about people’s personal opinions)
- why wouldn’t there be a worldview or set of worldviews sufficient to ‘win’ at problems? i don’t know how to explain or express this right now.

Unreal 13 Jan 2026 16:55 UTC
6 points
0
on: Eliezer’s Unteachable Methods of Sanity
I cannot tell if you writing this is actually helpful or not. Nonetheless I personally appreciate the attempt. I’m inspired to try to speak a little about how I see it.
I live in a community where ‘going insane’ is seen as a volitional act (volitional does not imply self-consciously aware; the vast majority of intentions or volitional actions are not in self-conscious awareness). So if someone acts in an insane way, it’s seen as a mistake on their part, and we offer support as it seems appropriate. We don’t bother blaming people. People != Their patterns of behavior or choices. And agreeing with you above, People != Personalities, on any level.
When we talk about how to avoid insanity, we speak about taking “adult” responsibility, where “adult” is a technical term. Being an ‘adult’ is a stage of life; it’s not where everyone needs to be. But we do see that lots of people who are ‘of age’ (18+) have been stuck in the ‘adolescent’ stage. (For instance, I am still working through this in my late 30s.) Another word we might use is ‘parent’. Who’s a parent? Versus a baby or child or teenager, which are also valid life stages.
A properly responsible parental adult does not go insane (in this case, “going insane” could mean something like—have a psychotic break, get too depressed to get out of bed and feed the kids, throw a temper tantrum, or intentionally harm themselves such that they can’t take care of their kids). “does not go insane” here means these things are NOT on the table; it’s not in the conversation; it’s not an option; it’s not a possibility. This is importantly NOT some form of denial or active forcing. It’s just gone from the picture. The whole world has moved such that this cannot happen. It’s a clean cut. It’s so clean that no one even remembers what the problem might have been. No one even considers it. What are we talking about? It’s not worth wasting even one second on it.
Note: We acknowledge that nowadays, lots of literal parents with children aren’t responsible adults in this sense. And this might be sounding harsh and unforgiving or something, but again, we don’t blame anybody here. But yes, it’s a choice. We observe that society has been degrading people’s ability to initiate into proper adulthood, but we should also acknowledge that we have been complicit in giving up our right to become an adult, to be initiated, and there’s no comfortable way to deflect.
So there’s a lot more aged adolescents in the world, and the global machine mind wants that, for reasons that are pretty nefarious and evil imo, but that’s another topic.
So the mechanism I’m speaking to is: Grow Up
There’s a lot of parts to this, and it has taken me years to even work this out for myself, but that sums it up.
Some of the parts:
- Everything I do matters and has consequences
- I care. I have compassion for myself and others and, in fact, all life.
- It’s not about me (as Eliezer says above).
One step for ‘it’s not about me’ (which is a step out of adolescence and into adulthood) is to act for something larger than me. To live for something larger than myself. This can be as simple as living for one’s family or children. But it can be as big as living for all of planet earth or for all beings through space and time. But I’d suggest starting with the smaller stuff, because for most people, ‘planet earth’ or “all of humanity” is conceptual, and that’s not gonna cut it for actually making the shift.
Making concrete, tangible sacrifices for something greater than myself is a pathway. In fact, it’s good to train doing this all the time, so that nothing I do is for the sake of maintaining the character of my own story.

Unreal 9 Oct 2025 21:29 UTC
0 points
0
on: What, if not agency?
I might be missing something, but the “soloware” project seems very likely to escalate misuse of AI by human beings and make things far less transparent (b/c now everything is custom-made and it’s harder to track the cause-effect chains of how anything was created, and imo we want a drastic increase in accountability for every action taken by human and machine).
It’s going to take all the bad parts of individualist capitalist patterns / competition-seeking and turn the dial up, which is basically what happens anytime anyone applies collective-optimization pressure to a technology.
I see a lot of risk and am unclear on the benefits.
But let me try to articulate why one might see soloware as a good idea…
If I believed that the issue with machines was this emphasis on ‘replacing humans’ by automating stuff, rather than empowering humans, then I might get what was better about this approach. <-- This is VERY succinct. But hopefully enough.
However:
There’s nothing inherently ‘robust’ about human beings’ alignment, at any scale. The alignment issue isn’t just about artificial intelligences; it extends to human intelligence also, and in fact extends to just “intelligence” generally. Intelligence doesn’t have any way to align itself, at any scale. (It needs ‘wisdom’ which is in some sense the “opposite” of intelligence.)
You seem to point at this yourself with point #2 RE: humans and indifference risks. The problem isn’t rooted in the AI’s agency; it’s also in the human’s own agency. You won’t solve one without solving both.
So I guess it raises a Question:
Does one believe human intelligence or empowerment is somehow anchored to an alignment solution in some special way?
FTR, I agree with the points made about the chatbot interface being problematic, for the reasons expressed. But my solutional direction would not be soloware, at least not as I understand or am seeing it implemented (i.e. by inviting some ppl to start trying it out more).
My solutional direction might be something I’d call “Sacredware.”
In all likelihood, Sacredware would be designed by a small group of “only-corrigible-to-the-inconceivable” (Bodhi-corrigible) for “Everyone”. This might end up looking like soloware, or something similarly flexible. And yet, it would also need to, at scale, rigorously avoid red queen dynamics, tragedy of the commons, and unnecessary killing of life. It would not be designed to cater to human preferences or comfort, but rather their collective spiritual development and ability to steward life on Earth. (In other words, it constantly affirms or upholds a set of virtues that transcends human societies or particular time&place, without major deviation, while being extremely adaptable for specific time&place.)
It would not be possible to get to Sacredware by starting with the soloware project, as far as I understand it. But that is difficult for me to explain here.

Unreal 9 Oct 2025 18:04 UTC
2 points
0
on: What, if not agency?
(I’m not sure what term would be appropriate to encompass both soloware and groupware.)
fitware?

Unreal 28 Sep 2025 21:08 UTC
23 points
1
on: CFAR update, and New CFAR workshops
I benefited greatly from my CFAR experience, as a participant, a volunteer mentor, and as full-time staff.
The main early benefit was a boost to my self-confidence and agency, the realization that I could endlessly work to resolve my own problems (physical, emotional, and mental) and that there is no end to self-improvement and overcoming one’s own obstacles. I was deeply inspired by CFAR instructors as role models.
As a mentor, I realized I could also help others with their problems, and often this meant getting out of the way and simply acting as a mirror.
As staff, I gained some much-needed common sense and the ability to work with physical objects and places. I learned to merge with tools and the venue itself, in order to do operations. I became better at time (like being on time and learning how long it takes to do things). I learned to value my voice and became more openly disagreeable. And a lot more that I won’t list.
I believe I also gained deep insights and new ways of being that bolstered my path of truth-seeking with CFAR, which then led me to even clearer truth-seeking paths.
If there’s a piece of curriculum that I think would be a helpful addition, it’s how to escape all forms of victim mentality. All the benefit of a place like CFAR seems like it could come crashing down with victim mentality in the water. The “drama triangle” is a helpful framework here.
What links here?
- What’s going on at CFAR? (Updates and Fundraiser) by AnnaSalamon (30 Dec 2025 5:00 UTC; 108 points)

Unreal 18 May 2025 23:54 UTC
−3 points
0
in reply to: dirk’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
You are speaking from a materialist, consequentialist worldview. I do not buy into this worldview.
It has caused massive suffering and existential crises on the planet and is deeply deluded about what ‘beneficial’ is.

Unreal 18 May 2025 19:49 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Max Entropy’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
- Any good reading on circling, spiral dynamics, or chakras off the top of your head?
No, none come to mind.
This is like asking about reading how to ride a horse. Find someone who can teach you to ride a horse with real horses, and you’ll learn 100x more, with less error.

Unreal 18 May 2025 19:42 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Max Entropy’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
- How do you think about impact when going for arahantship, or do you reject the frame? I’d love to do this too but think I could do an (actually) impactful startup
Truly beneficial impact is only possible with Awakening. Everything is still based in delusion until realization, and stream entry is not sufficient.
That does not mean you shouldn’t do anything until then. We can use everything for the path of letting go.
But simply telling yourself you are using everything for the path is not sufficient, and you are probably deceiving yourself in some way. Therefore find a true spiritual teacher, and a good spiritual community, who can keep you on track.
Until then, you are going to be making decisions based on liking and disliking, grasping and avoiding, and none of that really works. It only creates more, bigger problems.
You can check out the Buddhism for AI course online. Might be of interest.

Unreal 18 May 2025 19:38 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Max Entropy’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Any chance you could rattle off the next half dozen things that come to mind?
Connection Theory Charting (Leverage Research framework), Core Transformation, Tai Chi / Qi Gong, Bio-Emotive Processing (Doug Tataryn), Shaolin practice (Shi Heng Yi on YouTube), TWIM, Gendlin’s Focusing, Immunity to Change (Kegan process), Improv Theater (see book Impro), Perri Chase (spiritual teacher online).

I haven’t done this one but I hear Alexander Technique is quite powerful. Also heard good things about Landmark.

Unreal 18 May 2025 19:27 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Max Entropy’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I’m even considering training at a monastery.
Well if you are seeking, you can try visiting MAPLE for a week or so. Or try the 1-3 month program. It’s not very traditional, but it is a good training system that supports deep practice. If you seek tradition, which has many benefits, I recommend going to Asia.

Unreal 25 Mar 2025 18:15 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: plex’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
The benefit of fixing on the release/dissolve as a way of being is that it will release/dissolve itself, and that’s what makes it safer than fixing on anything that doesn’t have an ‘expiration date’ as it were.
I think the confusion on this is that
We have this sense that some process is safe or good to fix upon. Because ‘process’ is more change-y than something static.
But even process is not safe to fix upon. You are not a process. We’re not in a process. To say ‘process’ is trying to ‘thing-ify’ or ‘reify’ something that does not have a property called ‘existence’ nor ‘non-existence’. We must escape from the flattening dichotomy of existence and non-existence, which is a nonsense.
A “universe” cannot be fully specified, and I believe our physics has made that clear. But also our idea of ‘universe’ is ridiculously small-minded still. Science has narrowed our vision of what is, and fixated upon it, and now we’re actually more ignorant / deluded than before. Although I also appreciate the beauty of science and math.

Unreal 20 Mar 2025 19:18 UTC
4 points
0
in reply to: plex’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I’m pointing to something more extreme than this, but I’d say this is a good direction.
I will attempt, badly, to capture it in words inspired by your description above.
I say ‘badly’ because I’m not fully able to see the Truth and describe it, but there is a Truth, and it can be described. This process you allude to RE: dissolving and releasing is part of how Truth is revealed, and that’s what I’m training in.
So my re-write of this:
An ontology restricts the shape of [the perceived world] by being of a set shape. All of them are insufficient, the Tao [is beyond conceptualization], but each can contain patterns that are useful [if and only if] you [use them to] dissolve and continually release [all patterns] rather than cling to them.
You imply, maybe, that the point is to come back and reform. To get all the patterns ‘integrated’ and come back into structure.
But the thing around ‘flow’ and ‘faster’ and such—all of this is better achieved with no structure or meta-structure. Because structure opposes flow, period. The point isn’t to create some ultimate ontology or structure, no matter how fluid, fast, or integrated you think it is; this is returning to delusion, or making delusion the purpose.
This takes sufficient letting go to see, but it’s also logically sound even if you can’t buy it experientially.
Is there a place for structure? Yes, we use structure as middle way stepping stones to release structure. We have to use delusion (concepts, etc.) to escape delusion because delusion is what we have to work with. The fact that it’s possible to use delusion to escape delusion is the amazing thing.

Unreal 17 Mar 2025 17:10 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: plex’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Hello! Thanks for the greeting. Do we know each other by chance?
Removing fixedness in ontologies is good. I claim it’s in the good direction. And then you go further in that direction and remove the ontology itself, which is a fixation on its own. The ontology is not strictly needed, in much the same way that you can be looking at a video of a waterfall—but it’s meaningfully better and more true to look directly at a waterfall. In the same way, you don’t need the concept of ‘waterfall’ to truly see it. The concept actually gets in the way.
Actively rooting out and removing the concept makes it sound like you are somehow reaching in and pulling it out with force, and that’s not really how it goes. It’s more of a letting go of conceptual grasping, like unclenching a hand.

Unreal 19 Feb 2025 22:31 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: sapphire’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Huh. I don’t know if I get the bit on Statistical Learning.

Good poems—I haven’t seen those particular translations before.

Unreal 1 Oct 2024 18:53 UTC
−2 points
−9
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: How I started believing religion might actually matter for rationality and moral philosophy
Catholicism never would have collected the intelligence necessary to invent a nuke. Their worldview was not compatible with science. It was an inferior organizing principle. (“inferior” meaning less capable of coordinating a collective intelligence needed to build nukes.)
You believe intelligence is such a high good, a high virtue, that it would be hard for you to see how intelligence is deeply and intricately causal with the destruction of life on this planet, and therefore the less intelligent, less destructive religions actually have more ethical ground to stand on, even though they were still fairly corrupt.
But it’s a straightforward comparison.
Medieval “dark” ages = almost no technological progress, very little risk of blowing up the planet in any way; relatively, not inspiring, but still—kudos for keeping us from hurtling toward extinction, and at this point, we’re fine with rewarding this even though it’s such a “low bar”
Today = massive, exponential technological progress, nuclear war could already take us all out, but we have a number of other x-risks to worry about. And we’re so identified with science and tech that we aren’t willing to stop, even as we admit OUT LOUD that it could cause extinction-level catastrophe. This is worse than the Crusades by a long shot. We’re not talking about sending children to war. We’re talking about the end of children. Just no more children. This is worse than suicide cults that claim we go to heaven as long as we commit suicide. We don’t even think what we’re doing will necessarily result in heaven, and we do it anyway. We have no evidence we can upload consciousnesses at all. Or end aging and death. Or build a friendly AI. At least the Catholics were convinced a very good thing would happen by sending kids to war. We’re not even convinced, and we are willing to risk the lives of all children. Do you see how this is worse than the Catholics?

Unreal 1 Oct 2024 18:01 UTC
0 points
−1
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
are you putting forward that something about worldviews sometimes relies on faster than light signaling?
OK this is getting close. I am saying worldviews CANNOT EVER be fast enough, and that’s why the goal is to drop all worldviews to get “fast enough”. Which the very idea of “fast enough” is in itself ‘wrong’ because it’s conceptual / limited / false. This is my worst-best attempt to point to a thing, but I am trying to be as literal as possible, not poetic.
No response can be immediate in a physical universe
Yeah, we’re including ‘physical universe’ as a ‘worldview’. If you hold onto a physical universe, you’re already stuck in a worldview, and that’s not going to be fast enough.
The point is to get out of this mental, patterned, limited ideation. It’s “blockheaded”, as you put. All ideas. All ways of looking. All frameworks and methodologies and sense-making. All of it goes. Including consciousness, perception.
When all of it goes, then you don’t need ‘response times’ or ‘sense data’ or ‘brain activity’ or ‘neurons firing’ or ‘speed of light’ or whatever. All of that can still ‘operate’ as normal, without a problem.
We’re getting to the end of where thinking or talking about it is going to help.

Unreal 30 Sep 2024 23:29 UTC
6 points
−1
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I don’t know if I fully get you, but you also nailed it on the head.
In such situation, I think the one weird trick would be to invent a belief system that actively denies being one. To teach people a dogma that would (among other things) insist that there is no dogma, you just see the reality as it is (unlike all the other people, who merely see their dogmas). To invent rituals that consist (among other things) of telling yourself repeatedly that you have no rituals (unlike all the other people). To have leaders that deny being leaders (and yet they are surrounded by followers who obey them, but hey that’s just how reality is).
So, basically… science.
Science is the best cult because it convincingly denies being one at all, disguising itself as truth itself.
I think it’s worth admiring science and appreciating it for all the good things it has provided.
And I think it has its limitations, and people should start waking up soon to the fact that if the world is destroyed, humans all destroyed, etc. then science played an instrumental and causal role in that, and part of that is the insanity and evil within that particular cult / worldview.

Unreal 30 Sep 2024 23:24 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
Or why can’t you have a worldview that computes the best answer to any given “what should I do” question, to arbitrary but not infinite precision?
I am not talking about any ‘good enough’ answer. Whatever you deem ‘good enough’ to some arbitrary precision.
I am talking about the correct answer every time. This is not a matter of sufficient compute. Because if the answer comes even a fraction of a second AFTER, it is already too late. The answer has to be immediate. To get an answer that is immediate, that means it took zero amount of time, no compute is involved.
Is it something that your reader should be able to infer from this post, or from their own experience of life (assuming they’re paying attention?)
Not unless they are Awakened. But my intended audience is that which does not currently walk a spiritual path.
Is this something that you think you know mainly because of your personal experience with pervious worldviews failing you? Some other way?
A mix of my own practice, experience, training, insight, and teachings I’ve received from someone who knows.
Merely having worldviews failing you is not sufficient to understand what I am saying. You also have to have found a relative solution to the problem. But if you are sick of worldviews failing you or of failing to live according to truth, then I am claiming there’s a solution to that.

Unreal 30 Sep 2024 23:07 UTC
5 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: A Path out of Insufficient Views
I am saying things in a direct and more or less literal manner. Or at least I’m trying to.
I did use a metaphor. I am not using “poetry”? When I say “Discard Ignorance” I mean that as literally as possible. I think it’s somewhat incorrect to call what I’m saying phenomenology. That makes it sound purely subjective.
Am I talking down to you? I did not read it that way. Sorry it comes across that way. I am attempting to be very direct and blunt because I think that’s more respectful, and it’s how I talk.