I like this despite being aware of (I think) all of the things that might make it seem stupid.
everyone is a groupuscule
"... and must live as such"
Nov 20
Nov 19
» IBM makes supercomputer [simulating smarter-than-cat mammalian cerebral cortex activity] | Ars Technica
C2, now has the ability to simulate a brain with about 4.5 percent the cerebral cortex capacity of a human brain, and significantly more brain capacity than a cat.
Nov 16
» The Value of Nature and Old Books
The rationality people get all over the Lux/Seedz thing. (The comments as much as the post.)
There is no such thing as “nature.”
1. People have attitudes about “nature.”
2. There may not be an absolute nature-thing, but there is probably not an absolute anything-thing; meanwhile I would guess that ‘nature’ can remain useful to describe a space or force relatively unaffected by the rise of humans.
“
Declaring yourself to be operating by “Crocker’s Rules” means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker’s Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you’re offended, it’s your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone’s afraid to tell you you’re wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker’s Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don’t declare yourself to be operating by Crocker’s Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.
Note that Crocker’s Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don’t have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker’s Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker’s Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker’s Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.
“Crocker’s Rules” are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.
—
As below, also see.
If it wasn’t clear, I am now doing ‘declaring Crocker’s Rule[s?],’ whatever, if anything (I am curious) that act may mean to my certainly-intelligent-but-not-uniformly-‘rationalist’ readership.
“ On SL4, arbitrarily high levels of rationality are permitted.
Watching videos of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robin Hanson makes me feel—different—about taking them extremely seriously, and I am not yet sure how to evaluate this fact.
—
Thought: It must be that Hanson always sees a ‘signaling’ deep text, such that he may… have difficulty with sustaining a limited Habermasian fiction for the purpose of real-time communication.
Nov 15
» Generalizing From One Example
Relatedly, this is the top-rated post on Less Wrong, and it’s pretty good. The sort of thing that, even if you know it, is good (and interesting) to keep in mind most of the time.
» The Value of Nature and Old Books
The rationality people get all over the Lux/Seedz thing. (The comments as much as the post.)
Nov 11
Abraham Van Luik, Yucca Mountain guy, in a BLDGBLOG interview:
Now if people see these things and decide to go underground anyway, that becomes advertent, not inadvertent, intrusion—and we can’t protect against that, because there’s no way to control the future. All we’re worried about is warning people so that, if they do take some action that’s not in their best interest, they do so in the full knowledge of what they’re getting into.
Looking thousands of years into the future with a thousands-of-years-old morality. (P.S. He does appear to be a pretty good literal geologist, though, although, hey, what do I know.)
Oct 09
