Re: Happy new year, and A Holiday Story for You
great new years present. . thoughts 1. hope. ? it is not =acked by any evidence in first order. but second order attrributes =bound. livng longer etc. . internal benefit to many if not =ost.
. 2. it is a form of self deception that carries an evolutionary =dvantage if modulated. . ie cant hope to fly. maybe modulates or =Ilows the system to call in reserves. .
the ttheory that we are more advanced thinkers than the past . =eems like todays exceptionalism. . in ancient times one had to know =any things, as cities grew. specialied knowledgt made the group more =ffecicent but potentaily at the expense of the individuals breadth of =nowledge.
I believe that teaching every person to write is harmful to some =ndividuals. writing slows down the thinking and forces a rule based =ystem onto complex definitions. and speed reduction. asperbergers =ould be an advantagea as well as some form of writing disability. . =.
asperbergers could be an advantagea as well as some form of writing =isability. . 5.
Do you mean that hope is not about the present state (zero order), the =isible trend of the present state (first order), but about changes in =hat trend (second order)? I don't yet understand how that is significant.
When we model the future, we extrapolate the present into a number of =rajectories. We tend to fail, not only because or lack of information, =r because the world is often non-linear or chaotic, but because the =pace in which these trajectories play out does not have a fixed =imensionality. The eigenvectors that characterize the future universe =ill usually be different from those of the past; e.g. a universe with =oogle and social media is constituted differently than one without =hem.
In my view, hope refers to the possibility of entering trajectories with =ositive valence in a universe in which many trajectories have negative =alence.
Hope is a representation of the indication that we should invest into a =ubset of the available action space. As soon as we have given up hope =or that subset of the action space, we should stop investing in it, =ecause it won't yield any conceivable return.
While the hope construct can be used to model rational investments, it =ften does not approximate the actual distribution of expectations, =ecause many of the expected trajectories mean death, or something =ufficiently close to death that they can be ignored, i.e. they don't =arrant any possible further consideration in the view of the agent. =nstead, hope distributes the investments along those trajectories that =ave acceptable valence, even if they are very unlikely.
Using hope instead of rationality for modeling the future is dangerous =hen we are not an individual agent but a society. For instance, if we =uild ourmodels of future development of the climate on hope, we will =e cutting off investments into the death and near-death trajectories, =ven if those are not unlikely.
Based on that thought, I would for instance suggest building a =epository of knowledge for bootstrapping epistemology, civilization and =eneral Al for future non-human civilizations, i.e. those that will =pring off long after all large mammalian species are wiped out by a =uper volcano, meteor, global warming, nuclear war or bad Al =ingularity. It might make sense to put a few copies in orbit, and a few =nderground, perhaps equipped with broadcasting facilities that announce =he presence of the repository every few hundred years. (Not that I have =ny reasonable priors from which I could derive the rationality of such =n investment, but it could be fun.)
See above: hope as indicator for whether we should invest. If my only =hance to reap future rewards lies in a trajectory that has an extremely =ow probability, it still makes sense to throw all available resources =n the assumption that this trajectory can be realized.
What I don't understand is which aspect of the hope construct is =on-obvious.
Agree. There are few instances in our recent evolution that gave =pportunity or selection pressure towards higher intrinsic intelligence, =ith the exception of the Ashkenazi mutation and a handful similar =vents. Pre-modern societies had fatal selection (i.e. your children die =r remain unborn if you are stupid), modern society puts the =eproductive cutoff at being able to have sex, and incentivizes high-IQ =ndividuals disproportionally against having children.
It seems that Greece and Rome had a class society that allowed the upper =lasses to have more offspring than the lower classes, and larger social =obility based on IQ than our current arrangement. Medieval society =till drew on a pool of exceptional minds, but tended to lock them away =nto monasteries and reducing their number of offspring.
On the other hand, we now have 20 times the population and the internet =inks them all up to the global library, so even if the relative =raction of high IQ individuals is much smaller, their absolute number =ight be sufficient to add to the edifices built by the minds of the =ast.
Many people benefit from the ability to turn off verbal thought, or to =nly employ it for communication. I don't know enough about people at =he lower end of functioning to know how much better they work if you =on't give them analytic compositional operators at all.
And here I thought your writing style is just an expression of time and =ttention being the most non-renewable resources in the life of a =illionaire :)
Anecdotically, many entrepreneurs I know seem to have dyslexia. I =uppose it comes down to a greater ability to generalize in the face of =onflicting data, i.e. the opposite of OCD.
— Joscha
PS: Our account is emptied, and I think the one at H+ as well. Could you =lease pitch in? Thank you so much!