ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
merely pointing out that some version of it
The bold part is what I am contesting. I don't think that this blog post is actually speaking to any version of "set point theory".
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Sure, but that's pretty generic and not really making any claims about set point theory. Just that there are some feedback pathways. You might be interested in my old lengthy comment about the gap between simply observing that there are some feedback pathways somewhere and something that could properly be called "set point theory" with all of the features that many of its proponents would like. There are some significant theoretical and empirical challenges that would need to be overcome in order to close that gap.
I've seen a lot of control theory models for a lot of biological systems in my professional career, and there is a wide range in terms of quality. I would not bin what I've seen of set point theory in the high end of that range.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
If the defense of CICO epicycles is that "uh, actually sometimes people just burn extra calories for no reason", that's not that compelling. Isn't the point of CICO that it should always give you predictable results
You're mashing up two different things which should be clearly distinct at this point in the conversation. There is no epicycle that there is variability in CO. There is just variability in CO, given the things we are generally able to control for. That's just the data and the labels we have to go with it. I've seen some attempts to quantify things like calories consumed by individual organs and how that correlates to their sizes and such, but on a population scale, we're basically never going to have measurements like that to control for, nor is an individual likely to go to the effort of taking precise measurements that could, in theory, more precisely predict individualized CO. So, absent that, we take a few factors that are easily measurable, fit the curves, see that they work pretty well, with some variability. Before, you had been claiming that this population-level variability was flatly denied by your enemies. Now, you think it's an epicycle. These are both Obvious Nonsense claims. This is just data and empirics.
Now, what you're stuck on is the second part, given that the population-level curves aren't able to precisely control for everything, how do these curves and the variability they contain provide predictable results for individuals? Well, you need individualized observational data to figure out where you are within that variability. The population-level curves get you close, but if you want precision, you need good individualized observational data. My experience with tracking for my wife and I is that the data is extremely noisy and must be handled with care. But after that care, the trend line is, indeed, 500cal/day = 1lb/wk, only with very noisy measurements. I don't think either of our maintenance levels from the trend line were precisely what the population-level data predicted, but they were both pretty close, and our tracking decisions were probably suitable to explain the minor deviation. It's this part, after you've already gotten a lot of individual observational data to avoid the population-level variability problem, where the vast majority of people (and all tightly-controlled lab experiments) get predictable results. The population-level variability doesn't magically jump into this part as an epicycle.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Perhaps you should read the link, discussing variability in the calories out portion. Saying that CICO is thermodynamics and that there is variability at least in CO is perfectly consistent. I'm not sure what windmill you think you've slain.
you'll probably just call me a liar or say that I was tracking wrong. That is of course, what every CICO advocate does immediately.
I will not call you a liar, but this is indicative of the mindset with which you are entering this conversation. You have tarred the people you hate with a scarlet letter and then simply closed your mind to any meaningful discussion. Very bad epistemic hygiene.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Sorry, there's actually nothing in that blog post about independent upper and lower set points. Or even really about set point theory, broadly speaking, at all.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I want to preface this comment by saying that I think addiction/habituation mechanisms of sugar are still not all that well studied scientifically and that I don't think there is strong scientific evidence for almost any recommendation here. That is, unlike some of my other comments on the general topic area, which are strongly backed by large bodies of published research, this comment is indulging in some mere speculation.
One thing I tried long long ago, in a location far far away from where I currently live, was a weird recommendation that I saw on the internet before I really had any sense of any of the science in these worlds. A quick search doesn't show up any real science for it, only mostly returning results for one study that basically does nothing to actually support the hypothesis. Anyway, the idea was to have one small piece of chocolate basically immediately after you woke up in the morning. The idea was that your reward circuits aren't reared up to go nuts over sugar at that time, so it would be sort of 'training' your brain to think that sugar is less rewarding in general, which could reduce cravings later in the day. I did it, and it seemed to kinda help, but again, totally anecdote and no science. It could have even been somewhat harmful, but overtaken by other changes in my life at the time.
Another thing that I've heard from medical folks like Peter Attia, but haven't gone to look if there is any good science, is to pay attention to the time concentration of consumption. That is, you can down a glass of orange juice or sugary beverage super quickly, and that gives a massively concentrated rush in a way that doesn't happen by, say, getting about the same amount of sugar in the time that it takes to eat that sugar in apple form. (He actually talked about having a continuous glucose monitor and spoke about different foods causing different kinds of spikes; I recall him saying that basically the biggest, quickest spike he ever saw was something like raisins that were coated in some yogurt or candy or something that he had on an airplane.) After getting married, the wife is a big fan of fruits, and I definitely eat more of them now than I used to. Still not a lot, and I definitely can't binge on fruit the way I used to binge on various sugary products wayyyy back in the day. There is some intuitive plausibility to something like this if you think about comparisons to nicotine. There seems to be pretty significant differences in addictiveness of nicotine rushes from smoking/vaping compared to slower delivery mechanisms like gums/lozenges/patches. Again, I haven't taken the time to see if there is any not-bad science here.
I will also note that I don't remember the timeline of how long I had cravings after I got 'off sugar'. But now that most of it comes from fruits or the occasional single piece of chocolate after dinner, I absolutely notice a difference if I go to an event and have basically a 'whole dessert'. I'll likely have some minor cravings the next day, but they go away pretty quickly.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Oh my, the epicycles keep on coming. How would one design an experimental protocol in order to verify/falsify such a hypothesis?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
When I said human labour, I wasn't referring specifically to work performed by human muscles but to energy usable by humans.
Thanks for clarifying, but I still don't quite understand this. I'm guessing from context that you mean something like that you mean to refer to "the calories required to make energy usable by humans"? Or are you just making a distinction between calories that aren't usable by humans and the calories that are usable by humans?
we don't actually have infinite free energy yet
Obviously. We never will.
you don't need to be a genius to work out what happens when a population of animals allows their population to grow to a large number on the basis of a temporary increase in available resources
There are huge timescale questions here. What is a "temporary increase"? When we discovered how to convert fossil fuels into human-usable energy, one might say that it's "temporary", but I'm not sure what the criteria is for being "temporary/not temporary". When we discovered how to convert uranium into human-usable energy, how would I go about computing whether it is "temporary/not-temporary"? How does future discovery of other methods to convert things into human-usable energy come into play? Can new discoveries retroactively convert prior methods from being "temporary" to being "not temporary"? If I had to guess, given the bold starting sentence to this paragraph being that we don't have infinite free energy, I think maybe the line is that any source of energy that is not infinite is "temporary", but that would mean that literally all sources of energy are "temporary", and I think we're maybe stuck concluding that all uses of energy are bad in some way.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I don't know what pile of straw you've found your "pro-CICO people" from, but in my experience, they are happy to point you directly to places where you can see the variability for yourself. I'll even preempt any digging in the straw you might do to claim that "pro-CICO people" simply reject the concept of metabolic adaptation, because they actually write entire articles about it, what it is, what it isn't, and what it practically means for people.
At the end of the day, they say things like that the Cunningham equation (or a few others) actually do a pretty good job of getting you to the right ballpark, but then you probably need direct observation if you want to really nail down where you are with precision. My wife and I proceeded with direct observation, and sure enough, the population-based equation estimates got us pretty darn close, but what was really incredible was that even though the data was insanely noisy (which was expected, and I have enough background in numerical analysis to know how awful that noise would be for estimating derivatives), the trend line over a couple years of tracking (through periods of cutting, periods of maintaining, and periods of gaining) was bang on at exactly 500cal/day = 1lb/wk... for both of us. The "pro-CICO people" that you strawman are actually doing things like putting direct observation into an app rather than making ridiculous claims like there being no variability whatsoever.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Ok, thanks for your responses. I probably should stop peppering you with questions now. I'll have to think about your responses as well. I'm still not entirely sure there's a coherent line to be drawn, given the fuzziness of the value comparison you mentioned as well as whether I think the timescale of growing new trees should matter (and how timescales should matter generally; all of Earth's resources are ultimately going to be expended "one way or another/no matter what" on a timescale of the sun becoming a red giant).
The conversation on coal-eating bacteria made me wonder enough to do a quick search, though. First result I opened indicated that they're producing methane, not CO2. No idea how one would factor that in to any calculation of 'calories in', given that I guess we're doing some strange partial discounting for calories that would be expended "one way or another/no matter what", but that how much we discount I guess depends on some fuzzy value comparison. I mean, a value comparison of coal vs CO2 vs methane vs a tree? If I can't just appeal to prices, then.... ¯\(ツ)/¯
Honestly, my preliminary conclusion is probably that we just can't do this kind of 'calories in/calories out' calculation mechanically, and we'd probably need a fair amount of arbitrary lines and value judgments plugged in. Probably worse once we get further down the chain and are trying to analyse agricultural methods rather than simply power generation.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Last week, this comment spurred a few subthreads about electronic and/or digital and/or online voting (depending on what one wants from it). I felt like the dominant view was that it was a terrible idea, hopelessly insecure, and perhaps even a bridge too far for one being able to think that an election is legitimate.
Today, I saw this article, saying that Kamala Harris' name was left off of some Montana ballots, causing them to shut things down until they could fix the problem. As I started reading, I casually wondered, "Shut what down? Just the ballot-printing process? Why is the headline saying 'voting system'?" Then I read the article and learned for the first time that Montana has an "electronic absentee voter system" that allows, for example, "Max Himsl, a Montana voter living in the UK," (who reported the issue) to "fill out his ballot online".
Whelp, I guess it's arrived. Is it a stupid, terrible idea? Is it hopelessly insecure? Has it delegitimized Montana's election? It is something that nobody's doing, nobody would do, nobody would be stupid enough to do, and it's a good thing that it's happening now?
Having not personally looked into the technicals of the system at all yet (obviously, having only just heard about it five minutes ago) and having said that I thought that a lot depended on technical specifics, I have little idea about how to feel other than that it seems obviously impossible for online voting to seriously maintain secrecy in voting, which I do care about. Of course, almost any system that allows for absentee voting seriously struggles on this point (as was pointed out by one of those international pro-democracy organizations that I quoted long ago), though I think that most people are somewhat willing to give up a little bit of this if it's a small number of absentee votes.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Ok, so I think I'm hearing that you have a "one way or the other" or a "no matter what" test. I think I take this to mean that if calories are going to be expended "one way or the other/no matter what", then we simply zero out those calories. That's a plausible route to go.
This would perhaps go the opposite way of what Nybbler said, though, where he wasn't wanting to count the energy in the fuel. Do you disagree with this and think that we should count the energy in the fuel, so long as it wasn't being expended "one way or the other/no matter what"?
Another question I have is whether something is counted as being "expended". Does it matter if, say, some rays of sun wouldn't just be dissipated as heat, but would instead likely be consumed by plants? Or, if, say, we discovered an oil or coal-eating bacteria which was using it for its own fuel?
Further, suppose we burn a tree that gets 99% of its stored energy from the sun (according to ChatGPT). Does that count in the zeroed out category? If so, is it because it ultimately came from the sun, which was going to expend energy anyway, or could it be in some part because we might think there's a high enough probability of wildfires if we do nothing, so those calories were going to be expended "one way or the other/no matter what"?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
expendable resources
I hate to say it, but we're back to the sun. The hydrogen inside of the sun is, indeed, an expendable resource. Does it matter whether it is being 'expended' up there or down here in a lab?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Great review! Thanks!
Where are the Mountains, or the Deserts, or the Plains?
That was an interesting feature of Zvi's review:
The Village might be in somewhat of a cold war with The River, but the River is not its natural enemy or mirror. Something else is that.
So what do we call this third group? Not ‘everyone not in the Village or River’ and not ‘the other political party’ but rather: The natural enemies of The Village?
I asked for the LLM consensus is in, and there is a clear winner that I agree is indeed this group’s True Name in this schema, that works on many levels: The Wilderness.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I was hoping to get a nice distinction somewhere along those lines that I could probe to see if I could make it consistent, but what I got was "because it takes human labour". If @FirmWeird would like to clarify and say that it's not about human expenditure and about something else instead (maybe some sort of "no matter what" test that I'd want to probe for details), then I'd be very pleased to investigate.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
because it takes human labour
Ok, so am I correct in understanding that your measurement of efficiency is rooted in human caloric expenditure for 'calories in'? If so, then it's a bit strange to think that modern agriculture is less efficient than in the past, since in the past, we had >90% of the population performing hard labor to produce a sustenance level of food product, whereas now, we have about 1% of the population producing an incredible surplus. There is obviously some additional human effort in building the machines and gathering the fuel, but I think it's incredibly unlikely that if we were to tally that all up, the agriculture-specific human caloric input would be anywhere close to 90% of the workforce.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
I think the slogan was for the workers of the world to unite and slay the capitalists, not that the workers of the world needed to become capitalists in order for their society-improving action to be collective. And at least the people who have a theory that implies that higher taxes are better are willing to say that they're in favor of higher taxes, admitting that it doesn't make sense for them to individually donate their money to the government because of the collective action problem. I would be perfectly happy to just hear people seriously saying that academia is a problem, that it needs to be banished by law, but that due to a collective action problem, they're stuck individually having to game the system. I'm not seeing anyone doing that.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
crits want a world in which no group has more prestige than another. No group feels more “at home” in a certain place
I remembered another thought I had about this. Whenever I have a moment to dive back in to some of the things these folks are saying, I'm always struck by how it seems to me that they should be obviously anti-education. At the very least, against any sort of specialized education that is not completely uniformly applied and achieved. I think the crits have abandoned the old Marxist line of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and that might be one of the biggest dividing lines. Because the conceptual point of education is to improve oneself, in terms of understanding and ability. And if one is improved in such a way, they become unequal and unfair. They may feel like their enhanced understanding and ability provides them more prestige. They may feel more "at home" in places that use/need such specialized understanding/ability.
So all through the discussions of things like affirmative action at Harvard, I often find myself wanting to know why these folks are not staying true to their theory and simply saying that prestigious institutions like Harvard should simply not exist. I vacillate in my theory. Could be that I have, indeed, misunderstood something about their theory. Could be that their theory is a mostly-bullshit veneer of credibility slapped on top of what is really just class/race/etc warfare at its core. Could be that it's pure cognitive dissonance in that they've gained all of their power/prestige by means of taking over academia, so they can't bring themselves to 'deconstruct' their own source of outsized power/prestige.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure they've abandoned "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", because I've asked multiple times if people who are otherwise spouting ideological beliefs that shall not be named are willing to apply this idea to the one area where it is the most likely to succeed - tracking in schooling. Where else do we have such close involvement by parties that are highly invested in accurately assessing a person's ability/need? Parents and teachers are incredibly closely-involved, and they can use a wide variety of assessment methods, methods that are vastly more suitable to the task at hand than we have available for similar assessments in any other realm of life. Where else do we have vast quantities of state dollars committed specifically to providing precisely to the needs of each individual child? If "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is going to work anywhere, it should obviously work best in schools, and I can't interpret that meaning anything other than tracking, identifying those of high ability and asking much of them (with difficult/advanced coursework), as well as those of low ability and providing their needs as best as possible. Yet I cannot find a single person, either an economic Marxist or an ideology-that-shall-not-be-named-ist who is willing to embrace "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
DARPA grants, at least in the area of autonomy, still massively publish. And that's just using the most bland keywords that are mostly getting at summaries of their grand challenges. Those summaries will have gobs of references to the much more specific work that has been published with little reference to DARPA other than a funding acknowledgement. I don't yet know of a tool that allows you to search the literature specifically for funding acknowledgements from DARPA rather than being heavily biased toward papers where "DARPA" actually made it into the title, but there are tons of such papers.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
crits want a world in which no group has more prestige than another. No group feels more “at home” in a certain place, no group feels confident as a majority to impose its cultural norms on others
I'm not criticizing you, as you're just describing, but man. The last one contradicts the others! They have to impose their own preferred cultural norms on others in order to get those things. And can you imagine how utterly insane such an imposition would be? I've talked here before about the Khmer Rouge banning free enterprise and preventing people from picking berries in the countryside, because they might acquire a lot of berries, maybe even sell them on a black market or something, then become unequal and unfair. And that's just economically. Can you imagine not allowing anyone to have more prestige than another? One of the diagnoses I've seen here for what is perceived as a cultural malaise today is that, in the before-internet days, people had all sorts of little local hierarchies that people could climb and feel good about. You could knit the best socks or play the best chess or cook the nicest meal in your little local social circle. Nowadays, everything is so globalized that people can always tear down any hobby you just want to self-improve on and point to the few on Insta that you'll never match up with. Forget whether this diagnosis is true or not or which of those worlds you'd prefer, but can you imagine the extreme anti-prestige black shirt brigade you'd need to make sure that nobody was feeling just a hair too smug about how they won a local chess tournament? When it's worded as bluntly as this, I don't see how they could possibly accomplish their goals without completely grinding down all the hopes and dreams of literally every person on the planet, even more brutally than forcing them all onto the State farm and prohibiting them from picking berries.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
Why do we care about calories in?
And for something like solar power, how is this computed? Sure, I get that you're going to somehow compute all the calories that go into manufacturing the thing, but then, how do we get calories in from the sun? Is it just the local radiance captured? Is it net of some heat output? Is it actually total solar radiance on Earth's surface (since we're inefficiently only capturing a portion of those calories)? Do we actually compute the calories that go into the fuel of the sun's fusion reactor? Is there some different calculation used for a fusion reactor 'up there' compared to one we might make 'down here'? If so, why?
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
Allow classic Milton to get you into the basics with only a sound bite.
ControlsFreak
2mo ago
But how do they deal with “unknown unknowns?”
How do pre-modern subsistence farmers deal with the "unknown unknowns"? How much of that risk was correctly measured? My sense is that they mostly just died.
There was a flurry of activity trying to make glycemic index do a bunch of things. I don't recall much conclusive coming out of it. For particular questions of addiction/rewards pathways, I don't think the work really got very far out of the stage of some basic theoretical mechanism conjectures. I also haven't followed up enough to see if any of them were busted by empirics.
More options
Context Copy link