TwiceHuman
1mo ago
Good thing you bring up those two terms, they're making the difference. I'm saying that the internet is privately owned, and that the fact that real life isn't, is the main reason we have any sort of freedom at all. The rest of the difference is purely mentality. It doesn't feel weird for people to say "We shouldn't allow people on the sex offender registry on our website", and yet, you don't hear of sex offenders being banned from walmart, or blacklisted from electricity companies, and for some reason, this doesn't lead to either company being accused of aiding sex offenders. If we ran the real world like we ran the internet, then you could easily kill people just by making them unpopular. They'd be unable to buy food, to drink water, to find a place to sleep, to get a car, etc, with the argument that anyone who provides a service to criminals are criminals as well. Which is why that idea is insane.
I recall reading that a company should either act like a platform or a service, rather than try to enjoy the advantages of both but admittedly not in dept.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
But that's because they're being a nuisance. If they spoke about the wonders of alcohol, they'd be removed all the same, so they're not kicked out for being anti-alcohol. I guess we can define "freedom of speech" as unbiased moderation, in short, it's "neutrality". So even with freedom of speech, spam is not allowed, but you can advocate in favor of any ideology as long as you do it in the proper manner.
Another important thing to note is that rights are limited when and only when they conflict with another persons rights. There's a hiarchy of importance, so certain rights overwrite others in certain contexts. This makes it appear as if precise definitions aren't possible with human-related problems like rights, but I still think it is
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
Granted, how you're speaking here is how I speak to myself internally, and I consider that voice to be myself when I identify with the part of me responsible for rational thought (which I don't do much anymore. I should be more grounded in my body and less in my head). I might have misinterpreted you, or perhaps the brutal honesty you have with yourself comes across as holding others to brutal standards as well. I have multiple "real selves" so I can understand you more than average people can.
I no longer dislike that normies communicate not for the sake of information transfer, but for the sake of social coherence and good-will. What I dislike is the sort of evil which stems from weakness and fragile minds (being triggered, jealousy, the crabs-in-a-bucket mentality, and various other herd morality).
It appears that you can't have it both ways?
What I disliked was the dishonesty, and the... schadenfreude perhaps? which pretended to be quality. This is a flaw in people, and not in the site itself, which is why it's not solvable by the site. But I do think that taste and correctness are in conflict. Do you know this article? Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. It's wrong. Good taste cannot co-exist with open information. You cannot be human and do science simultaneously (unless you can approach science as "serious play" like John Conway could. Probably easier with math than with politics). But "the mask" is not an issue when it exists purely for aesthetical reasons (i.e. for the sake of beauty), under such circumstances it becomes [manners] and even [art], rather than [manipulation] and [fakeness].
But while you cannot have both openness and taste, can have free, honest communication without hostility through sportsmanship. You know how boxers can be enemies doing fights, but friends outside of it? This idea allows us to "fight as friends", and it's what fragile minds lack. Negative emotions like anger do not need a target. You can simply acknowledge "That makes me incredibly angry", without making the other person responsible. You could even give in to the emotion without blaming the other person for feeling it, and without becoming malicious. A lot of things which are logically impossible happen to be psychologically possible, so you might be throwing away advantages through e.g. enforcing internal logical consistency. Grammar and logic are restrictive, they're self-imposed limitations.
Also, the old internet is different both in structure and in its inhabitants. Communities with intellectuals and freedom of speech are something like 90% male with an average age of about 35 (pure guesswork). We used to have freedom in spaces with average ages of 14 or 15. The mentality of teenagers is entirely different, which is why the modern internet is unable to replicate the atmosphere of the past. Granted, I'm speaking about 2005-2012, if you go further back, the ratio of older men goes up once again.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
The difference between talking outside and online, is that real spaces aren't moderated or owner by other people. The supermarket cannot stop other people from hearing your voice, your local park cannot make you invisible to other people. Your destribution is only hindered by the laws of physics. Imagine if, in real life, you were told "You aren't entitled to use the sidewalk", or "If nobody lets you use your local bridge, maybe you should reflect on your behaviour", or perhaps "Your local water company can refuse to sell you water if your political views do not align with theirs". This is the important difference, which it feels like you're brushing over or not noticing
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
In London, random people will decide if you're worth listening to or not. On social media sites, random people will never get to decide if the algorithm simply blacklists things containing words which align with specific ideologies. The algorithm doesn't even know who I am, nor has the algorithm learned that people do not want to hear what I'm saying, it's simply manually coded to prevent people from talking about certain ideas, even between people who both like said idea.
The mechanism you're describing is an algorithm which favors the content that people enjoy the most, and filters away the content that people enjoy this least, but this is not how social media algorithms work. If a website implements a neutral algorithm, and simply step back and let things take care of themselves, then they'll get in big trouble. Maybe porn will be on the frontpage, maybe one of Hitlers speeches will blow up because it's interesting, maybe bots will successfully game it, whatever. Every algorithm which exists today is carefully engineered to do specific things, and it's not true that your online following is a function of the ratio of people who want to associate with you and hear your ideas. They manually "correct" it every time content that the owners don't like become popular. I'd not dislike such an algorithm much, as it would technically be fair for all users
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
That's a good sign! The correct grammar comes across a bit robotic though. It also comes across as professional, but I imagine communicating warmth through such correct language is difficult?
Now that you mention it, the reflection was started by the quality contribution about holocaust denial. I think it was a bit of a condescending and angry reply, and I imagine that people upvoted it because of that. I don't think it was written in a way which would sway anyone on the fence about the issue. I felt like I was on Reddit for a second. But I wasn't really criticizing themotte as much as making an observation about the modern internet. Even if there was no outside pressure forcing TM to change, some users would leave and others would arrive, and the site would change over time as a result. My comment isn't really actionable in any sense, I was mostly venting. I was also fishing for recommendations of obscure writing by intelligent but somewhat crazy people like this.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
Isn't this limitation a part of the map rather than part of the territory? Language is limited, logic is limited, math is limited, etc, but reality doesn't particularly care about the mental jails which we create. I disagree with your earlier comment that understanding aspects of the world in depth is impossible, but I do believe that knowledge alone is insufficient. A condition you might accept for "understanding aspects of the world" is being able to predict the future, and some great people of the past have made eerily good predictions (I believe Tesla predicted phones and computer monitors, and Nietzsche predicted communism and its death toll. Less impressive works are ones like 1984, but that still requires a good intuition to notice an approaching problem before others). Maybe it seems like a nitpick, but my claim is "0.01% of people have a solid understanding of some aspect of the world", and with how statistics work, the vast majority of people who claim to have these abilities are wrong.
I hope you get to experience something which breaks your models of what's possible. It's a refreshing experience and a great blow to limiting beliefs
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
I think you're missing the point. If you wanted to talk to your mother, would I be okay with deciding what you were allowed to say? Would Google? The government? As far as I'm concerned, nobody has the right to hinder communication between anyone else. The fact that Google can even read my emails is already a disaster, and I'm quite sure reading your physical mail is highly illegal, and that the reasons behind this decision aren't invalid for digital mails.
The one who listens has as much freedom as the one who speaks
This sounds like the freedom of association? I like that concept. What I dislike is when companies try to decide who I can associate with, as well as who can associate with me.
The internet didn't work like this before the fallacy of association began. The form of the fallacy is "If illegal content ends up on Google, Google is guilty" or "If a person writes a slur in your game chat, your game is guilty", "If you're friends with a sexist, you're likely a sexist yourself", etc. You might have heard other versions of it, like "Roblox is guilty because pedophiles use it" and "Guns should be illegal because criminals use them". The idea is sometimes mocked as "Hitler drank water once, therefore you're a nazi for enjoying water". I believe that a large chunk of all conflict in the world, and the biggest reason that ideological bubbles have become such a problem, is this very fallacy.
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
The shopping mall analogy turned out to be a poor choice on my end, I meant the feeling of the space itself, not any of its functions. A bar, a mall, an airport, a school.. They all feel public, in a way that your bedroom, or a house in the forest 50 miles from any other civilization does not.
Neither problem can be helped, I think. Some people (high IQ non-conformists) are 10 times less common today than they were in the past, so asking for a community with a higher concentration of them than this is a rather unrealistic demand. Also, this website cannot improve much further than this, because the surrounding world wouldn't allow it to be much more based than it is already. As the world gets more connected, the difference between everything decreases, on every scale (cultures, countries, websites, people, ideas, genes, you name it), and then it faces "pressure" from the outside to the extent that it is different. So if your surroundings degrade, you degrade as well. Fighting this is like keeping your house cold in the middle of the summer, or trying to keep a child from learning any swear words.
What I seek may become possible if/when web3 becomes a thing
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
I don't see a big difference in being hostile to myself, and others being hostile to me. Self-censorship happens because the brain doesn't consider certain actions to be safe, and as long as you cannot convince it otherwise (get rid of the belief), you won't be able to do said behaviour without an altered state of mind. If you simulated a universe with just a single human being in it, I don't think concepts like shame, embarassment, judgement, "being cringe", prosecution, etc would exist.
And even if you can talk about anything, can you be yourself? Can you write emojis like "^.^" without feeling extremely uncomfortable?
I don't want to sound ungrateful that this space exists, but it has nothing on the old internet. You could probably talk about both of these subjects on the Gaia Online of 2010 and people would just think you were silly. I don't know about the old Club Penguin and Habbo Hotel, but likely those too. In the past, you could only get banned by breaking the rules. If you didn't break any rules, basically anything went, even if everyone hated you. This changed around 2011 or so. This is likely why subreddits like "cute dead children" existed until around that time.
Calling out jews or wanting to be a woman is acceptable to maybe 10-20% of the population, that's a lot. That you think either of these are weird seems to prove my point. And I agree with Arjin below, who knows how many bits of identifiable information exists in the typos that I consistently make? Most freedom enjoyed in the modern society is freedom through obscurity
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
I once asked which internet community had the most intelligent people, and that's when I was recommended this site.
I don't want to be a parasite on the community, but in order to engage with a comment, I feel like I have to understand most of it, but most comments speak of specifics that I have never heard of before (and which doesn't interest me). And I'd feel bad responding to a long text, just to discuss a minor part of it, as that's just nitpicking or directing the conversation towards what interests me but which may not interest the other person.
As for your link, the reason communities don't "feel like home" to most people is because they feel like public spaces instead. It does not feel outside the panopticon, it doesn't feel like a place where one can take off their 'mask'. For this feeling to go away, every layer of the structure will have to be unrelated to something that I consider hostile to myself, which means that this website and every layer that it's contained within (the host, for instance) will have to forgive me for being an imperfect human, not just now but until it ceases to exist. It's hard to say if the internet changed, or if I did (oversocialization?), but 99% of websites feel as homely as a public shopping mall to me. Now, I don't know if this feeling is correct, but I do know that it correlates with age, so it's probably socially conditioned
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
This months takes feel a little weak to me, maybe it's because I'm starting to outgrow this place. The same happened at LW, my first impressions of that site were good, but then I gradually became able to see flaws in peoples arguments, and now most of the posts on there are simply annoying to read, and none of them blow me away or make me feel like I'm not qualified to read them (a feeling which I happen to enjoy, and actively seek out). My method of evaluation is rather non-standard. I consider a unique and insightful take to be superior to a mediocre, but relevant take. I suppose I also find it frustrating to see people debate a X-year-old issue, with none of the arguments being any better than they were X years ago, especially for large X on issues that I consider "solved".
Some of the takes on here are also completely obvious to a lot of 'regular' people, or they're things which used to be common knowledge, but now manages to be uncommon knowledge, especially in educated circles. Some people also advocate for traditional ideas, but do so in a way which has integrated a modern perspective. As a fictional example: If somebody were to say "Borders are an extreme, but necessarily solution" then they'd be refusing the modern position of open borders, while buying into the ridiculus, modern idea that borders are something which needs to be defended in the first place, rather than something obviously necessary. As you fight against bad ideas, you shouldn't also integrate them into your own worldview. You shouldn't buy into a wrong context even if you can refute some ideas from within it. Good takes on general issues are timeless, so a forum which is too strongly colored by the current year will have takes which are only useful within the context which prompted them (causing poor generalizability), they'd be purely reactive. It also creates the fear that moderators would punish you for writing something outside of the overton window, which would be considered completely inoffensive in some other culture and/or some other century.
Most things that frustrate me are very minor, but still impactful, like the idea that loneliness and a lack of sex are the same thing, as if seeing a prostitute would make you less lonely. This very framing is pathological. (I realize it might just have been a simplification though)
Not that all takes are mediocre, a few are quite good (and I'm completely spoiled by having internet access, so I have very high standards), and the only way I can describe it is that reading them feels completely different from the average comment, they're refreshing to read (unlike my own comment. I'm not a good writer and the arrogant tone is probably off putting as well)
TwiceHuman
1mo ago
If social media algorithms are made to filter certain ideas, you have censorship. And that's not how the algorithms are meant to be used in the first place. Algorithms are supposed to personalize your feed so that content you're interested in is shown to you. The argument you're using here is often used to promote censorship, and it's often combined with the argument "Freedom of speech is only a protection against government censorship", and here I'd say the same thing as OP - that it's a poisoned version of the actual concept, and poorly thought out.
Of course, this leaves some ambiguity in the definition of free speech, but I think those can be fixed if we borrow the concept of positive vs negative rights
TwiceHuman
2mo ago
I think it's possible to re-program people, but also that it's difficult. Look at actual programmers - the competent ones can do a lot of amazing things, but those who lack the skills can barely make a working application. So these techniques "don't work" in the sense that they aren't recipes that any idiot can use to get the results that they want. In order to reproduce the results of the findings, you need competent people to try them out.
I wonder if modern studies even factor in competence. If you were to study whether or not therapy worked, your results would depend more on the competence of the therapists than on the method you were testing. In fact, a lot of things which are considered "impossible" by "experts" are completely possible and merely gatekept by competence
TwiceHuman
2mo ago
I hope you value information over good writing, for I only have the former.
I'm quite sure that the product of Silksong was the goal, and not the money it made. A lot of old games were made by intelligent people who loved video games. Many newer games are made by soulless corporations who only want money, and I bet only the programmers that said company hire likes video games. The managers and CEOs probably don't know much about games at all. I'm also very confident that these programmers aren't given a lot of freedom over the product, nor time to make it. If the end product is chosen by somebody who doesn't know video games and who wants to make lots of money, then it will be a generic copy of something which has been proven to work. It will deliver the minimum gameplay, and be designed to use every exploit to get players hooked to it (gambling, log-in rewards, loot-boxes) and make money (always-online-model, selling user data, requiring an account, DLC), and minimizing moderation costs (bad servers, no voice chat, strict rules, no user-created content, no mods, no private servers, rootkit anticheats, poor support). Such a game will never be great, for it will would be released before it could ever be polished to that degree; past the minimum viable product, ever new update would be dedicated not to add additional value, but to milk the current value. I'm not sure how Candy Crush and Angry birds squeezed billions of dollars out of two games which are actually clones of old, free flash games (which didn't even become all that popular, look up Crush the Castle and Bejeweled), but a lot of companies seem to think that they can do it too.
Arjin is correct, too, programming is pretty hard. And programming has this interesting property where bad code makes all the future programming vastly harder.
So, why don't we have more good indie games? From what I can tell, people who make Indies aren't doing anything wrong, they just stop too early. Most games I have on steam can be completed in 10 hours or less. It feels like I'm buying demos. All the legendary games which has existed so far (TF2, Garry's mod, Warcraft 3, Terraria, Minecraft, Factorio, Diablo 2, Roblox, and The Sims come to mind) are ones you can play for 1000+ hours. Notice how all these games have communities and user-created content? They have custom servers and modpacks. They basically allow the users to create more content, and content created by users has soul. Games which are merely good or great still have 100+ hours of content or a lot of replayability (Pokemon, older GTA), and multiplayer (Monster Hunter, Fortnite, newer GTA). By the way, if your mix all the traits of a popular game but lack programming ability, you get games like 7 Days To Die :P 11 years of early access! And despite being "released", it's clearly not finished.
TwiceHuman
2mo ago
There's a psychological phenomenon in which people confuse access to information with information that they know. So they will say "I know how to do X" even if they can't do X, as long as they know where to find information on who to do X (a book, Google, personal notes, etc). In the same way, people probably confuse the abilities of AI with their own knowledge and their own skills.
I have to disagree that access is trivial today. I can find nothing much of value on the internet.
Think about it, if you have a new theory, it's not already common knowledge, but all you can find is common knowledge, and anything which goes against common knowledge is censored or pruned, which is why finding such has gotten almost impossible. Furthermore, LLMs are only competent at common tasks, so the further you get in a field, the less useful LLMs become. All the best information is necessarily rare, and both search engines and LLMs are made to filter out the rare.
Your post did give me something important to think about, though! I thought that we were getting more systematic and materialistic in the western world, categorizing people and misinterpreting labels as being concrete pieces of reality, because of our scientism. It did not occur to me that it could be a natural consequence of people being bombarded by information. Still, people seem to think in different ways in Asia, are they really consuming less information than us?
Lastly, I take multidisciplinary theories to be a natural outcome of high intelligence, I don't think it can occur naturally very often, since most people simply cannot see abstract relationships across disciplines. Are you not calling yourself "crank" simply to beat other people to it? Because you've been call crazy enough times to doubt yourself? Because, like I said, other people fail to understand you. The only situation I can think of where stupid people connect seemingly unrelated things is skizophrenia, and the theories of skizophrenics are usually pretty poor.
Do you know the book "The Master and His Emissary"? According to the author of this book, a cultural shift in the west has caused us to value the left hemisphere's processing of the world, at the cost of the right (holistic, contextual, connected to lived reality). I fully agree with this observation, but I'm not sure which reason is correct. I haven't read the book, but like me, the author probably calls the effect cultural because it doesn't seem to occur in Asia. Interestingly enough, skizophrenia is consistent with left-hemisphere dominant thinking. I personally think that the increase in autism diagnoses might be related as well.
I for one welcome solipsisms. I'm tired of "the consensus" eating everything, and every intellectual community asking me for a "source" the second I come up with any original ideas, and dismissing whatever I say unless I can find an authority which came to the same conclusion. But I also predict that this effect you're afraid of will never occur - we will experience the exact opposite. Everything tends towards homogeneity (the first I've seen notice it is Nietzsche), there's no generative power of uniqueness anymore, LLMs literally lack the ability to generate uniqueness, and society
I think you find great enjoyment in thinking, but I have done enough of it to realize that it's similar to day-dreaming. It's not useful, it's not healthy. Even if you came up with a workable ToE, it wouldn't benefit the world since the world is already too 'legible'.
TwiceHuman
2mo ago
Is it generally okay to reply to sort of old posts?
I think that emotions are more appreciated than what is commonly claimed, but that it matters a lot which emotions are shown, and when. Any show of emotions which envokes greed or reliance on others tend to reduce ones value (which is basically because you let your problems become other peoples problems).
We can learn the "real" preferences of people through fiction. Most will tell you that women don't like masculine traits, but if you read a novel for women, you will find that some of the "attractive men" in these stories have both masculine and feminine traits. In fiction, you will also see a lot of strong emotion, often, even from the lead male characters that women thirst for. What's important is how and when the emotion is shown. One description many women seem to like is "hard on the outside, soft on the inside". It's a skill. Or if done unintentionally, a result of the right experiences in life and the right upbringing.
It would be nice if there was more research on these things, but I haven't found any which approaches the topic in the same way that I am
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
I don't think humans really attack themselves, they just close themselves off of the world in a manner which is unhealthy. It's like dying of thirst in front of a puddle of dirty water (edit: Or just water which you don't know the purity of before you drink it). Nietzsche advocated isolation for the purpose of growth, but he also wrote "whoever would remain clean among human beings must understand how to wash himself even with dirty water". I wonder if he thought of this as being possible.
It was much less true in the past, I think (at least, in our own communities. I'm not sure about our relation with strangers/outgroups). We've become much more exploitative, we're also more prone to look for the worst in others, as well as to look for weaknesses which can be exploited. I don't think old people are easier to scam because old people are dumb, I think it's because society has gotten less honest faster than old people have managed to adapt to that fact.
We're in the age of resource exhaustion, and "trust" is no less of a resource than oil is. Even "dignity" and "reputation" are resources. Companies like Blizzard are currently burning these. Resources like honor and respect are nearly depleted in the western world in my opinion. Mathematically, I think the solution is to optimize for the long-term rather than the short-term. If you optimize for an infinitely long period of time, it appears to me like you're immune to all social dilemma's and things like Goodhart's law and other harmful incentives. So the entire problem seems to be excessive short-term optimization.
Perhaps current parasites are no worse than those of old, but there seems to be many more of them now that we're all global rather than members of small local communities. And being "local" had advantages, I think it's the cause of the whole "high trust society" thing. A king would suffer if they hurt their own kingdom, so incentives like that protected against evil somewhat. But now, you can earn money by hurting somebody 1000s of miles away.
I'd ask "Which is best, to adapt well to a sick society, or to adapt poorly to a sick society"? Personally, I'm not entirely sure.
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
Psyops about having less kids because of the climate crisis
This is just propaganda. It's often said in a condescending and accusatory tone, along the line of "do X or you're a bad person". You can recognize this sort of thing by its use of manipulation methods like guilt tripping, instilling fear or insecurity, or making you feel like the world will be against you if refuse. Advice should benefit you and want nothing in return. I find older self-help books (pre-2000) to be rather enjoyable
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
I don't entirely disagree with negative traits of modern people, but resisting submission does make sense from one perspective. Think of it like an immune system. Most people who preach something merely want your money. Most people who do speeches merely want you to invest in their cause. Most charities are scams. Everything competes for our attention and uses advanced techniques to manipulate us for the sake of making money.
Over time, one learns to have one hell of a strong defense mechanism. I can drink alcohol until I struggle to stand, and I will still remain rational. I'm immune to hypnosis, I sometimes notice that I'm dreaming because I realize that something is wrong. I've been suicidal and I've been rather manic, and in both cases, those around me wouldn't notice unless I told them.
To trust somebody with all your heart, to give yourself to something else, to invest 100% in one thing, to let down your guard entirely, these are all powerful choices, and people who can choose them tend to be wonderful people, but life simply teaches us that this is naive and dangerous. So we become superficial narcissists who don't commit to anything unless it offers immediate rewards.
I hope to be more healthy, but it requires staying in a healthy environment, and there's less of these by the year.
You can't make all advice part of yourself, though. For the same reason that you cannot be every class at once in an RPG game. There's very much "paths" to take in life, and advice which is good for some people, but incompatible with ones path. "one man's meat is another man's poison" and such. Nietzsche seems to value a sort of purity when he says "With fifty blotches painted on your face and limbs, thus you sat there to my amazement, you people of the present!". He certainly seems to advice against nitpicking a bit of everything and plastering it on yourself.
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
I think anxiety can cause both. Fear either grounds you strongly in the moment, or it makes you mentally escape to somewhere else. This is essentially the mental version of "fight or flight". When I was younger, anxiety always made me deeply immersed in whatever was going on, but as of about three years ago, it sometimes lead me to disconnect, despite my conscious self having no desire to run away (I'm not even afraid of the suffering that my brain is trying to protect me from). It's basically the ratio of thought going to the present moment rather than to a birds-eye view of the present moment. You could also call it "living in experience", "living in the moment","experiencing things directly", "immersion" and the opposite you could call "living in your head", "excessive reflection", "excessive self-awareness", "disillusionment".
Similar to hardware interrupts, certain things may trigger your brain to "take a step back" and rethink things. This step goes up a layer from the current one, and looks down on it to make sure that it seems alright. This can happen multiple times, so that you can meta-perspectives and meta-meta perspectives on things. If you try to anchor yourself in the moment while an upper layer isn't satisfied, it basically steals a chunk of your working memory by "running in the background". The set of things your brain is processing in the background might end up taking up more than half your mental resources, until you're ruminating, daydreaming and worrying, and until your focus in the present is repeatedly hijacked by the processing of unresolved problems. It helps to write things down, make plans, and to use a calender, for the more things you feel are in control, the less resources your brain will use on its background processing.
For some people, the brain prefers to stay in the moment, where it will panic, react strongly, cry for help, or other things, rather than making these mental retreats.
Source: Mostly introspection.
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
I'm probably in the tail-end of the openness-trait, but I value authenticity and aesthetics, and these categories are so loose/vague that I tolerate a lot of diversity of thought. I want more stories which are different and unique in the sense that Made In Abyss is. I feel like art is a kind of escapism, and that making statements about current real-world events undermines this escape
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
That doesn't seem like a way to generate prime numbers directly, but to sort of chip at the problem by creating a scaffolding around it and then getting close and closer. It doesn't feel elegant like some math does. And yeah, I think that pure maths is largely useless (because its scope is wider, i.e. less restricted than our reality). We can find interesting properties in math which hints at properties in reality, though. At high levels of abstraction, these things overlap. "The dao of which can be spoken is not the real dao" is a logical conclusion, since you can judge the limits of a system from within said system. Gödel did the same with math. You can use a similar line of thinking to derive that everything is relative (there's nothing outside of everything, so there can be no external point of reference).
Maybe this is "abstract reasoning" rather than math? I'm not sure what it is, but this ability is useful in general. I don't suffer from the philosophical problem of "meaning in life" because I recognized that the question was formulated wrong (which is why there's no answer!). I also figured out enlightenment, which you usually cannot reach by thinking because it requires not thinking. But you can sort of use thinking to show that thinking is the cause of the issue, and then "break free" like that.
Edit: Nietzsche came up with his "Eternal recurrence" through logic, showing that if time goes back infinitely, the world would already have been looping forever. Same with his "Perspectivism", that there's no facts, only perspectives. He wasn't a mathematician, he was just highly intelligent.
But I'm sort of weird, most subjects I think about don't fit any common categories
TwiceHuman
3mo ago
I think men and women are quite different.
I'd like to conclude something like "Women are more interested in rock stars and movie stars than in politicians", but I can't find any studies on the attractiveness of politicians. You know how some murderers in prison get fanmail from women? I don't think that happens as much to politicans. I have no evidence of this, but the game of politics is rather gross to me, and I can't imagine why a women would be attracted to a man who is playing a game which won't even allow him to be genuine for a moment.
As for that woman - it looks like a shit test to me. Women want to be targeted by high-value bold men while avoiding low-value bold men. Somebody who can break the rules because they're powerful awnd because they understand the rules well. So they speak nonsense, being brats, hoping that some high-value man comes around and puts them in their place. I think the whole "You can't handle a woman like me" thing is a taunt, they want to be handled. That said, this could also just be agreeableness/conformity, or the kind of mental illness which makes them side with everything weak on principle (except their own in-group, which is superior because it sides with the weak. Broken maternal instinct perhaps?). Politics has too many layers of deception, I'm afraid that a model which makes too much sense might actually be wrong. I stick to the evopsych view of "high value" since it doesn't have all these distorted layers
Game theory problems only emerge at scale. Smaller communities don't suffer from them nearly as much for this reason. I believe in the capability of exceptional individuals, humanity has advanced thanks to great people/'giants', the mediocre masses add very little value.
I also happen to have reverse engineered some of these dynamics, and probably better than 99% of researchers, for I have solutions that I don't see anyone else talk about directly. Granted, Jordan Peterson wrote a book warning about excessive order, but I don't think he realizes that he's mathematically correct in warning against that. And do you know that the definition we use for "rational agent" is one which always seeks its own advantage? If our ideal for how one ought to think is completely void of good taste (like that definition is), then we will run into problems which didn't exist in the past because good taste used to protect against it.
How do you get somebody to do 1000$ worth of labour, without paying them, and without coercion? It seems impossible mathematically, and yet, my grandma has sometimes done this, just because she enjoys helping people. By making people more intelligent, but less human, less things become possible. General intelligence might conflict with instincts, as learning logical thinking is all about suppressing your natural biases, instincts, emotions, etc.
Accurate world models aren't bad per se, but they're not sufficient. Being completely objective also puts you at a high risk of becoming a nihilist.
Of course our coordination is getting worse. We're also becoming more lonely despite being "more connected" than ever. The reasons are more obvious the less educated one is.
More options
Context Copy link