I think you’re projecting the deliberate choice part. It think a lot of folks can get reasonably caught up in their own lives and not look into things too deep. It’s effort to overhaul your information intake. Lots of folks have very little effort left over after work, and Its is reasonable to assume nothing has convinced them that their news is bad.

I think its easier than ever to get the info, but that still doesn’t mean its easy enough that everyone and their mom automatically knows what they should be paying attention to.

Making these things about personal failings feels very unproductive. There is a lot to focus on in life. It seems better to try and make the subject approachable and comfortable.

Thanks for saying the name of the org. Much easier to join up that way.

I designate all folks as good folks. Even with the whole ‘every action is inherently selfish’ worldview that I have. I think most anyone close to me, and anyone nearby with free time would rush me to the hospital.

Though, I think leaving me to die is fair and wouldn’t make someone a bad person. I am only the center of my universe.

I’d imagine that that point of designating good and bad people is to decide where to put your effort. Who to try and support. Maybe to decide who to keep in your life. I’d say that can be done just fine without labeling folks as “bad people”.

I worry folks will dehumanize and become a bit too negligent of the experiences of “bad people”. “Bad people” just means “contradictory and offensive culture” in most cases.

Yeah actually, thanks

Edit: You’re just a big goof. I looked at your post history. I’d miss your shit posting.

Yeah I like sh.itjust.works. It seems to be a pretty balanced. North American instance.

Might wanna block universal monk. It makes the experience smoother.

I don’t value being disorganized and antisocial. It’s just where I am at the moment.

I appricate your tone. I feel like advice and support are needed. The person earlier wanted to condemn us for having not done massive organizations at the pace they felt we should.

I get that folks are angry. Fair. It’s sad to see the anger so misplaced though. To blame the citizens we’d have to have much freer and fairer elections IMO. Not that many people vote, and the president won by like 3%. America is know for having poor work-life balance.

Lots of folks are trying. I’d much rather solidarity in the working class, and punishment for those that actually made this happen. (That being the doner class, political establishment, heritage foundation etc)

I don’t like this rhetoric. Mainly the last part where folks not demonstrating means we have bunk values. From my perspective we are an anti social bunch who generally suck at organizing. I don’t have an easy way to just join up in a mass protest and I barely know where to start. I am depressed and anxious. I am trying to do what I can. Want me to just not work?? Me and who??? How will I eat?? I’d love to demonstrate.

Seeing as the time axis doesn’t seem special compared to spacial ones (especially in edge cases like black holes) I think time is just a perspective thing.

My take is that all particles must be moving at the speed of light through 4d space time. Everything always moves at the speed of causality, just not always in the direction you are looking from.

Do we know if the second law of thermodynamics is just a statistical thing? Does it work at extremely small scales? I know heat propagation could transfer from cold to hot. Its just so astronomically unlikely especially the more complicated the system gets.

I would agree depending on how you see physics. I think there is no smallest unit, no fundamental, infinite big and small. So though size comparisons make relative sense, they don’t describe relative complexity.

I’m with this one. It feels less magical than “brains make consciousness happen.”

The more I learn the more time feels emergent and not required.

Yeah I watched the whole thing, it gets really repetitive on the American side near the end. Zeleski is trying to talk but Trump and Vance keep saying “We are special, everything will work out, be greatful, say thanks”

You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.

I actually would say that high interaction is high computation is high experience rate. I don’t see how they are separated.

I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.

I’d be extremely curious to see how you define “meaningful” in this context. This seems to drive your moral hierarchy. Correct me if I’m wrong of course.

First, a minor correction:

for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation

This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn’t contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don’t see interaction and computation as the same.

Edit: just looked up some heat death info, there is actually quite a range of ideas there so I guess I can’t be confident on which one you meant.

In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn’t, how do you reconcile that with:

I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,

Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?

Wouldn’t you agree that surface area is more important to computation and interaction than volume? Things interact at their surface. Therefore computation is infact subject to the coastline paradox?

If you actually try to measure the top surface of a country you run into the same issues as measuring the coast: infinite complexity.

Those projected volumes are practical to calculate, but must be interacted with through the surface.

I agree a rock can be bigger than another rock. Yet 2 times infinity is not greater than infinity.

Edit: So my point is the interactions may be considered equal.

Edit: to be more pointed, measurement theory only applies to things that we know the shape of. The shape of anything in reality seems infinitely complex to me. Even if we can smooth the atoms out, there is still the EM field being perturbed by the orbiting electrons.

I agree with you on experience is computation. To me any interaction/change is computation. A ball rolling down a hill is a complex interaction with computation. Humans are a very specific and interesting reaction that feel in cool ways.

To me more matter could be worth more if more matter meant more interactions. Yet if matter is infinitely devisable then the amount of possible interactions is infinite. If matter is continuous rather than discrete then I don’t know enough about the math of infinities to compare organisms. My rudimentary knowledge says they are equivalent infinities but I’m not confident.

However, if more interactions means more worthy, then at near any scale that would benefit those with resources and those in an environment that already suits them. It would favor heat over cold. Change over stability. Anxiety over calm. Psychedelics over alcohol. Those with access to more calories. It gets really weird when applied at different scales IMO.

So in summary: I don’t think we can compare how much two systems compute. If we could, then using that comparison to assign moral worth still has a ton of very odd outputs.

I see. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me how you see things. It’s been very interesting to me to read it.

I get anxious about asserting things I am not confident in. Do you ever wonder if holding onto something that you know you don’t understand could end up being harmful?

I totally get not understanding how to make a steel beam happy. No reason to put effort into that.

My personal view is that matter inherently experiences since I experience and I can’t find a magical hard line between me and rocks. Also I belive there is no smallest bit of matter, so there really isn’t a way to compare the amount of interactions a system could have. Both are infinite. Therefore I have no real way to make a logical hierarchy. So I just interact how I can with respect for whatever I understand. I don’t think elephant’s are greater than ants.

Full respect for how you see things BTW. Our differences are basically faith based assumptions about the universe.

Dang that last one is the most interesting to me. Also sorry for getting anal about the axis. I trust you knew what you were saying.

This is all presupposing that consciousness exists at all. If not, then everything’s moral value is 0. If it does, then I feel confident that steel beams don’t have consciousness.

So there is a moral hierarchy but you regard its source as only possibly existing and extremely nebulous. Given that foundation why do you stand by the validity of the hierarchy, and especially why do you say it is moral to do so?

Also I imagine that your difference in how you see the steel beam vs a brain is based on how much communication you’ve understood from each. Do you think our ability to understand something or someone is a reasonable way to build a moral framework? I think there are many pit falls to that approach personally, but I get its intuitive appeal.