True it would have to be physically grounded somehow. Maybe an obscure and uncharacteristically benevolent hyper rich fella sets up camp in the north pole.

I guess if we want Santa to exist historically it would take a religious level of interest and investment in ancient times. He would have to be reveared as a god and donated to. Then the organization can have the resources to get everyones Christmas list and send out presents on Christmas.

No, but it does sound fun

I agree. Sounds like a didgeridoo with reverb and maybe a resonant low pass.

1. You’ll have meditated. Full stop. Bragging rights included.
2. You’ll probably be calmer. If not, you likely have a lot more practice to do.
3. Ummmmmm. If you sit just right you might understand the universe in its entirety. Or at least the relevant parts to you… Well, you’ll understand yourself better.

Legal recourse seems like the way forward. Though if that doesn’t work and she really just got told to leave and repay everything out of nowhere I think it would be doable to start a funding campaign. That sounds pretty egregious. Emotional enough to gain a bit of traction.

You could also look into bankruptcy. I only know how that works in the US, but that may be a way out.

I think that assumes a fundamental difference between the ruling class and the proletariat that I don’t think exists. Not to the extent that the “proletariat ruling class” would relinquish power more gracefully than the current one.

I’d say phasing into a system with no ruling class would be the ideal. Yk the whole “once everyone’s super no one is.” Kinda thing.

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.it just.works. It seems to be a pretty balanced. North American instance.

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

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.

I was most curious to see answers to this section.

Is consciousness different from the ability to experience? If they are different what separates them, and why is consciousness the one that gets moral weight? If they are the same then how do you count feelings? Is it measured in real time or felt time? Do psychedelics that slow time make a person more morally valuable in that moment? If it is real time, then why can you disregard felt time?

I have a few answers I can kinda infer: You likely think consciousness and the ability to experience are the same. You measure those feelings in real time so 1 year is the same for any organism.

More importantly onto the other axis: Did you mean derivative of their experiences so far? (I assume by time) That would give experience rate. Integral by time would get the total. I think you wanted to end with rate*QALYs = moral value. The big question for me is: how do you personally estimate something’s experience rate?

Given your previous hierarchy of humans near the top and neurons not making the cut, I assume you belive space has fundamental building blocks that can’t be made smaller. Therefore it is possible to compare the amount of possible interaction in each system.

Edit: oh yeah, and at the end of all that I still don’t know why brains are different from a steel beam on your moral value equation