Showing 519 to 522

Feminism as a practice-case for rationality

You know how the history of science is littered with cases where progress was held back because so many people couldn't let go of their preconceived notions? It's why rationalists prize the ability to abandon preconceived notions, and to do so quickly, regardless of how many people stand by the notion currently. "Speak the truth though your lips may tremble" and all that.

Seen through that lens, women's role in history can be another case study of mass-delusion. Lots of people were unable to see the fact in front of their noses: that women are people. Even the women themselves didn't see it. Yet it should be the simplest thing in the world. Isn't that worrying?

If our brains can serve us that badly, how do you know yours isn't keeping up other massive blind spots?

The concepts of intersectional feminism are not just things you learn in order to be able to claim you did your part in building a more equal society.

They also give you some practice at deconstructing deeply entrenched Aliefs. Even today, nobody is free of aliefs around gender… it's a collective project to catalogue them all, hence that gender studies is a field of research.

We can benefit from what they have found so far, like premade lessons. But the biggest leg of the journey is within yourself, as you digest this material. You get to observe, almost directly, the shift that happens as various hidden attics in your mind get unhidden, and you realize they were there all along, and it's humbling that, you know, you just didn't see them.

Best of all, you get the kind of personal development that makes you feel like a more complete human being.

Related

What links here

  • 2023-05-19
Created (2 years ago)

p-zombies

We speak of "hearing" our internal voices, and scientists have seen activity in the brain's auditory cortex when we do. Apparently we've also been able to reconstruct images from a cat's visual cortex, seeing what it sees.

One day, we'll likely be able to read back someone's internal monologue.

That's useful to know in the p-zombie thought experiment, which tries to eliminate dualism without eliminating it. It's the idea that you could have a world where all the people behave exactly like people in our world, but nobody is home in their heads to experience things – no "soul" so to speak. Philosophical zombies. Pretty much what René Descartes (1596–1650) thought of non-human animals, but extended to claim that the very fact that people go around talking about feelings still isn't proof that they experience any.

But in this purely "mechanical" world where nobody's actually experiencing anything—where there's nobody we would think of as alive—why would the p-zombie have an internal voice, and talk to other p-zombies about how they experience their internal voice?

Dissolving the thought experiment gets very deep, so I'm stopping here.

Conclusion

If you skimmed the above summary, you might get the idea that the conclusion would run along the lines that there must be "a ghost in the machine", that-which-experiences, a soul, but the conclusion is the opposite! We can see the experiences in the lab: the auditory cortex, made of material cells, very much part of this world, does some work which is the sensation of an internal voice.

In other words, the p-zombie is an impossible postulate because the material world is sufficient to create experiences. If the material world is sufficient to create experiences, there's nothing left for a soul to do. What's it there for?

It's rather the belief in souls (dualism) that requires also claiming that p-zombies are possible, so that the soul can be said to add something.

Created (2 years ago)

Antoine Lavoisier (1743–1794)

(Paraphrasing www.greaterwrong.com/posts/LaM5aTcXvXzwQSC2Q/universal-fire)

At the time:

  • There was no cell theory of biology
  • Nobody knew about DNA
  • Nobody knew about thermodynamics, that "matter can't be created or destroyed". If you focus the Sun on a goop of antimony, it'd billow a thick white smoke for a while, and then weigh 10% more than before, and people thought why not? They saw no reason the sun couldn't add weight to some things.

It was a time when you'd look at your hands, flex them, and have absolutely no idea what moves them, why they move, while clay molded into the shape of hands just sits there.

Lavoisier discovered fire, i.e. combustion, and that we organisms also do some form of combustion, because like a fire, we consume "vital air" (oxygen) and replace some of it with "fixed air" (carbon dioxide), and the more so when we do physically demanding work. Here was why we need oxygen just as badly as a fire does: we operate by the same process! Amazing!

He discovered that if you weigh not only the thing being burned but also the gases in the room, the total weight of both stays the same before and after a fire. Burning wood releases the wood's matter into the air, while burning antimony sucks some matter out of the air, hence why the burnt antimony weighs more.

Reality is laced together🔗

In the book The Incomplete Enchanter, the hero is transported to a magical world based on Norse myth, where technology doesn't work, so naturally when the hero tries to strike a match, it fails to catch aflame.

But if you were transported into such a system of physics, you would die… because your cells live on combustion too.

This is an example of why you usually can't retcon any part of our physics, because you end up with an universe that can't support life. All the physics laws tie into each other; reality is laced together a lot more tightly than people realize.

What links here

Created (2 years ago)

How to enact a robust exercise routine?

Do not blow through the newbie-gains period, milk it

You know situations like when you deadlifted 115 kg last time, and today you come into the gym feeling particularly good, thinking you can shoot for 120 kg to 'leap ahead'?

Even if you're sure you can do 120, shoot for 117.5 kg anyway according to plan.

The problem with leaping ahead is you rob yourself. You need to make sure you enjoy every gym-visit, and a part is 'seeing the numbers go up'. One 5-kg leap creates about as big a burst of satisfaction as two 2.5-kg leaps, and you miss out on the second burst.

Not to mention that it often goes like this: 115, 120, … 115 again and suddenly you're not having as much fun. If instead you have patience and go 115, 117.5, 120, … then you've also done two separate days above 115 so your body is better prepared for the attempt at 122.5, and in any case you'll backslide less often.


In the "newbie-gains" period, the numbers easily go up, and that's actually a luxury—why rush it? Milk it for the positive feedback loop as long as it lasts.

Plus, hypothetically, if 120 kg is going to be the end of your newbie-gains, then if you spend 2 months on the path from 90 kg to 120 kg, you're much more able to continue beyond, than if you'd only spent 1 month on an accelerated path.

On the accelerated path, you ride a strong upward curve and suddenly hit a plateau – no fun! Avoid facing this contrast. By calming down with the upward curve, you also won't plateau later.

When gains are easy, slow down. Slow down and enjoy.

Don't "start" to do exercise "again"

"Starting" seems an overwhelming commitment. Of couse you'll put it off.

What if you never officially start? You're just working out today, for fun, not to advance a planned progression.

Don't use reminders

You set yourself up to feel guilty at some point once an app reminds you "hey it's been two weeks since your last workout"… bad idea.

Instead of being on the wagon so you can fall off it, consider yourself to always be off the wagon. There is no wagon.

On any given day, you can go or not go, as you prefer.

The question of gym memberships

I suspect it can be a good strategy to just pay for once-off visits. For the same money that a membership costs, you can do around 4 once-off visits per month, depending on the gym.

Without membership, you're free of all the mental crap associated with "gotta make use of this membership", which may not be a good mindset, compared to going every time because you want to. And observing yourself pay for the session will crank up your subconscious valuation of the session.

What links here

  • Portal: On my mind
Created (2 years ago)
Showing 519 to 522