Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

Also one more thing on this, I think you can get at the same argument in one line if you view it in terms of Marr's Levels of Analysis. these are

computational level: (input/output behavior & runtime) {example: f : (n,m) -> n+m with runtime 2n + 2m + 10}
algorithmic level: (precise algorithmic description) {example: full state-transition function of a turing machine}
implementation level: (precise physical description) {theretically requires specifying every atom, practically talk about hardware or whatever}

Then panpsychism argues consciousness lives on the implementation level whereas functionlsim argues it lives on the algorithmic level; both agree it's not the computational level because GLUT

Now panpyschism asserts that

[consciousness strictly lives on the implementation level] ('strictly' meaning 'and not on any higher one')
and
[consciousness does stuff]
which implies
[the implementation level strictly does stuff]
which is just another way to say that the substrate matters

[Awaclus]

It's like the polar opposite of coolness/I-don't-care signaling. You're not a dumb naive teenager who is uninvolved, you are a Very Serious person who is involved in Serious Civil Duties and follows the Serious News

People actually follow the news just so they can pretend they care about the news?

Yeah that's like signaling theory 101

Why don't they get hobbies or something?

[silverspawn]

I'd say because most people in rich countries aren't best thought of a strategic agents optimizing for long-term fun but like little fish following social gradients

[silverspawn]

or differently put, I don't think the signaling equilibria tend to be particularly good for the people involved, it' just what naturally happens, and if being a good social civilian who follows the news is the context you find yourself in, you just go along without ever really questioning it

[silverspawn]

Like, rationally speaking, there shouldn't be much reason to follow the news at all unless it's something really big like Russia invading Ukraine -- which incidentially is exactly the advice Isur gives at the start of the LW post I linked

[Awaclus]

Like, rationally speaking, there shouldn't be much reason to follow the news at all unless it's something really big like Russia invading Ukraine -- which incidentially is exactly the advice Isur gives at the start of the LW post I linked

Why is that rational? I don't really see how it's bad to keep up with current events, unless you are doing it in a particularly stupid way like only ever reading articles from outlets with a specific kind of ideological bias. New information is generally strictly beneficial, and you can decide on a case-by-case basis whether acquiring it is worth the effort. How do you even know whether there's something really big in the news if you don't follow the news at all?

[silverspawn]

I think a lot of people find the news pretty depressing, and a minority actively enjoys consuming them. The value of the extra information is pretty much zero in most cases.

How do you even know whether there's something really big in the news if you don't follow the news at all?

Well, I don't follow the news at all, and it was overdetermined that I'd hear about it because

- people mentioned it on twitter (even though I only follow ~10 active accounts)
- I saw it on r/samharris
- there was the lesswrong post
- my brother opened a whatsapp group
- a colleague mentioned it in school
- the director hinted at it in a mail

You hear the really big things if you interact with people at all

[Awaclus]

I think a lot of people find the news pretty depressing, and a minority actively enjoys consuming them. The value of the extra information is pretty much zero in most cases.

What do you mean it's pretty much zero?

Also, I would count using Twitter as following the news.

[silverspawn]

I mean that in most cases, what happens in the news is irrelevant for you. Covid restrictions are an exception.

Also, I would count using Twitter as following the news.

Idk, the people I follow usually don't tweet about current events

[Awaclus]

I mean that in most cases, what happens in the news is irrelevant for you. Covid restrictions are an exception.

This is a really bizarre viewpoint to me. Everything should be at least indirectly relevant for everyone, because it lets you update your model of the world to be more accurate, which is a universally useful thing to do. But even if we ignore stuff that's only relevant because it lets you know more facts, I would assume that the actual content of most stories is directly relevant to at least a large group of people. Let's try checking out 10 of the newest non-Ukraine related stories from Yle News:

Wolf did not bite man in suspected attack, police finds - relevant to the animal conservation conversation, which is relevant to biodiversity, which is relevant to everyone
Finland sends The Rasmus to Eurovision Song Contest - relevant to people who are interested in or involved with the music scene, which is a lot of people
Stockmann reports 11% profit increase in 2021 - relevant to people who are interested in investing, which should probably be everyone
Court dismisses human trafficking, rape charges against theatre figure Baltzar - TL note: Baltzar was involved with a political party, so this is relevant to party politics, which is relevant to everyone who votes
Paper union set to continue strike into April - relevant to people who use paper, which is almost everyone
NBI: Police shoot, injure person who posed threat in Kirkkonummi centre - this is actually not particularly relevant to most people at this point when almost nothing is known
Decades-old Turku murder case takes new twist - relevant to people who are curious about decades-old unsolved murder incidents, which is a lot of people
Police: Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Turku streets most unsafe in Finland - relevant to inform all sorts of policy and e.g. help individuals live safer lives, which is relevant to everyone
Schools hand out Covid tests to ski holiday returnees - the people this is relevant to probably already knew, but it is relevant to a lot of people
Forest landscape voted Finland's most beautiful stamp of the year - relevant to anyone who feels like beautiful stamps add any value to their lives, which is probably a lot of people

Doesn't seem to bad to me, also not particularly depressing.

[silverspawn]

Theoretically local news should be slightly more relevant than international news, but even with this list, when I look at that my takeaway is that you can ignore it completely and most likely it will never matter (except for signaling purposes).  I'd say the only exception is the one about the most dangerous streets, and even then only if you're the kind of person who would otherwise go there and remembers it.

If you are interested in what's going on for the sake of curiosity, then all new information does something. This seems to cover most of the list. This is also my impression; you just find news interesting. As a result you will know lots of details about stuff that happens in your country. I don't find this interesting; as a result I know almost nothing about what goes on in my country. I won't say this basically doesn't affect my life, but I will say that the way it affects it is that I can't contribute to conversations that are about stuff that's going on, which is exactly in line with my overall claim here. If you exclude that, then it super doesn't seem to affect my life.

[silverspawn]

Everything should be at least indirectly relevant for everyone, because it lets you update your model of the world to be more accurate, which is a universally useful thing to do.

The reason people have stupid opinions is so so so so so much not because they don't know enough facts

[silverspawn]

Also like if you consume this kind of stuff every day, this has to amount to a pretty substantial amount of time spent reading news.

[Awaclus]

Theoretically local news should be slightly more relevant than international news, but even with this list, when I look at that my takeaway is that you can ignore it completely and most likely it will never matter (except for signaling purposes).  I'd say the only exception is the one about the most dangerous streets, and even then only if you're the kind of person who would otherwise go there and remembers it.

If you are interested in what's going on for the sake of curiosity, then all new information does something. This seems to cover most of the list. This is also my impression; you just find news interesting. As a result you will know lots of details about stuff that happens in your country. I don't find this interesting; as a result I know almost nothing about what goes on in my country. I won't say this basically doesn't affect my life, but I will say that the way it affects it is that I can't contribute to conversations that are about stuff that's going on, which is exactly in line with my overall claim here. If you exclude that, then it super doesn't seem to affect my life.

But it is potentially going to matter. E.g. if everyone's attention wasn't on the Ukraine issue at the moment, I could go on Twitter and find some people who originally used the suspected wolf attack to support shooting more wolves, and point out that they're morons. Or the next time a client approaches me with a song idea for the Contest for New Music (which has happened before), I will have a better idea of the meta now that I know this year's winner. Or I could consider investing in Stockmann the next time I'm looking for things to invest in.

Conversations about stuff that's going on are often relevant beyond signaling, because current events make for excellent political hobbyhorses. It's way easier to get people to care about stuff that actually just happened than stuff that hypothetically could happen. Even if your points necessarily have to involve talking about stuff that hypothetically could happen, such as climate change, being able to relate them to current events, such as natural disasters, is super helpful. People can also do this dishonestly, e.g. use individual events as examples of larger phenomena where the larger phenomena don't actually exist, or even paint misleading pictures or outright lie about what happened, and you have to know what's actually going on so that you can point out where those people are wrong. And politics is definitely relevant to everyone, even if some people feel that they have better ways to spend their time than participating in it.

I don't think I'm particularly curious about current events, really. I do welcome any information I can effortlessly get, but mostly it is because I expect it to be useful, not out of enjoyment. E.g. a paper union's strike is definitely not even a little bit exciting to learn about, but it might be good to know how it's going to affect me.

[Awaclus]

The reason people have stupid opinions is so so so so so much not because they don't know enough facts

If you know all the facts and believe all the facts and draw conclusions that follow from the facts, is there any way your opinion can be stupid?

[silverspawn]

No, but i have zero confidence in people's ability to draw conclusions from the facts. My experience suggests that people have no problem integrating facts into whatever worldview fits their aesthetic

[silverspawn]

But it is potentially going to matter. E.g. if everyone's attention wasn't on the Ukraine issue at the moment, I could go on Twitter and find some people who originally used the suspected wolf attack to support shooting more wolves, and point out that they're morons. Or the next time a client approaches me with a song idea for the Contest for New Music (which has happened before), I will have a better idea of the meta now that I know this year's winner. Or I could consider investing in Stockmann the next time I'm looking for things to invest in.

Conversations about stuff that's going on are often relevant beyond signaling, because current events make for excellent political hobbyhorses. It's way easier to get people to care about stuff that actually just happened than stuff that hypothetically could happen. Even if your points necessarily have to involve talking about stuff that hypothetically could happen, such as climate change, being able to relate them to current events, such as natural disasters, is super helpful. People can also do this dishonestly, e.g. use individual events as examples of larger phenomena where the larger phenomena don't actually exist, or even paint misleading pictures or outright lie about what happened, and you have to know what's actually going on so that you can point out where those people are wrong. And politics is definitely relevant to everyone, even if some people feel that they have better ways to spend their time than participating in it.

I don't think I'm particularly curious about current events, really. I do welcome any information I can effortlessly get, but mostly it is because I expect it to be useful, not out of enjoyment. E.g. a paper union's strike is definitely not even a little bit exciting to learn about, but it might be good to know how it's going to affect me.

I find it quite interesting that you defend a stance like this. Will think about it more.

[Awaclus]

Also like if you consume this kind of stuff every day, this has to amount to a pretty substantial amount of time spent reading news.

Like 30-60 minutes per day? But I'm a politician, I don't think everyone needs to spend that long reading news.

[Awaclus]

At this point, it might be too early to make any useful predictions. To me, the situation currently doesn't make any sense. If the estimation of 150 000 – 200 000 Russian soldiers near Ukraine's border is roughly correct, it's nowhere near enough to beat Ukraine's active military, let alone reserves, let alone all the new soldiers they're training as fast as they can, let alone all the civilians with firearms. In general, defending is so much easier than attacking that the attacking army needs to be roughly three times as big for the fight to be even, and while there are some factors here that skew it in Russia's favor like the air/missile strikes, there are others that skew it in Ukraine's favor like the fact that their soldiers are likely substantially more motivated. Why is Putin invading Ukraine with a force that isn't sufficiently large to succeed?

Here's a long and sensible analysis that acknowledges that Russia doesn't have enough troops to win the war, and explains why Putin would do that: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204

In summary, according to this analysis, he was not expecting it to become an actual war against competent resistance, he was expecting Ukraine to surrender. In my opinion, that does sufficiently explain the half-assed preparation from Russia, so I guess I'm going to go with this view for the time being.

[silverspawn]

Oh, that's interesting. That actually makes me more scared, however, since a grumpy Russia who failed is probably more dangerous than a Russia that succeeded. But obviously in the short term it's better if Ukraine can defend

[silverspawn]

I'm a politician

That's also interesting. I'd call it a plot twist, especially after your second album, but it does fit with the observation that you seem to be the one defending normal people in this thread

[silverspawn]

Anyway I approve

[Awaclus]

I'm a politician

That's also interesting. I'd call it a plot twist, especially after your second album, but it does fit with the observation that you seem to be the one defending normal people in this thread

Have I not mentioned it? I've been a Pirate Party member for a few years, and last spring I was elected deputy councilor in Sulkava and chosen as Sulkava's representative in the Vaalijala municipal federation. I ran in the county election earlier this year too, but didn't have much success there.

[silverspawn]

Not afaik but that's really cool

[LaLight]

there are rumors, that young men here get selectively taken to enlistement offices "just to check some stuff" and disappear. I guess I will try to leave after all