Activity Feed
#5645·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoI want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
I’m running an experiment to see if I can keep my strength while on an aggressive cut. If I go to the gym today and get weaker numbers, I won’t know whether to attribute that to the cut or to poor sleep.
#5648·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoThat’s fine. It’s been 15 days since the last time I hit this muscle group. I’ve gone a month and still hit PRs.
That was at maintenance/slight surplus. Now I’m doing an aggressive cut at 1600 cals/day and the body has more reason to keep fat and shed muscle. So time may be of the essence.
That’s fine. It’s been 15 days since the last time I hit this muscle group. I’ve gone a month and still hit PRs.
#5645·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoI want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
If I didn’t sleep well, I might not perform well.
I want to go to the gym today but I didn’t sleep well last night.
How to Be Rational: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/2091272979791659054
#5334·Martin Thaulow, 2 months agoRelated: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
On tangent to this, I think consequentialism is not a theory of ethics at all, it’s just borrowing from the future as well. Anchoring moral action to predicted (prophecied) consequences is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep ethical deliberation completely.
In other words, it is evil.
#4977·Tyler Mills, 5 months agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
Related: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
~All previous methods of preference formation focus too much on what the ideas say; on their content.
Nobody really knows just how simple an idea is (Occam’s razor) or how likely (Bayesianism), for example. In some cases it’s obvious how ideas compare, but in others not so much.
Adherents of those epistemologies are all fooling themselves into thinking they’re being rational when really they’re still acting on whim. Just fancier whim.
Focus instead on how the ideas relate, on the structure of the current state of the discussion, and preference formation gets much easier and simpler.
Then you can easily see which ideas you can adopt and which you can’t. You can even see exactly which criticisms you’d need to address to change someone’s mind, say.
Beautiful.
Idea: rational discussion graph with recursive criticism evaluation, like Veritula does now. Except the ideas are programs, not natural-language text. And they execute when they have no pending criticisms.
Experimental Controls Aren’t What You Think:
#5188·Tyler Mills, 2 months agoI'm on PC, and alt+shift+hyphen does not work—but alt+0151 on numpad does... which is a very Windows way to do it, but I'll take it.
PC 😳
#5163·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoDid you know you can type em dashes (on Mac) by hitting alt + shift + hyphen?
I'm on PC, and alt+shift+hyphen does not work—but alt+0151 on numpad does... which is a very Windows way to do it, but I'll take it.
#5084·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoNow also available on PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/archive/HACTSO-6.pdf
I’ve been using Spotify for over a decade.
Every few months I try Apple Music only to run into bugs and switch back.
But this most recent switch is actually decent.
Transferring my favorited songs from Spotify finally worked.
AutoMix song transitions are fantastic.
Spatial Audio is a win.
Fingers crossed I won’t have a reason to return to Spotify this time.
Taking Popper Too Far, Again: https://libertythroughreason.com/taking-popper-too-far-again/
Rationality as Computation: https://libertythroughreason.com/rationality-as-computation/
#4977·Tyler Mills, 5 months agoAre pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
Did you know you can type em dashes (on Mac) by hitting alt + shift + hyphen?
#5083·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoI’ve formalized some of these ideas in my first paper, ‘The Structure of Rational Thought’.
https://www.academia.edu/170297518/The_Structure_of_Rational_Thought
I wonder if there is any significance to the "distance" the laws of physics are from us, in the sense of emergence. Each quantum application of the laws of physics (conceived as discrete steps) is so far down, but maybe it need not be so. Maybe there are people in other laws of physics, where the laws are much closer at hand. Do the laws need to have a certain minimum range of emergence for personhood to be possible..? Couldn't people like us exist in a universe where fundamental physics is no more complex than the operation of our minds, or is the "breathing room" we have here necessary?
Unassailable argument for property rights?:
Does my body belong to anyone? Who? What about the knowledge in its brain, or the computations that it's carrying out? Or its sense of self? Ownership does not apply to these things? Anyone has as much of a claim to them as me? If not, and I do own these things, then ownership is indeed an unrefuted theory with respect to them. Then, why are these things a different case from other objects and processes, such as those in the room around me, and onward (per explanations, as the case may be)?
I wonder if there is any significance to the "distance" the laws of physics are from us, in the sense of emergence. Each quantum application of the laws of physics (conceived as discrete steps) is so far down, but maybe it need not be so. Maybe there are people in other laws of physics, where the laws are much closer at hand. Do the laws need to have a certain minimum range of emergence for personhood to be possible..? Couldn't people like us exist in a universe where fundamental physics is no more complex than the operation of our minds, or is the "breathing room" we have here necessary?
I wonder if there is any significance to the "distance" the laws of physics are from us, in the sense of emergence. Each quantum application of the laws of physics (conceived as discrete steps) is so far down, but maybe it need not be so. Maybe there are people in other laws of physics, where the laws are much closer at hand. Do the laws need to have a certain minimum range of emergence for personhood to be possible..? Couldn't people like us exist in a universe where fundamental physics is no more complex than the operation of our minds, or is the "breathing room" we have here necessary?