[FRIAM] The case for vegetarianism

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

The explanation would need something like "motivation". Competence is a sacrifice we trade for *energy*. Reading someone else's code (or taking over the family business, or whatever) requires motivation on the part of the reader. The reader has to have that. One way to (somewhat artificially) get that is to allow them to believe they're contributing in a unique way ... to make it theirs ... give them a sense of ownership ... you know, like telling a childish libertarian he owns the mineral rights under his 3 bedroom house. His lawn might be better maintained ... pride in ownership.

When I read authors (or watch infotainment personalities) write things like "there's nothing I can add that hasn't been said better elsewhere", I can feel my motivation crumble. It's like, well if *this person* can't say unique things, then I have zero hope of ever doing so. Any competence I might have pales in comparison to some other person out there who could do it better. So I may as well kill myself.

What that misses, what the "get off my lawn" sentiment re lisp or anything else misses is that we need that energy, even if it's just a cheap trick. "Sure, bless your heart, develop yet-another programming language. That'll help." We roll our eyes and know it won't be any better. But it *will* help, because it gets their skin in the game. Adds to the stew of energy we all feed off. And, as we covered before, it's not really energy, per se, but *free* energy that matters. Energy we old vampires can suck from the youth to live yet another day ... and redirect into our own convictions, our own paths to hell.


On 6/14/21 9:32 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> One example I was thinking of was dozens of almost identical programming languages.   Why were Python and Julia created?   Common Lisp implementations already existed and had their good properties both as languages and as implementations.   Another example are government programs that go on and on without any real progress, or explicit recognition that the previous attempt failed miserably.   It is annoying to have all these changes in key but not melody.   To be young again and think the latest fad is new.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:23 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for vegetarianism
> 
> I think the problem is one of where the memory (and logic) is housed. It's a standard tenet of the cult of individuality that individuals learn from history [⛧]. That's never been true, despite how attractive that story is to those brainwashed by the cult. The things that learn from history are part of our extended phenotype, our tools and built environment.
> 
> [⛧] We can slice it into two types of learning, aversive and reinforcing. The focus on personality attempts to slice out mind from body, or culture from physiology, which we know can't be done. Reinforcement seems simpler to me, almost inevitable ... canalizing. But aversion relies on a trigger to change, like pain or somesuch. Productive people are also not annoyed when the same thing happens over and over again ... like a competitive runner putting one foot in front of another, one training run after another, one competition after another, all to suit the objective. So too is the junkie happy when the same thing happens over and over again. In both cases it's the reinforcement learning that's the problem. What the world needs is more *pain*, more aversive learning.
> 
> p.s. I suppose the above begs for a distinction between types of history. Is a steady stream a history? ... like taking data from a sensor every milisecond? Is that time series rightly called "history" in the same way we, say, teach history in a classroom? I honestly don't know. But the above implies they're different in a fundamental way.
> 
> 
> On 6/14/21 8:57 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There's probably a fair amount of variability in how prone to lock-in across personalities, though.    On one extreme, there's the possibility of a zero-memory episodic personality.   This personality I think is well suited to the modern world, because they aren't annoyed when the same thing happens over and over again.   History will teach us nothing..
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
>> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 8:51 AM
>> To: friam at redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The case for vegetarianism
>>
>> Exactly. That's why it's the *productive* old people who present the biggest risk. It dovetails nicely with the warning against ambitious objectives.
>>
>> The headlines are stocked full with debate about whether Garland should "clean house". It strikes me as a bit contradictory to yap so much about inter-administration "professionals" when Trump's in charge, then yap about cleaning house when Biden's in charge.
>>
>> But where is institutional memory/inertia? Is it in the bodies of humans? Or in the Cobol of the robots? The robots need to die, just like the old people.
>>
>> On 6/14/21 8:17 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> Path dependence and (no) free will offer another view of why longevity may do more harm than good.   Once certain developmental paths and early life decisions are locked-in, they scope the rest of life through the formation of personality and the participation in one social network rather than another.   So short of partially erasing older people through the use of psychedelic drugs or other interventions, there is no way to back out the path dependence.   So they need to die, so that other early life forks can be taken by other individuals.   


-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ