Re: brute journal
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:26 pm
Also consider distractions that are neither producerist nor consumerist. I like to go on walks in nature/parks, which doesn’t really consume anything if done out my front door.
---an online community leveraging 14 years of experience in resilient post-consumerist praxis
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/
https://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/viewtopic.php?t=7250
Yes, but this analysis is still one degree removed from the reality of being a biological life-form on planet Earth, because there are also levels or forms of production that are not sustainable. When your metric is just a ratio of inflow vs. outflow of money, there is no measure of short-sight in production. For instance, conversion of 4000 barrels of dense useful energy resource of petroleum plus 4000 hrs. of complex human brain time into 8000 units of planned for obsolescence product, useless trapped heat, and a septic tank full of excrement. IOW, I would suggest that there is measurable correlation between feeling of "fulfillment" or "meaning" in life, and engagement or "cognition" with internal structure and environment leading to overall greater level of complexity.he would also suggest that the "ERE-ness" of distractions isn't dictated by the "one with nature/stoic" vs. "consumerist" dimension, but by the "sustainability" dimension. heroin is a great distraction, but to most humans, not very sustainable. neither is flushing money down the toilet. in this sense, "consumerism" is anti-ERE not because of some moral deficiency, but because, by definition, it consumes resources. "productionism" isn't pro-ERE because of plaid shirts and lumberjacks being morally superior, but because production produces things that can then be consumed, thus creating a cycle of sustainability.
thus, some of the pleasant distractions being productive helps sustain the (inevitable) consumerist ones. sustaining life by default consumes resources, and a web of pleasant distractions with only 1 producing distraction (work?) and 5 consuming ones isn't very antifragile.
I think we are in violent agreement on this except for definitions of "meaning" and "distractions". What I call "meaningful" often falls under your definition of "distractions". Which is just a semantic difference in the end of the day: where I choose to think "increasing my bench press is eudaemonically fun because it moves me closer to vision of better self and the cute girl at the gym comes by to ask me for exercise advice" Brute may choose to think "both bench press and the cute girl at the gym are but fleeting distractions from the meaningless nature of the universe". I just find that my more positive framing brings more happiness to me, while it might be different for Brute. I don't think either are untrue.BRUTE wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:12 pmbrute would argue that eudaemonia is a euphemism for "bigger time sink" here. the only sense in which philosophy and coding and dogs and children and family are superior distractions to coffee and opium is that they require more time.NPV wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 amYou did however mention at least two more eudaemonic things you found enjoyable - coding and figuring out interesting philosophical insights, and maybe some interesting stories told through books, movies or songs. This is probably what most people would define as meaningful experiences for you - although not in the sense of some objective universal meaning of existence of which there is no evidence.
in fact, pretty much all things that humans typically associate with "meaning" require huge amounts of time. dogs require 5-15 years or so of constant care. children 15-20 at least.
brute's argument therefore isn't that brute is unique in his biological configuration, or immune to meaning - just that he seems aware of the process more than the average human, probably because of his configuration.
brute also doesn't argue that he's somehow superior by not falling into the trap of these distractions. he does, all the time. distractions are fun.
but at the same time, ability to get distracted does not reduce how arbitrary or meaningless anything is, just that the human in question might perceive less meaninglessness than others.
and just like brute doesn't claim moral superiority or desire to "fix" humans with "meaning", he doesn't think that ability to easily get distracted for long periods of time is morally superior or a desirable quality to be instilled into all others. there is no problem, and brute doesn't need to be fixed.
Well, how is it different from any other choice? Looking at the restaurant menu, NPV can choose what food to order. Looking at the grand menu of the universe, he can choose what sources of meaning (or distraction) to go after. Perhaps it is different for Brute, but it is pretty easy for NPV to want a lot of things in life, probably because NPV is greedy. Of course NPV is also lazy and he therefore chooses to prioritize ruthlessly what he will go after based on return on effort.BRUTE wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:12 pmthe point isn't that none of these activities have objective meaning - nothing does. the point is that NPV didn't choose to find meaning in benching vs. ballet dancing or whatever. he merely discovered his proclivities.NPV wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:06 amIt has been quite easy for me to find / create meaning in solving problems, making satisfying choices, figuring out cool insights, envisioning and willing into existence projects, meaningful relationships, increasing my bench press etc. Even though I also fully understand none of these activities, or anything else in the universe, has any objective meaning. Perhaps something around wiring creates some individual preferences / interests in different domains (or lack thereof) hence some people might have more domains they are excited about and others less.
in fact it seems paradoxical to argue that one has chosen one's wants - according to which preferences were they chosen, then? and who chose those? these types of infinite redirect/first mover questions tell brute that he's not looking for an answer, but for a question.
Hence I will for now assume Brute is OK with the concept of free will until hearing otherwise.
the best kind.
OK? brute isn't triggered by the concept of free will, he just thinks it's an illusion. brute would argue that what appears to be a free will decision by anyone is really the result of a deterministic computation of environment, biological preferences, etc.
BRUTE wrote:uh... what? brute knows both about Maxwell's demon and The Martian, but does not understand what that sentence meant.
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/f ... 3.2912#_i1Sagawa and Ueda’s result extends the second law to explicitly incorporate information; it shows that information, entropy, and energy should be treated on equal footings. Applied to the theory of heat engines with feedback, the formula indicates that the maximum extractable work is Wmax = (1 − T1/T2) Q2 + kBT1I, where T1 and T2 are the temperatures of the cold and hot reservoirs and Q2 is the heat absorbed from the hot reservoir.Manmade computers are not the only existing information-processing devices...Scientists have long realized that living biological cells can be viewed as biochemical information processors; some may even outperform our current technology.16 Cells, for instance, can reproduce and copy themselves, acquire and process information from external stimuli, and communicate and exchange information with other cells. Recently, Pankaj Mehta and David Schwab used Landauer’s principle to evaluate the energetic cost a cell must pay to compute the steady-state concentration of a chemical ligand in its surrounding environment.17 That cost arguably sets strong constraints on the design of cellular computing networks, since it implies a tradeoff between a network’s information-processing capability and its energy consumption.
It is interesting why some humans find it relatively easier or harder to articulate and know what they want. I might break it down into two variables: the actual self-awareness x confidence in own judgement. Guys like Dalio and Elon have plenty of both. Given Brute's intelligence and time spent thinking about this topic, I would expect Brute to be strong on the first variable, namely self-awareness. The difference might lie in the second variable, confidence. While Dalio and Elon (as well as RIggerjack and NPV) seem more willing to throw stuff on a wall and see if it sticks and as long as it is kinda fun, call it meaningful.BRUTE wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:46 pmOK? brute isn't triggered by the concept of free will, he just thinks it's an illusion. brute would argue that what appears to be a free will decision by anyone is really the result of a deterministic computation of environment, biological preferences, etc.
maybe "wanting one's own wants" is possible in the sense that a computer "chooses which computation to make". for some definition of ego, and some definition of want, and some definition of choice - but not in the way these concepts are intuitively understood. this leads brute to believe that the intuitive understandings of these concepts are contradictory in nature, similar to the "unstoppable force" hitting the "unmovable wall".
one example of why brute keeps making a point of this. in the Ray Dalio book, he explains his system for being cool like him. it starts off with the following point
1)it's important to know what one wants (paraphrasing)
this renders the entire system useless to brute. the overarching theme of brute's existence has been that he never knows what he wants, especially in the mid and long term. everything else has been trivial. thus, a system that assumes that the most uncertain thing in brute's existence is known with certainty is completely irrelevant to brute's life.
it is this sense in which brute is not very impressed with most humans' attempts to systematize/formalize life and advice. in most cases, the fences they've staked off are so specific to their situation as to be completely useless when applied to most others, or at least to brute.
if NPV forgives the metaphor, it isn't meant to be degrading: reading an Elon Musk or Ray Dalio biography, or their advice, feels to brute like reading a dog's advice about life: clearly, brute should run around and eat sausages and chase sticks and pee on everything. clearly able to see how the context of the dog's existence frames what he perceives as meaningful, it is hard for brute to believe that the dog's advice applies to brute himself, who is (mostly) not a dog (mostly).
there are some exceptions. sometimes, the little fenced-off stake overlaps so significantly with brute's own fencing that the advice is actually relevant. other writings, like those of Mises or Dear Leader Jacob, are so high level and meta that they can theoretically be applied to any fencing configuration that takes place in a free market economy, i.e. anywhere in the west.
that seems a reasonable definition, and brute would definitely prefer to predict his actions or re-actions better.bryan wrote:Maybe my inclination was that to be self-aware one must be able to predict ta's self's (real or simulated) actions "satisfactorily".