This is a special post for quick takes by Timothy Chan. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Sorted by Click to highlight new quick takes since: Today at 12:23 PM

FYI, if people want to look into what aliens might value, an interesting direction might be to think about convergent evolution. One (the only?) existing book on the topic: The Zoologist's Guide to the Galaxy/ Quanta magazine article. Geoffrey Miller mentioned related work in a comment a few months ago.

Is this pointless speculation? I suspect knowing about what aliens might value would be useful in understanding how to better implement Evidential Cooperation in Large Worlds (ECL) (right now, right here, on Earth) although some people may disagree with me on that.

I've also encountered thinking that this could help avoid/reduce conflicts with aliens (which may motivate work on it from various longtermist perspectives).

I guess this kind of stuff would be particularly suited for people with an evolutionary biology/related field background but it also seems like people can pick these things up quickly/use AI assistants to help out.

I was brought up in a very religious environment. After reading this comment I'm reflecting on what I'm finding off-putting about that upbringing:

  • The idea that there is a clear divide between good and evil.
  • The idea that there are unforgivable sins/heresies.
  • The idea that sexual things are bad, or are particularly bad.
  • Laying claim to humility and being the underdog even though one's group has a lot of power.
  • The idea that arguing against sacred beliefs is bad.
  • Shaming those who have sinned and demanding that they repent.
  • The idea that everything considered evil must/will be punished severely.
  • ... and more.

I find myself agreeing with much of the comparison that the comment makes.

I noticed that replies to 'Community' shortform posts aren't automatically tagged 'Community'. Maybe it's worth fixing this?

A powerful speech from the same activist: 

I find it odd that many people's ideas about other minds don't involve, or even contradict, the existence of some non-arbitrary function that maps a (finite) number of discrete fundamental physical entities (assuming physics is discrete) in a system to a corresponding number of minds (or some potentially quantifiable property of minds) in that same system.

I have intuitions (which could be incorrect) that "physics is all there is" and that "minds are ultimately physical," and it feels possible, in principle, to unify them somehow and relate "the amount of stuff" in both the physical and mental domains through such a function.

To me, this solution ("count all subsets of all elements within systems") proposed by Brian Tomasik appears to be among plausible non-arbitrary options, and it could also be especially ethically relevant. Solutions such as these that suggest the existence of a very large number of minds imply moral wagers, e.g. to minimize possible suffering in the kinds of minds that are implied to be most numerous (in this case, those that comprise ~half of everything in the universe), which might make them worth investigating further.

Even if physics is continuous rather than discrete, it still seems possible that there could be a mapping from continuous physics to discrete minds. (disclaimer: I don't know much physics, and I haven't thought much about how it relates to the philosophy of mind.)

This is all speculative and counterintuitive. On the other hand, common-sense intuitions developed through evolution might not accurately represent the first-person experiences, or lack thereof, of other systems. They seem to have instead evolved because they helped model complicated systems relevant to fitness by picturing them as similar to one's own mind. Common-sense intuitions aren't necessarily reliable, and counterintuitive conclusions could potentially be true.