@self_made_human's banner p

self_made_human

amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi

14 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 05:31:00 UTC

I'm a transhumanist doctor. In a better world, I wouldn't need to add that as a qualifier to plain old "doctor". It would be taken as granted for someone in the profession of saving lives.

At any rate, I intend to live forever or die trying. See you at Heat Death!

Friends:

A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.


				

User ID: 454

self_made_human

amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi

14 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 05:31:00 UTC

					

I'm a transhumanist doctor. In a better world, I wouldn't need to add that as a qualifier to plain old "doctor". It would be taken as granted for someone in the profession of saving lives.

At any rate, I intend to live forever or die trying. See you at Heat Death!

Friends:

A friend to everyone is a friend to no one.


					

User ID: 454

Make sure to properly count your organs before and after surgery!

Good luck. I presume it's a sinus surgery or something like an adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy? Or correction of DNS?

«You are Indian» sure is a new one. I'm 100% sure you must be new here.

You either die a Russian emigre, or live long enough to be a villain Indian. I'll get a bindi ready.

If you were less intentionally obtuse, I'd probably spend more time discussing this with you. But I'm really not paid enough to write a philosophical treatise for a hostile interlocutor, in fact, I'm not paid at all.

Please note:

I'm using a common-sense or consensus definition of evil

Is a very unambiguous statement, and can be trivially interpreted by someone arguing in good faith. If a question on an internet poll asks me "is murder bad", and offers yes or no as answers, the usual "commonsense" answer is to say yes, without a long-winded debate about the definition of murder or badness. I presume this extends to a question about the morality of genocide.

Ah, but what is evil? You cry, source for that contentious claim? Spare me. I'm quite confident I'm had this chat with you, but I'm not quite ready to go trawling through years of comments to find it. We didn't get anywhere, and it wasn't for a lack of me trying.

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about, but sure? Why not.

If moral relativism or the "problem" of theodicy are new to you, I suppose Google has sources that might be enlightening.

Yes.

I definitely do not extend the definition of genocide to include cultural conversion, and even population control is iffy, unless the overt or wink-wink goal is to reduce the population of undesirables to zero.

The Holocaust? Genocide. They killed just as many Jews as they could. Gaza? Not a genocide. If the population in Gaza increased during the period of relevance, then clearly it's a very half-arsed genocide.

Not controversial among whom? Europeans had been fine with genocide as "kill them all" until about 19th century when the "white man's burden" took over

I'm sure that you could find majority support for child sacrifice at certain periods of human history, or at least as a widespread belief and practice. When I talk about consensus morality, I'm talking today. Even outside the West, attitudes toward it lean more towards liberal norms as opposed to Hutu and Tutsi willingness to get one in at all costs.

The "bad taste" phrasing was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but the serious point stands. You can be a moral anti-realist and still condemn genocide, because "condemning genocide" doesn't require believing in moral facts. It just requires having preferences about how humans should treat each other, noticing that most humans share those preferences, and being willing to enforce them.

I've said before that I had stopped posting here because it's a purely American Affairs Discussion community

That's just not true. American concerns are the super-majority of content and discussion here, but that's a consequence of local demographics. On a site that's probably >70% American, what else would you expect? That doesn't mean that other nations don't get their due, China, the Yookay and miscellaneous contenders for the lightcone show up with regularity.

At any rate, it's unfortunate that Trump's term (has it only been a year?) overlaps with modal estimates for AGI, but I doubt his cantankerous attitude towards international diplomacy will persist afterwards. I have no idea who the Democrats will dig up, but Vance, while flawed, seems more sensible. This isn't mutually exclusive with tensions with China continuing to ratchet up, but less frank retardation would be nice to see, and I do expect to see it.

I know it when I see it. I think it's not particularly controversial that genocide is generally considered to be, at the very least, in bad taste.

I'm a simple creature. I think that the the conversion of Mercury into a Dyson swarm counts necessary damage to the environment. No issues there.

You inevitably lose nuance in a setup like this. I think I said agree to drug decriminalization, but I'm libertarian-adjacent and think that the harms are bounded. I still wouldn't advocate for fentanyl vending machines in malls.

It's less that the authors are trying to gotcha us (I didn't get that impression) and more that such a mass-market product caters to normies and thus becomes simplistic in places. I'm curious to know if someone has a more sophisticated offering.

They acknowledge that there's going to be some degree of subjectivity involved, both in the questions and interpreting the results, but you're better off not overthinking that hard.

Interesting site:

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx

It asks you 30 agree/disagree questions on a variety of "philosophical" topics, and then outputs a score calculating the inherent "tension" or cognitive dissonance in your answers.

The average score is 27% out of 100%, I score a pleasant 7%, but only because:

There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures And also that: Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which don ot

I'm using a common-sense or consensus definition of evil, and I don't think this is an actual contradiction. So I'm pleased to say I have zero philosophical dissonance? Who knows.

@Poug made a valid point. I've wanted to hit my head against a wall for years, when people used to complain about "ChatGPT" being useless, and they were using GPT 3.5 instead of 4. The same pattern has consistently repeated since, though you seem to be a more experienced user and I'm happy to take you at your word. It is still best practice to disclose what model you used, for the same reason it would be bad form to write an article reviewing "automobiles" and pointing out terrible handling, mileage and build quality, without telling us if it was a Ferrari or a Lada.

I find much to admire in the PRC, and just as much to disdain or decry.

China is one of the few countries around with real state capacity. Holy shit, it is difficult to overestimate how important that is to getting anything done. It's not so much that they started out uniquely capable, it's more that everyone else, especially in the West, entirely fumbled the ball. The America of the Hoover Dam? A distant memory. The West has decentralized so hard that it's ruled by a tyranny of the minority, with so many people with de-facto veto power that something as mundane as a metro station arrives ten years late and ten times over budget. The West intentionally threw away the keys to the kingdom, and embraced stagnation. It is easy to plateau when you start off at a peak, with your basic human necessities taken care of, and a sense of "things are basically fine".

A lot of the things the rest of the world wrings their hands over are simply addressed pragmatically and directly by China. Worried about oil? Build so many solar panels they blot out the sun (if you're very short). The US says you can't have their fancy (Taiwanese) GPUs? Fuck it, we say no after Nvidia and its (Taiwanese) CEO lobby a retarded president into relenting. Turns out, you can have a heavily protectionist, mercantilist economy if you're really fucking good at it, and the rest of the world is entirely addicted to your products.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,"

Turns out that there is, in fact, a reasonably acceptable exchange rate between the two. Now, I'd very much prefer the kind of freedom the US offers, but living in the Yookay, China doesn't seem so bad. The topics they censor aren't the drums I want to beat, they won't throw me in prison for discussing HBD.

At the moment, China doesn't seem to have grand imperial ambitions. They have little interest in injecting their values and mores into the lives of people who look nothing like them. If you have something that passes as a state, and you're willing to trade with them, they'll take you. There's something refreshing about relying on enlightened self-interest instead of "liberal values", even if I'm generally a fan of said values.

(There is no guarantee that this self-absorption will remain indefinitely, if they become the hegemonic power)

Now, if only they'd stop being retarded about Taiwan, and the South China Sea, or Arunachal Pradesh...

Other than the US, they're also the only other country with a realistic shot at AGI, or even a mere human employment crisis. They've got the factories, and no hangups about automating everything that can be automated.

It's far from a given that the century will be Chinese, but I'm willing to nihao at some fine shit and not particularly mind. If they unbanned Reverend Insanity, the CCP has my vote.

Male sexuality will happily fuck six year olds, is that fundamentally smart and good?

That is rather fundamentally unusual and unacceptable behavior in any remotely modern society I can name. There is a massive difference between ~most men being attracted to 16 year old women, but denying that attraction because of laws and socialization, and attempting to sleep with literal small children.

I might as well claim that "female sexuality" involves peanut butter and particularly attractive German Shepherds, since that has been documented at rates >0.

I always felt that Dahl was horrendously overrated. Sure, his writing was adequate, but it always screamed "so-called gifted kid still malding about adults not recognizing his talents" well past the point where it was dignified.

Sin and cos. And I use them a lot.

SOHCAHTOA coming in clutch for an entirely different kind of Indian.

Shame I missed the halcyon days. I showed up maybe a year or two after the migration to the subreddit.

Et tu, Brute? I keep imagining there's some mysterious phase change where repetition makes it stick.

I had a very awkward referral once, for a patient with a TCA overdose. I looked at it, knew what it was, but when the person taking the referral asked me to describe it, I was "uh... Those T waves look tented?"

I did at some point succeed at "building" the world's shittiest ECG; at least it made an appropriately squiggly-looking line (relying on the oscilloscope for 98% of the work, of course). I'm pretty sure that experience has only left me more mystified about what an ECG is supposed to do.

The heart goes through sequential contraction and relaxation phases, with the upper atria and lower ventricle being out of phase. This is governed by electrical waves propagating roughly top down. Since we're talking about a chemical process (ions crossing membranes), there's noticeable conduction delay.

Roughly speaking, it kicks off near the top of the heart, and has a "highway" of rapid conduction down the middle. There's increased latency the further you go.

We place multiple electrodes on the limbs and chest:

*The leads placed on the chest measure changes in voltage propagating perpendicular to the skin (front and lateral).

  • The axial leads measure measure the projection of the heart's electrical axis to the vector connecting the leads, going ~left to right and top-bottom.

You draw a chart. Leads V1 and V2 focus on the anterior-right of the heart, 3 and 4 are a bit lower and right above the heart, so you get the anterior picture, 5 and 6 show you what's going on in the sides. The limb leads help figure out the inferior bit.

Once we have established a baseline, then we look at a patient's ECG for deviations from the norm. Too much or too little voltage, or an unusual delay between phases, these can all point to cardiac pathology, and we can localize based on which views are aberrant. For example, in a heart attack, the leads reading anteriorly will, badum-tss, be the ones most out of whack if the damage is on the anterior aspect of the heart (anterior myocardium/muscles), and so on. And those delays in conduction point towards something wrong with the inbuilt cardiac pacemakers or that highway I mentioned.

In effect, an ECG isn't just a single image, it's closer to tomography. The additional leads provide clear advantages over just attaching a potentiometer to someone's toes and fingers.

Of course, it gets much more complicated in practice. Especially when a patient has multiple heart conditions at once, I start sweating when I have to interpret those even when I'm fully up to speed. And it's all the worse in psychiatry, because you can't rely on the patients to be particularly cooperative. And it hurts when you pull off the adhesive on the cups and it takes chest hair with it.

If you're looking for a 'picture' to hold in your head, this 3Blue1Brown is a classic. Surprisingly appropriate for a huge range of mathematical sophistication.

But Pagliacci, I've tried clown therapy :(

3B1B is excellent, and his video on the FT is my go to. It's just that I forget the details beyond "you can decompose arbitrary analog signals into a sum of sine waves".

Reply: "The concept is called XYZ and it works by X, Y, and Z." Entirely a hallucination when you then go to search for XYZ.

Which model? Hallucinations have become quite rare on the SOTA models, especially the ones with internet search enabled. It's not like they never happen, but I'm surprised that they're happening "all the time".

Does anyone have their own equivalent of a personal "antimeme", a concept you familiarize yourself with (potentially with difficulty) and then inevitably forget unless you make an intentional effort to look it up?

In no particular order:

  • I often have to look up whether I need an x86 or x64 executable when I need to download a program
  • ECGs. Fucking ECGs. I get good at understanding them when I absolutely have to (before exams), but guess what, by the time the next one rolls around, it's all out of my head.
  • Fourier transforms (how they actually work, and not the conceptual strokes)
  • And many more, all of which stubbornly refuse to come to mind, because of course they do.

If I could pay $20 for an upgrade to business class, you bet I would.

It's very interesting to see you be even more bloodthirsty and drama-pilled than Count.

I'm a basic bitch who goes to Starbucks twice a year and thinks the coffee was nice. I feel like a deaf person walking into a concert.