BC SOCIETY
Saved by @Alex1Powell

I think because the reward structure of being a bio-ethicist rewards saying level-headed sounding, cautious-sounding, conventional wisdom?

Though I'm not sure why that is.

 @JeffLadish I guess if you want to radically improve the world, you mostly don't go into a field that is about opining on other people's work, you go into something like Engineering and do the work?
@JeffLadish I note that Nick Bostrom is what a Bioethicist should be: he thinks hard about tradeoffs and risks, and crystalizes concepts like the Unilateralist's curse and black ball technologies.

But this is starting from a place of "The world could be vastly better. How do we get there?"
@JeffLadish I don't know why bioethics doesn't look more like a field of (less smart) Bostroms.
@JeffLadish I guess because everyone's disgust reactions are triggered by the actually good proposals, and in order to make those proposals the consensus of the field a lot of people have to bite the bullet and stick their neck out saying "I know this sounds crazy / absurd / vaguely evil...
@JeffLadish ...to our intuitions / etc, but it is actually the right thing to do."

And there are not enough people who are up for that, to reach a consensus?
@JeffLadish But economics, as a field, _does_ have this property. Economists are famously fine with policies that are abhorrent to the untrained intuition, but that they are confident are actually better on net. That's a good chunk of what economics is.
@JeffLadish But maybe economics has a solid enough theoretical underpinning, that it can manage to be that kind of field, while, the state of consensus in philosophy, and ethics in particular is confused?
@JeffLadish Like, if you have people still fighting over deontology vs. utilitarianism, it is pretty hard to build to a field wide consensus that we should obviously do covid variolation, because it will save lives on net.
@JeffLadish In which case the problem traces back to "Philosophy has bad feedback loops: you don't get to clearly know that you got the right answer. Which means philosophers are incentivized to make interesting and counterintuitive arguments, instead of to steer towards the actual truth."
@JeffLadish Ok. I think this is the answer to the original question: by the standards of science and engineering, you can settle a question to a sufficient degree of precision, and then move on to higher level questions using your answer to the first question as a foundation.
@JeffLadish But by the standards of philosophy, you can practically never settle a question. There is always space for more counter argument. If you settled the question, you wouldn't be able to argue about it any more!
@JeffLadish Which means that you don't build a foundation of answers to basic questions that you can assume, in trying to answer more complicated questions.

To do it right, bioethics would have to, at least in many areas, _assume_ utilitarianism.
@JeffLadish But if you try to assume utilitarianism, a bunch of philosophers will jump on you with many counterarguments and paradoxes and bullets to bite, all of which erode the ability of a bioethics field, as a whole, to stick to its guns about ideas that are counter-intuitive.
@JeffLadish One thing to note here is that the philosophical standards also challenge the foundations of science and engineering. Philosophy as a whole holds that we don't have rock solid reasons to trust our "obvious" answers to questions of epistemology and metaphysics.
@JeffLadish (Like whether there is an external world or whether knowledge is possible.)
@JeffLadish But the scientist and engineers just ignore the philosophers and assume those things anyway, at least for the purposes of doing their science.

And this works. It isn't necessarily philosophically grounded, but it works.
@JeffLadish And the difference is, I think, that the goal of science is to actually land on our all things considered most-correct answer (in part, so that engineering can build cool things like spaceships), while the goal of philosophy is to have air-tight ARGUMENTATION for our answer.
@JeffLadish If you're mostly trying to build spaceships, you don't really care about gettier problems, unless they're fucking up your ability to build working spaceships.
@JeffLadish And if you you just want to know how the sun sines, you don't really care that epistemology isn't grounded, because while you might be confused about the finer points, the finer points of epistemology are not going to get in the way of your getting correct beliefs about the sun.
@JeffLadish It turns out that you can generally build spaceships, and (more controversially) end up with correct beliefs about the sun, without having a solid irrefutable proof about the nature of "beliefs."
@JeffLadish Now it does turn out that having correct beliefs about what beliefs are, is pretty useful for getting more correct beliefs.

But having correct beliefs about what beliefs are turns out to not be the same thing as having solid irrefutable arguments for your belief about beliefs.
@JeffLadish This, by the way, is my main answer to the objection that I am projecting onto some folks that I talked to about critical rationality, recently.

(To be clear, I DON'T think that I definitely understood the points they made, and I may be responding to a straw-man.)
@JeffLadish But, I said recently that I thought that Bayes is the foundation of epistemology.

https://t.co/TfCQgRqUtv
@JeffLadish Different people gave different objections to that, but one objection was (if I understand it correctly) "But, where do your probabilities come from? Either you're infinitely certain of them, or you have an infinite stack of probabilities about the probability below them."
@JeffLadish https://t.co/8joOxuxaPp
@JeffLadish I think I could give some more detailed arguments about how this works, but I also want to dispute frame of the point being argued (if I understand it) a bit.
@JeffLadish It is totally possible to have a functioning brain / epistemology, that actually works for producing knowledge and steering through the world, which does not justify itself on its own terms.
@JeffLadish Like the question of "Does a Bayesian learning mechanism, work, in practice" is a separate question from "How do we justify that it works?"
@JeffLadish In general, I think many questions of the "but how do we justify it?" stripe, just don't matter very much.

For many things, we can't prove that it works, but it does work, and it is more interesting to move on to more advanced problems by assuming some things we can't prove.
@JeffLadish That is not to say that ALL questions of justification are irrelevant. Most of the time, even, it is very practically important to ask "how do we / can we know this is true?"
@JeffLadish But my goal in asking that is to figure out what's true, to the best of my ability, and to my own satisfaction, not to have an airtight argument that something is true.
@JeffLadish ...
Getting back to the original question, I think my answer was incomplete, and part of what is happening here is some self-selection regarding who becomes a bio-ethicist that I don't understand in detail.

Basically, I imagine that they tend towards conventional-mindedness.
@JeffLadish @threadreaderapp unroll

More from Eli Tyre

Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
CritRats!

I think AI risk is a real existential concern, and I claim that the CritRat counterarguments that I've heard so far (keywords: universality, person, moral knowledge, education, etc.) don't hold up.

Anyone want to hash this out with


For instance, while I heartily agree with lots of what is said in this video, I don't think that the conclusion about how to prevent (the bad kind of) human extinction, with regard to AGI, follows.

There are a number of reasons to think that AGI will be more dangerous than most people are, despite both people and AGIs being qualitatively the same sort of thing (explanatory knowledge-creating entities).

And, I maintain, that because of practical/quantitative (not fundamental/qualitative) differences, the development of AGI / TAI is very likely to destroy the world, by default.

(I'm not clear on exactly how much disagreement there is. In the video above, Deutsch says "Building an AGI with perverse emotions that lead it to immoral actions would be a crime."
SOCIETY
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
My catch all thread for this discussion of AI risk in relation to Critical Rationalism, to summarize what's happened so far and how to go forward, from here.

I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with


So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.

(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)

But in addition to that, there has been a much more sprawling conversation happening on twitter, involving a much larger number of people.

Having talked to a number of people, I then offered a paraphrase of the basic counter that I was hearing from people of the Crit Rat persuasion.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
There's a particular kind of romantic partnership, with a certain sort of person, that I've wanted since I became a self-aware, directed agent at around age 15.

Empirically, this kind of relationship has been hard to achieve. It hasn't worked out yet, at least.

And this sometimes leaves me wondering if my standards are unreasonable.

In years past that desire was often very alive.

These days, I'm rarely directly or viscerally in contact with it.

I sometimes contemplate aiming for some other kind of romantic and/or sexual relationship instead. In part because I might be more effective if I...I don't know, got laid more? But that's not really the thing. More like, if I had someone around whom I could regularly relax.

But mostly, I don't pursue those alternative relationship-setups out of a sense of something like loyalty to myself + a vague sense of wrongness and/or sadness about it. It often feels like giving up or giving in.

[I might elaborate on the wrongness sometime.]
FOR LATER READ
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."

Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.

What do we make of this?

1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.
HEALTH
Eli Tyre
Eli Tyre
@EpistemicHope
I was reading something that suggested that trauma "tries" to spread itself. ie that the reason why intergenerational trauma is a thing is that the traumatized part in a parent will take action to recreate that trauma in the child.

This model puts the emphasis on the the parent's side: the trauma is actively "trying" to spread.

This is in contrast to my previous (hypothetical) model for IGT, which puts the emphasis on the child's side: kids are sponges that are absorbing huge amounts of info, including via very subtle channels. So they learn the unconscious reactions of the people around them.

(I say "hypothetical", because all while this sort of thing is in my hypothesis space, I haven't seen clear enough evidence that intergenerational trauma is a meaningful category that I solidly believe it is real.

More like, "here's a story for how this could work.")

On first glance, I was skeptical of this "active trauma" story.

Why on earth would trauma be agenty, in that way? It sounds like too much to swallow.
CULTURE

More from Society

Indian Rwanda Radio
Indian Rwanda Radio
@IND_RwandaRadio
Nearly a year ago, the Tablighi Jamaat controversy took over India’s media. Around 3,500 foreign nationals had visited India to attend the Tablighi Jamaat event at the Nizamuddin Markaz Mosque in Delhi.

With the lockdown being announced on March 24, 2020, several attendees had moved to different parts of the country to attend smaller gatherings in local mosques.

Around 960 foreign nationals were held at quarantine and in states like UP, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Karnataka, etc. were sent straight to prison.

There was an outpour of Anti-Muslim bigotry in much of Indian news media with this event where it ramped up its demonisation of the community.

For weeks, the attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat event were named the “super-spreaders” of COVID and in several cases, Maulana Mohammad Saad was called a terrorist and “the maulana of death”.
SOCIETY
\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 SheNerd the Deplorable \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8
🇺🇸 SheNerd the Deplora...
@shnerdly
For those traveling to DC on Jan. 6th, I'm a native to the area and I would like to share with you what I will be doing this time and what I have done for the last two rallies...1/
SOCIETY , TRAVEL
Advertisement
UN Watch
UN Watch
@UNWatch
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.

View the resolutions and voting results here:

The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.

Israel and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr


The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.

Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab


The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF


The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.

Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
SOCIETY
Kurt "Masks Save Lives" Eichenwald
Kurt "Masks Save Lives...
@kurteichenwald
For those of us suffering & dying in Texas, the sociopathy of @GOP that leads to an astonishing lack of concern about our lives by evil folk like @GregAbbott_TX @GovernorPerry @TuckerCarlson @DanCrenshawTX et al who blatantly lie about what’s happening...1

...just to score political points - and protect the profits of energy companies - is almost incomprehensible. These are people who would claim Social Security caused 9/11 if it was convenient. What caused this catastrophe is vast vast majority from gas, then coal/nuclear...2

...then wind. The ONLY source of power that is delivering more than expected in budgeting is wind. But that’s not convenient to say for the oil/gas/coal industry, so the @GregAbbott_TX @GovernorPerry @DanCrenshawTX stand atop our dead bodies lying to protect the companies...2

...shockingly, the ONLY people in a position of state/national strength are the executives with the company that manages electricity in the state, @ERCOT_ISO. But they can’t tell the whole truth, because that would entail revealing how much stupidity was done here for profit...3

...of industry by Texas @GOP. If gas/nuke/nuclear/wind had been winterized - as they are everywhere else in the country - this would have largely been prevented. But it would have cost companies money, and that would cut into profits. If the gas lines has been buried deeper...3
SOCIETY
The Soup
The Soup
@TheSoup_India
A thread celebrating the many lady librarians of Mumbai, because very often, a woman who reads creates societies of people who read.

Seen here is Mrs Gulshan Feradoon Cooper, Head Librarian for over forty years at The People's Free Reading Room in Dhobitalao. “I am not at all strict, that’s my only drawback,” she said. (She doesn't charge a fine).


“I prefer research libraries because I don’t like novels, I like history," said Sarita Shekar Gandhi, Head Librarian at KR Cama Oriental Institute. Over her years at the library she has devoted herself to understanding the nuances of Zoroastrian studies.


Bidisha Basu co-started @leapingwindows , a library and café for comic books, graphic novels and manga. “You get people who have never read a comic before and that’s the most interesting part of the job. It’s exciting to introduce them to comics," she said.


“A librarian should not only love books, she should also love people," said Arati Desai the Head Librarian at the immaculate Nehru Centre Library in Worli. "I've even swept and swabbed my library, there's dignity in everything that you do at work," she goes on to say.
SOCIETY

You May Also Like

Khatvaanga
Khatvaanga
@khatvaanga
Starting my 2nd thread on Sringeri Parampara. This will cover the Jagadgurus after Sri Vidyaranya to Sri Shivabhinava Nrisimha Bharati.

It is really very tough to match the brilliance and achievements of Vidyaranya. After whom came 15 - Chandrashekara Bharati [1386-1389].

The next Acharya was Nrisimha Bharati [1389-1408]. Harihara raya found a town for this Acharya - Narasimhapuram. Acharya helped the king by guiding him in political affairs. He also initiated the kind with mahamantras for spiritual development.

Subsequent Acharyas were
15-Puroshottama Bharati [1408 - 1448]
16-Shankara Bharati[1448 - 1455]
17-Chandrasekhara Bharati II [1455 - 1464]
18- Nrisimha Bharati II [1464 - 1479]
19-Puroshottama Bharati II [1479 - 1517]

20-Ramachandra Bharati [1517 - 1560]. Sadashiva Raya was emporer of Vijayanagara during this time.
21-Nrisimha Bharati III [1560 - 1573]
22-Nrisimha Bharati IV [1573 - 1576]
23-Nrisimha Bharati V [1576 - 1600]

24-Abhinava Nrisimha Bharati [1600-1623]. When he visited Malahanikareswara temple for first time he noticed there was no Vinayaka there so he took piece of turmeric and drew outline of Ganesha on a pillar and offered puja.
ALL
Vibhor Varshney
Vibhor Varshney
@nakulvibhor
On the occasion of youtube 20k and Twitter 70k members

A small tribute/gift to members

Screeners

technical screeners - intraday and positional both

before proceeding - i have helped you , can i ask you so that it can help someone else too

thank you

positional one

run - find #stock - draw chart - find levels

1- Stocks closing daily 2% up from 5 days
https://t.co/gTZrYY3Nht

2- Weekly breakout
https://t.co/1f4ahEolYB

3- Breakouts in short term
https://t.co/BI4h0CdgO2

4- Bullish from last 5

intraday screeners

5- 15 minute Stock Breakouts
https://t.co/9eAo82iuNv

6- Intraday Buying seen in the past 15 minutes
https://t.co/XqAJKhLB5G

7- Stocks trading near day's high on 5 min chart with volume BO intraday
https://t.co/flHmm6QXmo

Thank you
SCREENERS , ALL , NAKULSMIX
Advertisement
Aditya Todmal
Aditya Todmal
@AdityaTodmal
A THREAD ON @SarangSood

Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.

Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen

1. Keeps following volatility super closely.

Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.

Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.


2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.


3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result

He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.


4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega

Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
OPTIONSLEARNINGS , OPTIONSBASICS , OPTIONSLEARNINGSSARANGSOOD
Jaya_Upadhyaya
Jaya_Upadhyaya
@Jayalko1
AHOBILAM NARASIMHA SWAMY KSHETRAM: KURNOOL (AP)
#andhratemples

Ahobilam is the place where Prabhu appears in his fierce form, called Ugra Narasimha, who is Svayambhu (self-manifest).
Ahobilam is one of the 108 Divya Desams. It has 9 shrines for different forms of Narsimha.


Ahobilam was the exact place where Sri Narasimha appeared and tore apart Hiranyakashipu to save Prahlad. At that moment, all the Devas appeared and praised him as Ahobala (Aho is mighty and bala is strength). So the place came to be called Ahobilam.


Out of the 9 shrines, most famous is the Ahobila Narasimha Swamy where Prabhu is seen as Ugra Narasimha.
In another shrine, Prabhu appears as Malola Narasimha Swamy. Malola means beloved of Lakshmi. Here Prabhu is in peaceful mudra with his consort Ma ChenchuLakshmi.


Jwala Narasimha Swamy shrine is the actual spot where the fierce anger of Prabhu reached its culmination when he tore Hiranyakasipu.

Ugra Stambham is the pillar from which Narasimha appeared with such force that the entire hill split into two.
ALL
dan spaceman
dan spaceman
@ohlaika
ugh i wanted to do a thread about the wars in Star Wars and how the two outlying wars (the clone wars in the prequels and the cold war/civil war in the sequels) are really weird but i don't feel like it any more.

my first argument is that the Clone Wars were a really complex morally gray moment in Star Wars canon in like, 5 different directions and I'd kind of like to know why Lucas did that.

especially with the direct line that's drawn in the OT with the allegory of WW2 and Vietnam with the rebels being the Vietnamese and the Empire being America. That...doesn't exist in the Clone Wars.

for starters: it's weird it's called the Clone Wars. I get why, because that's what Kenobi calls it in STAR WARS, but the clones are a small facet in the larger story of the war.

the clones basically only exist as a macguffin in AOTC that is...extremely confusing ultimately. Because if you accept that Sidious has this grand master plan to use this war to destabilize the Republic and form an Empire...it's way too complex.
CULTURE