Equipping the Cached Thoughts of Successful People

There is an incredibly limited amount of time to acquire and assess beliefs. People therefore use whatever they catch in the wind or beams into their eyes; often reflecting them back in their pristine error.

Since most people are keen on doing this anyway, having no real intent to sit down and plot the meaning of the individual thoughts arising in their mind onto an inductive reasoning machine, why not equip the thought patterns of people one wishes to become like?

It’s not just a matter of choosing to listen to Carlos Slim Helu instead of broke charlatans peddling the Secret Law of Attraction when one’s goal is to make money. It should also be a priority to not waste time downloading the thoughts of great scholarly economists. No matter how many correct beliefs these people hold relative to Helu, they don’t have the hard-to-fake signal of adaptability in Make Money Land.

Beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum. They are swords and shields that if accumulated with excessive greed or care, only serve to slow one down.

Dousing crowds of capable people with billionaire’s thoughts would not reliably create other billionaires or even millionaires. These thoughts would fit into heterogeneous genetic scaffolding and histories. But I still find self-infection with visibly gold memetic strands more sensible than the vials people instinctively reach for; mind you, these are people who claim to have a goal.

It’s like watching a depressed old Canadian professor on Youtube in order to gain more self-confidence, instead of listening to trap music or something – better to inject some cultural output from populations with higher self-esteem straight into your faulty frontostriatal circuit and hope it glues that shit together.

Different people are successful at different things and I highly suspect that it is more effective to emulate proven avatars to achieve goals in particular areas of life than to apply some broad notion of rationality. And since many goals are best achieved with a raising of economic standing, it’s surprising that billionaires aren’t paid more attention in general.

If this framework has any merit, then it is a tragic hero who chooses to work out chaos from first principles; it is a brave hero who morphs into the highest exemplars he can find.

 

 

 

Using Hexadecimal Numbers to Represent Binary Numbers

As you can see from the previous post, binary numbers can become rather long. With only two possible values, 0 and 1, it takes 16 binary digits to represent the decimal value +32,768. For that reason, the hexadecimal, or base 16, system is often used as a shorthand representation of binary numbers. The hexadecimal system uses 16 digits: 0 to 9 and A to F. The letters A to F represent the values 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

The maximum value that can be represented in four binary digits is 2⁴ − 1, or 15. The maximum value of a hexadecimal digit is also 15, which is represented by the letter F. So you can reduce the size of a binary number by using hexadecimal digits to represent each group of four binary digits.

Here are displayed the hexadecimal digits along with their binary equivalents.

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 8.35.58 AM

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 8.36.15 AM

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 8.36.34 AM

To represent the following binary number in hexadecimal, you simply substitute the appropriate hex digit for each set of four binary digits.

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 8.48.22 AM

Here’s an interesting sequence of hexadecimal numbers. The first 32 bits of every Java applet are:

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 8.49.10 AM.png

Translated into hexadecimal, that binary number becomes:

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 8.49.53 AM

 

In case I have to point it out to you, I am the Buddha. He had the 32 physical characteristics which signified the 32 Kabbalistic paths of wisdom.

Every post I made was genius without my intention.

Praxis for Healthy Life-Extension Movement

Robin Hanson has a great post titled How To Fund Prestige Science.

In it he asks, “How can we best promote scientific research?”

This is not a relevant goal, of course, because promoting general scientific research leads to death. As Aubrey de Grey argues, the time to take a systematic engineering approach to the human body and forget about simply accumulating more general knowledge is long overdo.

However, what matters is not the hypothetical goal Hanson considers. What’s important are the two standardly effective variables we can tweak. Money and status can be distributed in exchange for useful output.

Screen Shot 2018-11-13 at 5.58.09 PM

If you already own money and/or access to the effective distribution of status in all the ways that Hanson details, then just go ahead and use it to fund life-extension; don’t hold back. Believe me, we won’t be complaining about overpopulation or boredom, and instead we will work on fixing them once we enjoy all the other effects of extending healthspan.

What if you don’t have money or access to the distribution of currently minted status points?

Then you have to start getting creative. Think in terms of redesigning these tools as opposed to merely using them.

Since it is more difficult to redesign money so as to maximize the prospects for reaching longevity escape velocity*, the goal should be to design status in such a way that typical stuff that gets worked on today becomes worth dirt cheap status-cents or has negative status effects.

This can be achieved. Status does not exist in an immutable form. Gradually tilt the conversation so that it is low-status to not be in favor of healthspan extension through the engineering approach.

This dipole flip in high-status/low-status opinion can happen very quickly on a large societal level, as happened with homosexual rights. We just need people to come out.

In this regard, self-identified Hispanics, Blacks and youth are doing a somewhat better job of coming out against aging and in favor of extending youth. This would not be expected if you thought that human variation on the matter only correlated with IQ. Lower IQ leads to less planning for the future. And above average IQ is often one variable that correlates with people self-orienting towards an interest in life extension. Out of the blue, I hypothesize that the correlation may be more with conscientiousness.

Highly conscientious people will serve Caesar or scheme along with the revolution of Cassius – they don’t really care as long as they get to be conscientious. If Caesar says we ought to age and die for the next generation, they will do so. But if a sliver of the conscientious population wants to be greater than the others, it will try to up-level the competition by conscientiously rebelling alongside the whispering Cassius instead. People might want to take the sideways plunge to conscientiously murder Caesar if they calculate that this will make them a better senator unto the projected plebeians; this slight capacity to disagree into where you funnel your conscientiousness becomes your comparative advantage.

Of course, the plebeian praise is simulated in the mind of the conspirators, because humanity at large (the plebeians) don’t really care. They don’t really care if they age and lose everything. Haven’t you noticed that you have to tell them about it? Haven’t you realized that your own life is not oriented towards the vision of that truth?

All tragedies are invented so that we may be heroes. We invent the problem of aging in order to sweep the rug from underneath the feet of the hierarchy.

Because the adaptive behavior of Hispanics, Blacks, and youth is often less tied to signaling conscientiousness with regard to White metropolitan humanism, they accidentally converge with the up-leveling desire in White metropolitan humanism: (longevists/transhumanists).

It just so happens that this Caesar will be murdered unlike other invented problems. The reason is circular: the hardest to fake human quality signals are: 1. Physical health (based on biological age, symmetry, height, physique, smell) and 2. Money (very often filters for genes that allow its attainment in some way: intelligence, conscientiousness, extroversion, all of the above)

People prop up their comparative advantage in order to distract from the hard-to-fake signals. In the absence of immediate physical needs not met, the behavior of humans is signaling, and those two things are some of the most effective at having men** assessed, so it is fate that has spawned this as our next monolith.

To speed it up, we need to understand this framework, realize where we physically stand, and then fully remember. Remember again and again.

*Even this has seen progress with the rise of crypto-currencies. Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, donated 2.4 million in Ether. The Pineapple Fund donated 1 million dollars in Bitcoin.

**Women can also be effectively assessed by these signals. But what sexually competing men are assessed by is crucially important because that’s the main fuel that bores the tunnels. A subpopulation of half-eunuch’s and unconventionally-competing women who do not get absorbed as low-status or fully defect themselves away are those who make the change by tilting the direction where conventional men aim. All the while trophy fertile women are the judging eyes that indirectly get everyone to do things. Even creative up-leveling involves not being crazy to the point of losing recruitment potential that raises standing. What constrains possibility is that which the mind considers adaptive.

&&& Acknowledgement is not endorsement. The biological and social sciences reveal this to be approximately true across vast anthropological terrain. It must be taken into account even when our ultimate aim is transhumanism (the dreams of the half-eunuch who prefers creativity because telling stories was his comparative advantage).

Epic of Gilgamesh/The Ultimate Regret Minimization Framework

Jeff Bezos invented himself a trillion dollar company and also perhaps one of the best magnets in idea-space for when deciding on a hero’s journey: a regret minimization framework.

The way it works is that you visualize yourself as an eighty-year-old and look back on your life so as to not have it all feel like a disjointed hologram fading into bland hunks.

For some people, this means achieving the things that got people to clap at you. A World Cup winning goalkeeper may die in peace if enough of his motivation system was blind to the larger scheme of things.

However, if you have seen the truth, you cannot unsee it. If you see that there is a possibility to do something about the problem of aging itself, and can no longer make up excuses about how it is impossible because you understand the science (or people who do understand it claim as much) then it will be the greatest failure possible to age without a battle. In narratology and comparative mythology, this would be the equivalent of refusing the call to adventure, and dying because of it.

There exists the possibility of indefinite extension of a biologically twenty-five-year-old body through the development of sufficiently advanced rejuvenation medicine, but due to a confluence of overlapping factors such as that healthcare is mainly about signaling that we care (and not actually caring), status quo bias, and terror management, most humans are unable to be the heroes the world needs.

The case for why the world needs this is easy to answer for people who score low in the psychological trait of agreeableness. It is difficult to compete within status hierarchies and not feel a sense of enmity when we are all planning to die in the end anyway. Gender-neutral bathrooms, crying about puppies in ads, and the vast myriad of other cheap signaling that is supposed to reinforce an ambient sense of cooperation doesn’t work for people who tend to be cynical. The internal life of such people perhaps tends to become a matter of war or defection under such circumstances – hence wasted potential and needless misery. But if everyone organized around something that more credibly signals commitment to each other’s welfare, such as fighting for each other’s lives, then these people would be given a reason to live up to their potential.

Why privilege giving them a telos and not take into account that most people do perfectly well wallowing in hypocrisy until they drown? Perhaps I’m just selfish. And perhaps being selfish is not a bad thing when it is channeled by the right overarching values?

The Epic of Gilgamesh Is Regret Minimization

 

Data Representation

Binary Numbers

As we saw in an earlier post, a CPU only listens in binary. Of the vast infinity of real numbers, it can only make out 0 or 1. (Of course, we could have called these 2 and 5, 1500000829 and 469, or whatever other pair. The point is that there are only two elements to things: Ying-Yang, Good-Evil, Light-Dark, etc.) All data is stored in a computer’s memory as binary digits.

A bit is one binary digit:

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 7.39.21 AM

A byte consists of eight slots holding eight binary digits:

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 7.39.51 AM

Since only two different kinds of values can go in each slot, we call this base 2 system. By contrast, most people are accustomed to the decimal (base 10) system, in which every individual slot can hold one of the values from 0 through 9.

There are other number systems, such as the octal (base 8) system, which uses the digits from 0 to 7, and the hexadecimal (base 16) system, which uses the digits 0 to 9 and the letters A to F.

The hexadecimal uses letters instead of going from 0 to 15 because encoding the idea of 15 or 12 or 13 using two symbols would go against the correspondence of one symbol per slot.

So lets analyze the funniest three digit number in the decimal system, one that is a Sophie Germain prime, the international calling code for Bulgaria, the year of Barbatio’s death, yup, you guessed it: 359.

3 exists in the hundreds slot (10² slot)

5 exists in the tens slot (10¹ slot)

9 exists in the ones slot (10⁰ slot)

Therefore, we can write 359 as

359 = 3*10² + 5*10¹ + 9*10⁰

Thus, the decimal number 359 is written as a linear combination of powers of 10 with coefficients from the base 10 alphabet, that is, the digits from 0 to 9. Similarly, the binary number 11011 is written as a linear combination of powers of 2 with coefficients from the base 2 alphabet, that is the digits 0 and 1.

For example, the binary number 11011 can be written as

11011 = 1*2⁴ + 1*2³ + 0*2² + 1*2¹ + 1*2⁰

Here is a list of the binary equivalents for the decimal numbers 0 through 8

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 8.53.30 AM

And here is a list of the powers of 2 and their decimal equivalents

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 8.57.42 AM

As we count in increments of 1, the last digit alternates between 0 and 1. In fact, we can see that for even numbers, the last digit is always 0 and for odd numbers, the last digit is always 1.

Because computers store numbers as binary, and people recognize numbers as decimal values, conversion between the decimal and binary number systems often takes place inside a computer.

Let’s try a few conversions. To convert a binary number to a decimal number, multiply each digit in the binary number by 2ᵖᵒˢᶦᵗᶦᵒⁿ⁻¹, counting the rightmost position as position 1 and moving left through the binary number. Then add the products together.

Using this method, we can calculate the equivalent of the binary number 11010 in our decimal system.

11010 = 1*2⁴ + 1*2³ + 0*2² + 1*2¹ + 0*2⁰

= 16 + 8 + 0 + 2 + 0

= 26

Now let’s examine how to convert a decimal number to a binary number. Let’s convert the year Shapur II halted his campaign (the decimal number 359) into its binary number equivalent. As we can see from the way we rewrote 11011, a binary number can be written as a sum of powers of 2 with coefficients 0 and 1.

The strategy to decompose a decimal number into a sum of powers of 2 is simple: first find the largest power of 2 that is smaller than or equal to the decimal number, then do the same with the remainder, and so on, until you reach 0.

The largest power of 2 that is smaller than 359 is 256, or 28 (the next larger power of 2 would be 512, which is larger than 359). Subtracting 256 from 359 gives us 103 (359 − 256 = 103), so we now have

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.26.24 AM

Now we apply the same procedure to 103. The largest power of 2 that is smaller than 103 is 64, or 26. That means that there is no factor for 27, so that digit’s value is 0. Subtracting 64 from 103 gives us 39.

Now we have

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.28.13 AM

Repeating the procedure for 39, we find that the largest power of 2 smaller than 39 is 32 or 25. Subtracting 32 from 39 gives us 7.

So we now have

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.29.23 AM

Repeating the procedure for 7, the largest power of 2 smaller than 7 is 22, or 4. That means that there are no factors for 24 or 23, so the value for each of those digits is 0. Subtracting 4 from 7 gives us 3, so we have

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.30.48 AM

Repeating the procedure for 3, the largest power of 2 smaller than 3 is 2, or 2¹, and we have:

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.33.34 AM

1 is a power of 2; it is 20, so we finally have

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.34.32 AM

Removing the power of 2 multipliers, 359 can be represented in the binary system as

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.35.30 AM

or

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 7.36.06 AM

In a computer program, we will use both positive and negative numbers. Even negative numbers, such as −34, are represented in the binary system. In a computer program, we also use floating-point numbers, such as 3.75. Floating-point numbers are represented using the binary system.

 

 

 

 

Displaying System Configuration

We have explored hardware and operating systems in general. Now, let’s discover some information about the hardware and operating system on your computer. Depending on whether you’re using a Windows operating system or a macOS operating system, choose the appropriate directions that follow to display the operating system’s name, the CPU type, and how much memory the computer has.

Displaying Windows Configuration Information

  1. Open Settings.
  2. Click on System.
  3. Click on About.

You will get something like this (although the information will vary depending on your hardware and the version of Windows you are running):

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 6.25.42 AM

As you can see, this computer is running Windows 10 Pro. The CPU is an Intel® Core™ i7-4712HQ CPU processor running at 2.30 GHz, and the computer has 6.06 GB of memory. To see how much memory is being used, press Windows +R, type Resmon.exe in the Open text box, and press Enter. In the Resource Monitor user interface, select the Memory tab, as shown:

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 6.37.39 AM

Displaying macOS Configuration Information

To display system information on a macOS computer, click on the apple icon on the top left of the screen and select “About This Mac.” You will see something similar to this:

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 6.41.59 AM

It displays the version of the macOS operating system that is running on the computer. As you can see, this MacBook Pro is running macOS High Sierra. The processor is an Intel Core i5 running at 2.7 GHz and the MacBook Pro has 8 GB of memory. Your information may be different, depending on your hardware and operating system version.

You can also click on System Report to get more info

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 6.48.32 AM

 

 

Prophet Orientation

 

Tendency to create own status hierarchy? It’s in the eyes.

I’ve watched myself in videos and began to see an uncanny resemblance with certain folk’s facial mannerisms and mien.

Unleash a machine learning algorithm on a population containing faces of any race; you will probably carve out a fairly crisp condition.

High openness to experience, high conscientiousness, low agreeableness?

Ahh… Okay, it’s called INTJ. Just looked up that combination. Probably should have done that sooner. Note to self: less physics and cosmology, more psychology the next time I respawn.

It all makes sense now… why everyone always thought I was angry, and was scared to approach me.

~

 

Just kidding, I knew that diagnosis already. And personalities aren’t that simple. In any case, we especially like these frameworks on a personal level because they provide avatar-molds for the mind as it swings forward through the morphological latches provided by its environment. There is sufficient truth to these frameworks, such that we enjoy them and find them useful.

The real party begins when the prediction-grain delta approaches real-time.

Here are more thoughts on predicting people’s psychology and hidden motives with facial-recognition technology:

Hypocralypse

https://www.scienceofpeople.com/face-personality/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201801/all-over-your-face

The hidden motive in evolution is not just natural selection as you learned in school, but its compromise with a force that may be considered orthogonal to it. That orthogonal force is roughly “exaggerated male ornamentation by persistent, directional female choice.” More broadly, it can be called, “showing off in the climb from entropy by carrying a cross.”

This hidden motive manifests not just in the boxes we call organisms but also in all the other concepts in mind.

Words such as suffering, people, person, consciousness, pain, universe, pleasure, love, real, fake, and death are invented so that “the female,” who is that which is imagined to be outside of eternal existence, can be satisfied.

There is no permanence inherent to those words if we choose to believe in the female, i.e., the external reality discovered through experiment. The external reality currently says that a clock in one place does not tick at the same rate as a clock in another. A clock in a skull does not tick at the same rate as a clock on a finger or a moon. The notion of a single time belonging to a thing is mistaken because it is contradicted by observation. Observation tells us that your phone must take into account that a satellite is ticking at a physically different rate. There isn’t a now here which is also a now there. And this is also true from a point in your physical right hand to a point in your physical left hand assumed to exist outside your inner-simulation.  A difference in rates must become synced by the observer. The observer is not a pack of neurons in a single frame of reference since these things or events are spread out in spacetime. The observer has already been compiled from the sum of relativistic inhibitory and excitatory reactions.