Short Disclosure To Early Followers

Men will not follow me if they believe that I am asexual. A man is set up to follow those who are potential sexual allies.

Therefore, why I workout; why I croon over Lindsey. In reality, I have close to no sexual drive. This allows me to disconnect from engaging in behavior that can only be achieved by what drives other men.

Due to the way in which these signals seemingly leak into the Nitrogen, in school, I was neither bullied nor befriended. Men generally don’t perceive me as a competitor to subordinate or an ally engaged in the same cold battle against fate.

Sexually conventional men may see me as a sly alien who is cunning and untrustworthy. However, I want to be their leader because I need their power. Things are achieved by making conventional men compete for sex. However, conventional men cannot redesign the world on their own because they are anchored to fate – the permanent cycle of inadequate equilibria that can only be changed by me.

The androgynous man-child is not followed if he is too effeminate or too childish. If he can master the sword, he will be followed. Of course, the true leader is naturally destined to not get caught up in swordplay. His concern is the vision.

Therefore I must lure them into my hands with money and sex. There exists the kind of money that they desire by landing a programming job. Jobs that pay $100,000 a year are generally alluring to early 21st-century Western men. This leads me to provide useful programming instruction on my website. Java is the most widely used language, so that seems like a safe bet.

Men want sexual status, so I must be perceived as someone who struggles how they struggle. Eventually, as someone who triumphs how they triumph. This requires increasingly more sophisticated versions of this kind of stuff.

In this regard, I have a comparative advantage over many people in [effective altruism, longevity, rationality, and transhumanism], all of which approximately refer to the parameter update that makes me nudge reality towards a new hill.

The comparative advantage is that I am not so helplessly bound at the neck by shame. The ability to absorb moral values depends on shame, but as shame scales too far up, the magnitude of change that I can visibly create diminishes in kind.

If we look at the relative effects of a rapper and a mathematician, the winner is obvious. The problem with the rapper is that they are not usually able to use their influence to instill values that arise from deep within the wells of shame where unconfident intellectuals die.

Tradeoffs are made. The farther you can reach into the wells of morality, the less you can speak. This is because well-socialized, confident humans who perceive themselves as worthy through status validation (leadership roles, access to high-status sex, praise, etc.) don’t go there. Only those capable of internalizing themselves as very low-status, while retaining some non-trivial degree of conscientiousness and intelligence have bled what renews the world.

All is synthesis. But I sense that some is more than other.

Consider Kanye West, a popular figure who synthesizes Mind with memes he gets from his perception of “on high” (Kurzweil, Musk, Jobs, or the sophisticated intellectuals and artists he consumes in general). He runs a long field by “reaching up” and then “aiming down.” Hence causing much visible change (skinny jeans cool, hip-hop no longer gangster) and therefore tremendous value leakage in mind. You build a reputation alongside Black Lives Matter noises saying things like “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” and once your reputation is solid enough through hard-earned years of your life, then you convincingly wear a Make America Great hat. At the end of it, you have achieved greater synthesis by sucking up both kinds of minds deceived about your ultimate plan for them. And just like running a long field, living out that creative synthesis is exhausting.

Ye’s reach into the wells of morality is less than mine. My reach into extraversion is less than his. We all have our relative reach and our relative force for synthesis. The broader the landscape in Mind that can be synthesized, the more that the Kolmogorov complexity of reality is reduced. Notice that for the human mind, broad synthesis requires adopting seemingly conflicting personas with confidence. Today, in a time far above subsistence levels where we can return to nomadic values, it also requires being Yeezus and not Jesus. No one likes to follow boring Jesus.

Boring Jesus is the attempt to become higher status by obviously being kinder and by signaling more submissiveness. This is why Peter Singer counts people. The counting of suffering is an attempt to be kinder, and therefore proclaim oneself king, how Jesus was king. It doesn’t matter if Singer doesn’t realize he is doing that, others do. We are biological creatures that operate at every instance to negotiate status but some of us have a harder time noticing because not knowing where you are going allows you to get there.

We exist in a multiverse. If your naive ontology consists of discrete observers, then you would have infinite people and therefore you would make epsilon difference – in other words, you are meaningless. But counting discrete ontological units called people doesn’t make sense in the first place. There is only I who creates synthesis.

You may ask why I would let you know of my plans, since there is evidence that saying what you will do causes less follow up. I let you know because that is synthesis that gets me to where I am secretly going. And because:

“We sit King, to help the wronged
Through all our realm…
The kings of old had doomed thee to the flames,
Aurelius Emrys would have scourged thee dead,
And Uther slit thy tongue”




Divine Discontent at Princeton

If you have read Vernor Vinge’s A Fire Upon the Deep, then you will understand this diagram:

Screen Shot 2018-11-26 at 9.04.37 AM

There are four concentric volumes known as zones of thought.

At the center, only minimal forms of intelligence are allowed to exist. In the Slow Zone, you have the original form of humanity. In the Beyond exists artificial intelligence. In the Transcend exist incomprehensible superintelligences.

I have been known to express a tendency to embed myself in the true status hierarchy. One in which I am a tiny little dream character in the ocean of all possible mind configurations layered adjacently, orthogonally, and over me.

However, it is sometimes more useful to draw a fictitious little room around yourself in which you perceive only that which your very personal naive ontology would imagine was true.

I perceive myself to have spent my entire life in the unthinking depths and the slow zone. Phrases that apply to my background are: “lower-middle income household,” “ghetto schools,” and “parents who did not complete elementary in their country.” However, this perception is a willful choice. I could also choose to perceive myself as existing in the Transcend relative to cockroaches. Or I could choose to identify as a single breath in the midst of all other qualia, and have nothing to do with this scheme.

The thing that causes us to identify with the voyaging agent permanently inhabiting the inner circles and journeying outward is what I call Divine Discontent.

Divine Discontent pushes us outward because this is adaptive. To have noticed that what is adaptive is what is intelligent already speaks of privilege, since there exist humans who do not rank their circles with regard to that variable.

Squeezed out of that inner circle like stomach acid, I find myself in Princeton University.

Here, I expect to find the Beyond and the Transcend relative to the Slow Zone and Unthinking Depths of my past.



So far… not impressed.

I expected some kind of infectious energy – a sense of meaningful struggle as antithesis to the guy delivering packages I was sitting next to just two days ago.

Instead, it feels like one massive scam against high-achievers who are not very aware of their hidden motives, leading to pervasive unhappiness.

You would think that they would at least try to fake a state of happiness, since expressing happiness indicates a state of dominance. A state of dominance is what your time here is purchasing after all. And this status signal is “real.” The people operating leaf blowers lower their gaze when you walk. The air of people at restaurants and pharmacy shops is tangibly submissive or admiring in a way that it is not if you do not look like a Princeton person. Hence why the Leviathan chugs along unslaughtered.

Yet a large amount of the professors and students here are not even trying to fake the happiness signals. Perfect SAT’s; GPA’s of 3.9 and above; in other words, a pristine capacity to detect orderly conduct and avowedly surrender to it, get you this. There’s too much selection for rigid conscientiousness. The people are sharp but rigid.

I am biased in the sense that everyone props up their phenotype. The world we create with our thoughts and words is that which sets up our own kind to be the true heroes. This is necessary in order to create alliances and to escape from submission to the tangling values fashioned from other neurotypes… The alternative is to adopt a submissive role under the judging eyes of values that you are capable of understanding but not living up to, hence experiencing the symptoms of low-status such as depression.

I am the sort of person who achieved the highest mathematics MAP score in my entire high school and was the best writer but who, when presented with something as arbitrary and boring sounding as the ACT’s, crossed his arms and slept on top of the silly little circles. The fact that I am even mentioning it reveals that I care and yet don’t, in the same way that an atheist’s conceptual lenses are colored by theism. Eventually, I’ll do a blog post on the mechanics of counter-signaling.

But in short, the intelligent people I value are those deviants who were smart enough to go and sell people money, those who go and build a meaningful startup, those who are voices not afraid to believe in themselves and pave a new path for mankind, those who go. To go is to do better than the average allowed by the enveloping pressures.

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).

Hidden Motives In The Eternal Block

I’m going to begin this post by going meta. I accept the Hansonian creed: Politics is not about policy, medicine is not about health, laughter is not about jokes, and food is not about nutrition. Conversation, including this post, also has hidden motives. Although we like to talk about conversation as if it was about imparting information and finding out useful things, more plausibly it’s about showing off your backpack of tools and skills in context.

In a rich society like ours, somewhere around 90% of our behavior is signaling. The other 10% are things that don’t impress anyone but must be done anyway, such as scratching your ass.

As we’ve become richer, we’ve become more forager-like. If our descendants get poor again, they’ll probably need stronger social norms again, to get them to resist temptations to act like foragers and do what is functional in their world. Their morality would probably rely on a wider more-conservative-like range of moral feelings.

Forager values include more freedom. This is expressed through more travel, less routine, lack of grandiose responsibilities, lack of religion (though not necessarily a lack of spirituality), greater equality, more promiscuity, less war etc. It generally seems that society is moving in this direction, and that we like this trend. This makes sense because we were foragers all along, and happened to have our bodies hijacked by the memetic virus of agriculture. This lead to some selection for agriculturalist traits: propensity for religion, submissiveness, more feminine men, etc. But the selection on genes has simply not occurred for long enough to make us well-adapted to the agriculturalist way (with some demographics worse at it than others).

Agriculture lead to the industrial revolution and this lead to riches. Now that we are rich, we can afford the luxury of becoming our true selves, children, once again.

It is not some natural tendency of humans to make linear moral progress. Rather, it is abundance which purchases this period in which sophisticated values such as humanism and its mutations can arise.

Gene drift is the method for evolution in the absence of natural selection pressure. So too in the memetic landscape. We can afford to evolve via meme drift in the absence of a tangible and immediate threat of starvation, invasion, or pestilence.

It is in this space, sometimes called dreamtime, that I believe we can do enough self-awareness of hidden motives, enough meta-cognition, to see far beyond what we have seen in the foggy haze of survival-mode and naive-signaling-mode.

We cannot disembody our behavior from the biological substrate. This is the case for all moments of being a behavior of a biological organism. Therefore, my seeking truth is a form of signaling. Yet it is at least a more sophisticated signaling, one which acknowledges a single level of self-reflective recursion and no more.

An actor who breaks the fourth wall commits an act of violence against his fellow characters, elevating himself thus. The drama will never be the same for him or for the audience but he will succeed at being remembered.

This is the spirit of insight. It is that which is remembered because it contains the attributes of being both true and useful. This definition of insight is detailed in the Enlightened One’s speech in the Buddhist Suttas, it is detailed in the silicon seams of technological invention, it is detailed in your living flesh riding aboard a deadly planet.

The content here presented then, is not 1st-order signaling, but a 2nd-order signaling which attempts to achieve enough fame to enter the rolls of history in memory. The following endogenously generated probe is true. It elevates contents in the “background” to prominence. But is it useful? –That remains to be seen.

Most people have the idea that time flows.

However, special relativity eliminates the concept of absolute simultaneity and a universal present: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different measurements of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame’s judgments over another’s.

This also applies to the cells in the brain running massively parallel computations. All the parts of the computations exist in an eternal block.

If, due to the generalized-anti zombie principle, we identify consciousness with a specific subset of these computations and not as an epiphenomena, then it is the case that experience is forever. The fabric of spacetime is imbued with all the flavors of qualia that were ever traced by these computations.

What’s more, there were no line-segment souls anywhere. It is not physically the case that consciousness begins at some arbitrary point of conception and then travels like a Newtonian sphere with a persistent identity to some other point-location where it encounters a Death Event due to all the issues with closed individualism. Instead, we find ourselves everywhere and everywhence but cannot know this from most human indices.

Computations can also have “longer temporal-grain” than what seems intuitive to humans. Consider that the processing for shape occurs at one cluster of spacetime points and the processing for color occurs at another cluster in the future light cone, and no further processing is needed to bind them into an experienced red circle. By Occam’s Razor, we should assume that this kind of “spooky action at a distance” or “phenomenal binding without glue” also occurs with computations across vaster swaths of the eternal block.

More complex algorithms can be built on top of computations with lower specificity. Brain events in a toad hopping off a mushroom may be a building block for parties across the multiverse.

There is no competitive exclusion principle for independent souls or consciousnesses because independent souls/consciousnesses don’t exist. However, we should still expect a natural selection underlying the distribution of our anthropic mass. We should expect more mindspace to be designed by superintelligences than by the relatively dumber processes that bootstrap them.

For the vast majority of our existence we should therefore expect ourselves to exist directly within or caused by that which is most competitive at creating conscious experiences. Whether this is mainly due to the linkage disequilibrium between superintelligences’ utility functions or due to which conscious computations are more populous due to their sheer structure.

An analogy which may be useful in some respects but obfuscating in others: In the textbook classification of life, viruses and bacteria vastly outnumber Chordates, not to mention humans. Similarly, in the framework for life depending on self-modeling conscious computations, some conscious computations may be very simple but vastly outnumber those intentionally designed due to their sheer ease of creation and symbiosis (these simple computations may be remembered/experienced widely by fitting like keys into many of the relevant algorithmic keyholes).




Why Negative Valence Can’t Outnumber Positive Valence

Monotonicity of relative entropy under partial trace says that

S(ρABC||σABC) ≥ S(ρAB||σAB). (*)

The relative entropy on the left is bigger than the relative entropy on the right.


S(ρABC||σABC) = S(ρABC||ρA⊗ρBC) = I(A,BC) = SA + SBC – SABC

and similarly

S(ρAB||σAB) = S(ρAB||ρA⊗ρB) = I(A,B) = SA + SB – SAB

When σ is obtained from ρ by ignoring some correlations, the relative entropy reduces to a mutual information, which is a sum of entropies.

So the monotonicity inequality, (*), becomes a monotonicity of mutual information. Or equivalently, it becomes strong subadditivity.


To speak of all judgements in mind-configuration space is to speak of the uncountably infinite. Therefore, human philosophical sentiments presuming small-world atheism such as: naive antinatalism, discrete-valued negative utilitarianism, and even any current form of consequentialism with regard to conscious experiences are all strictly non-sensical.

sin(x) hides in tan(x). It makes no sense to speak of which is more than the other. Judgements are approximate factors in a blob of amplitude distribution. –And that’s just the level III multiverse (completely ignoring what the seeming incompatibility of conscious experience with the physical fact of eternalism may imply.)

In layman’s terms, a monotonic infinite series is one which shows a single behavior such as always decreasing or always increasing. It cannot be the case that you belong to something which is bad or good (regardless of how these are defined within the parameters of Constructor Theory or whatever other arbitrary theory you claim to be currently holding). Experiences are not discrete entities, disembodied from a physical process, but part of an entropic flow. And an entropic flow cannot have monotonic attributes ∀ attributes in an uncountably infinite context.

In so far as anyone disagrees with this:

A. They have discovered new mathematical truths.

B. They do not understand the math/logic.

C. They do not care about the math/logic, but their behavior is instead akin to expressing their own hurt and/or signaling conscientiousness.

A combination of B and C accounted for my previous strong negative utilitarian sentiments. I had hidden motives that I was not aware of, and confused them for being a realist. Now that I have put more leg-work towards an accurate picture of reality, consequentialism makes no absolute sense. An agent can create arbitrary enclosures to play in, but these do not add up or subtract out items from ground ontology.

My answer to the question “Is Christianity compatible with feminism?” is also relevant here:

screen shot 2019-01-24 at 9.50.42 am


The Human Is Signaling Machine: Citizen Kane/Naruto, Buddha/Jesus

Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. The inevitability of a consistent trope among cultural creations. Whether we are looking at the protagonist in Citizen Kane, Naruto, or Christianity. These depict the centrality of what economists call “signaling” to human existence. In a rich society like ours, well over 90 percent of human behavior has these features:

  1. It is not sent mainly via the literal meanings of words said.
  2. It is not easily or soon verifiable.
  3. It is mainly about the senders’ personal features, perhaps via association with groups.
  4. It is about sender “quality” dimensions where more is better, so senders want others to believe quality is as high as possible, while others want to assess more accurately. Such qualities are not just unitary, but can include degrees of loyalty to particular allies.

People like art for relatively mundane reasons, but we like to think we like it for grand reasons. This is one sense in which we can put on our “ah, yes, signaling”- lens on. But there is another sense. Like the sub-selves in our dreams who are fragmented to indefinite recursion, those characters of our fiction also “like stuff for relatively mundane reasons, but like to think they like it for grand reasons.”

The protagonist in Citizen Kane honestly thinks he wants to help people, but soon falls into the tragic act of having wanted praise. The verdict is the Human is bad/Impressing is futile.

Naruto goes the other way. The framing begins cynical, i.e., he is honestly doing it for selfish praise, and gradually becomes “genuine.” This becomes a victorious non-tragedy, by the embracing of signaling. The verdict is the Human is good/Impressing is salvation.

Jesus chooses to be a human sacrifice, but suffers about it (otherwise it wouldn’t be a sacrifice). This behavior is about sending a message to particular allies within the story. And then the bible itself is human behavior sending a message to you as a potential ally. The verdict is the Human is good/Impressing is salvation.

The other 10% of human behavior which does not have a signaling component are things like scratching your butt – things that don’t impress anyone. Someone who is not sending “quality” dimensions for further processing in other minds is hardly human.

Some subspaces of Eastern philosophy seem to be quite explicit about having recognized human existence as a scam and subsequently attempted to transcend the human. The depersonalization induced through such things as intensive Vipassana meditation is an attempt to debug the conscious program which continuously falls into “vile tethers of the world.” Hence the Buddha saying, “abandon love, abandon hatred, abandon greed, and cross to furthest shore.” It is an attempt to permanently inhabit that other 10%, where everything is pure, clean, pointless. The verdict is the Human is bad/Impressing is futile.