Will you be yourself tomorrow?
If you clone yourself, would it be you or a different person? How to define "me"? Let's say consciousness is an ability to perceive yourself as an independent unit of the whole system. I can feel myself. I can't feel my clone. So it seems my clone is a different person. Though, this person has the same configurations, such as goals, memories, life principles, and so on.
We can define "me" as a set of some factors, like a memory net, which is expressed as some tricky data type. Set of goals, and other things that make you who you are.
Thus, "me" = a function that denotes a combination of the factors, e.g. A x B x C.
I alter my views, goals over time. The function now returns a different checksum of me. Will I be myself tomorrow?
If you clone yourself, would it be you or a different person? How to define "me"? Let's say consciousness is an ability to perceive yourself as an independent unit of the whole system. I can feel myself. I can't feel my clone. So it seems my clone is a different person. Though, this person has the same configurations, such as goals, memories, life principles, and so on.
We can define "me" as a set of some factors, like a memory net, which is expressed as some tricky data type. Set of goals, and other things that make you who you are.
Thus, "me" = a function that denotes a combination of the factors, e.g. A x B x C.
I alter my views, goals over time. The function now returns a different checksum of me. Will I be myself tomorrow?
Eating less
I've stumbled upon interesting numbers that show an average body mass index in the world. 70% of US adults are overweight, many developed countries have nearly the same percentage: Canada - 67.5%, Germany - 62.8%, UK - 67.2%, and so on. But take a look at Japan - 29.4% of adults are overweight. An average life expectancy - 84.6 years.
There is an island in Japan, Okinawa. People there are famous for their longevity. Their diet can be the largest factor in such life expectancy.
The residents don't eat for a full belly. They say you should be 80% full. How to determine this level? In simple words, you eat until you feel you're full. Maybe slightly hungry.
There are other secrets in this diet, but remembering to not eat until you can't move is worthwhile.
I've stumbled upon interesting numbers that show an average body mass index in the world. 70% of US adults are overweight, many developed countries have nearly the same percentage: Canada - 67.5%, Germany - 62.8%, UK - 67.2%, and so on. But take a look at Japan - 29.4% of adults are overweight. An average life expectancy - 84.6 years.
There is an island in Japan, Okinawa. People there are famous for their longevity. Their diet can be the largest factor in such life expectancy.
The residents don't eat for a full belly. They say you should be 80% full. How to determine this level? In simple words, you eat until you feel you're full. Maybe slightly hungry.
There are other secrets in this diet, but remembering to not eat until you can't move is worthwhile.
Switching context
It's not an instantaneous operation to switch a context. We can't do tasks in parallel if those tasks aren't fully automatic/routine. Anyway, you're going to miss focus somewhere while trying to pay heed to something else.
I like to eat and watch something simultaneously though it's not how it is: I try to catch a flavor, compare it with the previous meal, and also comprehend what I'm watching. Though I choose entertaining things to watch, not learning algebra, it's hard to pay attention to jokes, a focus is moving fast.
It's more arduous when I do mental work. Some tasks require loading a lot of context in your head. When I need to do other tasks in parallel, the previous context is gone. It takes time to recover it and not to lose.
When I was working at software companies that do outsource, it was troublesome to keep track of 2+ projects. Sometimes there were 5+ projects. I wasn't efficient enough. If I was doing one project full time, it could have much more sense. I haven't had to lose my attention to switching focus operations.
It's like a motherboard that has several graphic adapters and 3+ RAM chips with different frequencies. It's hard to make all of them work efficiently.
It's not an instantaneous operation to switch a context. We can't do tasks in parallel if those tasks aren't fully automatic/routine. Anyway, you're going to miss focus somewhere while trying to pay heed to something else.
I like to eat and watch something simultaneously though it's not how it is: I try to catch a flavor, compare it with the previous meal, and also comprehend what I'm watching. Though I choose entertaining things to watch, not learning algebra, it's hard to pay attention to jokes, a focus is moving fast.
It's more arduous when I do mental work. Some tasks require loading a lot of context in your head. When I need to do other tasks in parallel, the previous context is gone. It takes time to recover it and not to lose.
When I was working at software companies that do outsource, it was troublesome to keep track of 2+ projects. Sometimes there were 5+ projects. I wasn't efficient enough. If I was doing one project full time, it could have much more sense. I haven't had to lose my attention to switching focus operations.
It's like a motherboard that has several graphic adapters and 3+ RAM chips with different frequencies. It's hard to make all of them work efficiently.
Filtering information skill
A great skill to have nowadays and beyond is to recognize quality information. When I try to find info about a topic, it becomes more complicated. It's not enough to google, a person then filters the output to match the criteria.
In some cases, I avoid the first-ranked websites or maybe even skip the first 5-10 results. If it's a popular topic then there is more superficial information, more shitty websites that provide. "Please disable your adblocker to read this", "Subscribe to my newsletter" modal every 10 seconds, and a few other popups later. When I find the info, I need to skip sometimes a whole article to read the summary where I find some references to not marketing articles, but actual data.
There is an excess of information now, it becomes more difficult to derive valuable data. We don't have time to read 95% of material that consists of marketing things, partial opinion, and not related facts.
Developing the filtering skill is worthwhile to find what we want in a relatively quick manner. The opposition to this is the current education system in some countries. In my case, I spent several years to understand I hate the way teachers provide the information. It cannot be transformed into knowledge in my head due to boringness and not understanding its use in a real life. If I could filter the necessary data, it would be less than 1%. Could I do that in less time? Sure.
A great skill to have nowadays and beyond is to recognize quality information. When I try to find info about a topic, it becomes more complicated. It's not enough to google, a person then filters the output to match the criteria.
In some cases, I avoid the first-ranked websites or maybe even skip the first 5-10 results. If it's a popular topic then there is more superficial information, more shitty websites that provide. "Please disable your adblocker to read this", "Subscribe to my newsletter" modal every 10 seconds, and a few other popups later. When I find the info, I need to skip sometimes a whole article to read the summary where I find some references to not marketing articles, but actual data.
There is an excess of information now, it becomes more difficult to derive valuable data. We don't have time to read 95% of material that consists of marketing things, partial opinion, and not related facts.
Developing the filtering skill is worthwhile to find what we want in a relatively quick manner. The opposition to this is the current education system in some countries. In my case, I spent several years to understand I hate the way teachers provide the information. It cannot be transformed into knowledge in my head due to boringness and not understanding its use in a real life. If I could filter the necessary data, it would be less than 1%. Could I do that in less time? Sure.
Learning direction
Skipping the basic things such as time and energy, all you need to learn anything is the right direction(map).
Recall school or university. Teachers tried to put many things in a student's head, oftentimes it's raw information without any applicable knowledge. Anyway, it was essential because of giving a direction, not quite right at the moment to us maybe. Still, we could dig into domains that interest us and learn more about the details, then discover other magnetic areas and repeat the process.
Given some people know how to learn, they simply should have a direction. This is the biggest problem in learning. Raw information is going to be forgotten rapidly, but if you know where to find it and what to look for, you won't have many obstacles to learn again.
For example, consider a case of studying programming. There is a lot of technologies and details in many parts of it that people don't know where to start. You may start with learning ABC technology, and then you realize that "A" in "ABC" includes 5 other different technologies. You switch studying them and realize that to do that you also need to know "DE" things. After a while, you then concede there was a specific direction of actions you took to learn ABC to some degree. Say, it was studying DE -> A -> C -> ABC -> <programming language> -> real-world tasks.
Skipping the basic things such as time and energy, all you need to learn anything is the right direction(map).
Recall school or university. Teachers tried to put many things in a student's head, oftentimes it's raw information without any applicable knowledge. Anyway, it was essential because of giving a direction, not quite right at the moment to us maybe. Still, we could dig into domains that interest us and learn more about the details, then discover other magnetic areas and repeat the process.
Given some people know how to learn, they simply should have a direction. This is the biggest problem in learning. Raw information is going to be forgotten rapidly, but if you know where to find it and what to look for, you won't have many obstacles to learn again.
For example, consider a case of studying programming. There is a lot of technologies and details in many parts of it that people don't know where to start. You may start with learning ABC technology, and then you realize that "A" in "ABC" includes 5 other different technologies. You switch studying them and realize that to do that you also need to know "DE" things. After a while, you then concede there was a specific direction of actions you took to learn ABC to some degree. Say, it was studying DE -> A -> C -> ABC -> <programming language> -> real-world tasks.
Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely: summary
The book tells us we, humans, aren't rational in our decisions sometimes. Moreover, there are fallacies we can predict, and create strategies to avoid irrationality in our thinking.
Relativity
We don't usually choose things in absolute terms. We don't an internal feeling to tell us how much things are worth. To have an approximate understanding of worth, we need to compare. The comparison should be between things that can be easily distinguished.
That's why salespeople give us a few options instead of one. So we can have matters to compare. And usually, the comparison is adjusted, thus some option looks better to us than others. Maybe there are "most popular" flag, or maybe there are additional services included that we don't need, but they allegedly deem to be a better deal.
Among subscription plans, things that are selling there may be a decoy. It's a thing to attract customers' attention, so they have a biased comparison because the thing tends to adjust our preferences.
Anchoring
If we buy a product we see for the first time, it's gonna be hard because we don't know how much it should worth. It's simpler if we've seen similar products and their price. Thus, we have an internal feeling of worthiness for related products. So, the first price wee see affects our future price considerations.
The anchoring is making decisions based on our first impressions and decisions. To avoid that, ask yourself do you need a product for such a price.
Consider your first decisions attentively to not make biased decisions in the future.
Original post
The book tells us we, humans, aren't rational in our decisions sometimes. Moreover, there are fallacies we can predict, and create strategies to avoid irrationality in our thinking.
Relativity
We don't usually choose things in absolute terms. We don't an internal feeling to tell us how much things are worth. To have an approximate understanding of worth, we need to compare. The comparison should be between things that can be easily distinguished.
That's why salespeople give us a few options instead of one. So we can have matters to compare. And usually, the comparison is adjusted, thus some option looks better to us than others. Maybe there are "most popular" flag, or maybe there are additional services included that we don't need, but they allegedly deem to be a better deal.
Among subscription plans, things that are selling there may be a decoy. It's a thing to attract customers' attention, so they have a biased comparison because the thing tends to adjust our preferences.
Anchoring
If we buy a product we see for the first time, it's gonna be hard because we don't know how much it should worth. It's simpler if we've seen similar products and their price. Thus, we have an internal feeling of worthiness for related products. So, the first price wee see affects our future price considerations.
The anchoring is making decisions based on our first impressions and decisions. To avoid that, ask yourself do you need a product for such a price.
Consider your first decisions attentively to not make biased decisions in the future.
Original post
On active learning
Summary:
- Conservative learning methods don't work efficiently enough. E.g. re-reading isn't so good as we were taught.
- Recalling information boosts our learning.
- Engage more: ask questions, think of meanings you've read/heard.
Recommended book: Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning.
Summary:
- Conservative learning methods don't work efficiently enough. E.g. re-reading isn't so good as we were taught.
- Recalling information boosts our learning.
- Engage more: ask questions, think of meanings you've read/heard.
Recommended book: Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning.
Will technology replace your job?
Yes, but it also provides new opportunities for workers and businesses. Business can grow faster, workers can do more meaningful work.
I also talk about why we hate realtors🙂
Link to article
Yes, but it also provides new opportunities for workers and businesses. Business can grow faster, workers can do more meaningful work.
I also talk about why we hate realtors🙂
Link to article
I created this channel to share my articles on my blog and then abandoned it. I want to restart sharing my thoughts here, not necessarily whole articles.
Existence of a concept needs an observer?
Where do thoughts exist? In our brain, but they're not physical, so they exist in some other space.
Where do numbers exist? Where do all the concepts exist?
If I can't touch those things physically, do they exist at all? If I'm aware(I operate them in my mind as concepts) of them, then yes, they exist, at least as our thoughts. For example, I can't touch a concept of number 5, but the concept still exists. I can't touch love, but it exists as a concept, feeling, at least.
But for number 5 to exist it needs an observer like me. Without the usage of the concept it doesn't exist. Or does it?
The idea is similar to the concept of ruliad space - there are many spaces/simulations/places/dimensions where every possible combination of any concept exist.
Where do thoughts exist? In our brain, but they're not physical, so they exist in some other space.
Where do numbers exist? Where do all the concepts exist?
If I can't touch those things physically, do they exist at all? If I'm aware(I operate them in my mind as concepts) of them, then yes, they exist, at least as our thoughts. For example, I can't touch a concept of number 5, but the concept still exists. I can't touch love, but it exists as a concept, feeling, at least.
But for number 5 to exist it needs an observer like me. Without the usage of the concept it doesn't exist. Or does it?
The idea is similar to the concept of ruliad space - there are many spaces/simulations/places/dimensions where every possible combination of any concept exist.
AI sets new limits for humanity
Releasing more AI-related work (such as GPT-4 and Stable Diffusion) and projects show us new limits of automation and process optimization. These projects will automate more of today's jobs. Are we ready for that scenario? We aren't yet.
From today's perspective, it's both good and bad. It's good because humans can spend fewer resources on the same amount of work. It's bad because some people will be looking for new jobs and won't be able to find those: why pay someone for doing the routine work if a machine can do it much cheaper and faster?
To tackle the bad part, humanity should evolve: in its beliefs, systems they build, and concepts they operate.
The "evolve" part is the difficult one. To slightly initiate on that matter: humans require money to operate daily. To receive money, humans should bring value to society. What does society perceive as value? Is it a human that can do some work for others or the human itself? If we value the current operational value(=human work), a machine can bring that value for much fewer resources. If we value a human itself, we have an option to see an interesting future.
Releasing more AI-related work (such as GPT-4 and Stable Diffusion) and projects show us new limits of automation and process optimization. These projects will automate more of today's jobs. Are we ready for that scenario? We aren't yet.
From today's perspective, it's both good and bad. It's good because humans can spend fewer resources on the same amount of work. It's bad because some people will be looking for new jobs and won't be able to find those: why pay someone for doing the routine work if a machine can do it much cheaper and faster?
To tackle the bad part, humanity should evolve: in its beliefs, systems they build, and concepts they operate.
The "evolve" part is the difficult one. To slightly initiate on that matter: humans require money to operate daily. To receive money, humans should bring value to society. What does society perceive as value? Is it a human that can do some work for others or the human itself? If we value the current operational value(=human work), a machine can bring that value for much fewer resources. If we value a human itself, we have an option to see an interesting future.
Ask yourself too
When reading articles, books, or watching movies and news, ask your opinion. Not doing so is tempting because you're most probably used to consuming information, not questioning it.
There is much information noise out there. It will be more and more of such, especially with cheap language models that produce any text one wants for any audience. Each source of information tries to shape your opinion in one or another way. I'm sure you know that (however, do you realize it?). Nonetheless, have you questioned yourself as to what direction those sources try to shape it after reading an article?
People can't define all the possible directions information shapes an opinion. Did you ask yourself why a text was written? What goal did the author follow? There are no facts, only interpretations, and it's alluring to perceive someone's perspective as a fact. Every author tries to deliver their ideas but the author's unique experience already frames them.
Even after understanding most of those ideas, did the author have other motivations rather than merely delivering information to you?
Do you agree or disagree with the author and why? Disregard this exercise and you consume information automatically without constructing and outlining your opinion. Neglect creating your attitude and you may discover you don't have many of them. Or, you don't have any of them at all — only those perceived and formed automatically but not yours.
Ask yourself too.
When reading articles, books, or watching movies and news, ask your opinion. Not doing so is tempting because you're most probably used to consuming information, not questioning it.
There is much information noise out there. It will be more and more of such, especially with cheap language models that produce any text one wants for any audience. Each source of information tries to shape your opinion in one or another way. I'm sure you know that (however, do you realize it?). Nonetheless, have you questioned yourself as to what direction those sources try to shape it after reading an article?
People can't define all the possible directions information shapes an opinion. Did you ask yourself why a text was written? What goal did the author follow? There are no facts, only interpretations, and it's alluring to perceive someone's perspective as a fact. Every author tries to deliver their ideas but the author's unique experience already frames them.
Even after understanding most of those ideas, did the author have other motivations rather than merely delivering information to you?
Do you agree or disagree with the author and why? Disregard this exercise and you consume information automatically without constructing and outlining your opinion. Neglect creating your attitude and you may discover you don't have many of them. Or, you don't have any of them at all — only those perceived and formed automatically but not yours.
Ask yourself too.
I find ChatGPT a great tool for discussions. It provides information in a neutral way and allows one to find more questions to ask. If there's such a goal, of course.
Answers are everywhere: google search, reddit, quora; every cat shares its thoughts on the internet. Do they spark a thought process though?
ChatGPT is an advancement to a shapeless information since I can interact with it. At the same time, I still may consume information without any questioning. Up to a user to decide.
Answers are everywhere: google search, reddit, quora; every cat shares its thoughts on the internet. Do they spark a thought process though?
ChatGPT is an advancement to a shapeless information since I can interact with it. At the same time, I still may consume information without any questioning. Up to a user to decide.