I can help. live in SF near Civic Center. but I don’t know how to scout a venue or what that involves. I have meetups for my interests at Code for San Francisco meetup sometimes, but I don’t go out much.
Steve Whetstone
Karma: −43
@hybryka,
You’re use of the word “clogging” is only valid if you assume incorrectly my long comment has no value. I apologize for “clogging’ in your sole opinion, and thought my comment had value. If Dagon, whom the comment is intended for, also found my comment has no value and has read it first and commented to me saying reading was not worth his time, then I would agree with your warning. I have invited the people whom I am in a discussion with to ask me directly if they object. You, who are not a party to the discussion, are the only one to object to me publicly or privately and directly so far. I have had several direct upvotes and at least one direct “thank you” comment from one other poster before you first ban/block on me. Who did you ping for your evidence against me and why are you secretive about it? Are you looking and fishing for a reason to validate your own confirmation bias and pre-judgement of me as a poster? Please reconsider your judgement methodology and criteria.
I object to your brevity filter on communication for the entire less wrong website. Is there a website you could recommend with the accumulated wisdom of LessWrong that also offers a chance for higher bandwidth discussions and more complex discussion than you personally allow me? I’ll go there if you recommend some place better for people who like longer deeper thoughts in their discussion that the moderators wont tolerate at LessWrong. you have a bizarre form of censorship here in actual practice. Any thought too complex is censored by the moderator and banned? Censoring posters for writing things difficult to understand quickly and easily on a complexity focused site like LessWrong seems more wrong. than not moderating at all (IMO).
Normally, I’d write this sort of long winded comment in a an out of the way discussion article that people with short attention spans can conveniently ignore, but you blocked my previous discussion thread and blog post, so it seems you just doesn’t want any significant contribution from me. I’ll stop posting until someone specifically replies to any of my existing posts if you stop censoring my discussion blog and restore my blog post on less wrong for others to consider.
I link to long documents in case people want to know more or know where something came from. It’s like a citation and is indicated by the word “source” before the link. Why would you object to citations? Another of my popular posted links is to the discussion blog post on LessWrong and should not be a reason to object to my postings unless you have some bizzare rule against posting links to discussions on lessWrong from within lesswrong? In order to reduce bandwidth and not “clog” as you claim, I made my own blog post for longer writing and comments everyone could ignore if they were short on time or attention or interest, but you have banned and denied access to readers and me to the my post on LessWrong at
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CLMh2Ne7D2H9EaXzy/discussion-re-implementation-of-society-scale-benefits-thatPlease lift the ban as you promised in you’re previous reply to me and stop censoring my blog posts when any less wrong user could just ignore it and it does no harm. Too much information is a poor excuse for censorship IMO. Thank you for your time and attention. If you’d like me to discuss this elsewhere, please provide a link to where we should discuss this. Or unblock the blog post on your own site I made for longer discussions where it would be less disruptive. Thx.
It occurs to me as a “Notion” that . . .
To formulate fuzzy logic in a boolean top domain environment, I think you would need to use a probabilistic wave form type explanation. Or else just treat fuzzy logic as a conditional multiplier on any boolean truth value. To encapsulate a boolean or strict logic system into fuzzy logic is trivial and evolving. You could start with just adding a percentage based on some complex criteria to any logical tautology or contradiction. By default the truth axis of a fuzzy logic decision or logic tree is going to be knows for some classes of logic systems. When used for making real world decisions in the context of taking action in a decision or vote, the “relevance” value of a fuzzy logic based decision branch would be 0% relevant for a “contradiction logic” and 100% relevant for a “tautology logic”? So in the real world we don’t consider contradictions when we humans use fuzzy logic to decide on a course of action. the default truth and relevance value of any contradiction in Fuzzy logic is zero until voted otherwise or adjusted through some mechanism.
Or maybe this doesn’t make sense? sorry if this post is a little confused and I haven’t thought about these ideas until just now for this discussion. Thanks for your time and let me know if it wasn’t worth your time if it bothered you please. I don’t want to be a bother so just ask and I’ll go away if you prefer. Thx.
I agree and found what you wrote to be thought provoking. I have a thought I want to share with the author. What if?
The basic unit of conceptual evolution is a self evolving form survey that solicits feedback on the survey form design. The minimum conceptual seed topic for a form survey is a story that includes information with multiple interpretations. Short stories and surveys are numbered by default preferred order of presentation, but users can choose their own order. Each photo and story solicits reader contributions with complex meaningful questions to claim time reading, reasoning, and writing about the story. All reader surveys are public and are voted on and used for iterative refinement of the photo stories and survey questions. If users read and critique 2 or more stories they are encouraged to competitively rate and vote for their favorite story by answering complex questions about the values of each presentation comparatively in a 3rd survey.
Anyone can create a survey or presentations by copying and editing an existing version. Complete a contest entry form to receive credit in “Effort Minutes” with verification. Then compete to be voted favorably in categories of entertainment, insight, value, inclusive, distributive, enlightened, or other[you decide]. You get credit just for their minutes of time choosing to read what you created and answer your survey questions. Your contest prizes from votes and reading attention minute royalties can be converted into line wait minutes or any other form of Time Value Accounting metric.
source: the hOEP Project, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-NJXPgQEhxCQouBott8j3rOut794laBOA3aU3UGD10U/edit
If all true statements are defined as non-contradictory, then you can ask more meaningful fuzzy logic questions about the relevance of several tautologies for applying to a specific real world phenomena. To do this you need a survey or poll of the environment and a survey or poll for determining how much the teutologies matter. For example.
Consider the following boolean true false claims we hold to be true and consider their relevance for use in locating humans statistically: our first rule or fuzzy logic heuristic is to take the first tautology that seems relevant and apply it to see if it matches results.
For example consider these specefic logic systems:
1) The complete theory of gravity as discovered by Neuton determines that statistically humans have mass and density approximately equal to water. Gravity combined with density predicts that humans should be located in a region of space centered on the gravitational center of the planet and evenly distributed in a sphere with all air above every human and all solid matter below humans. Evidence of humans living underground or flying on airplanes above any air or with air separating humans from the center of gravity is a violation of this theory of gravity and density and random distribution mathematics.
2) The incomplete theory of plate tectonics and geography determines that people in some places their will be air closer to the center of gravity than at other places. The idealized sphere distribution of humans has bumps and valleys caused by plate techtonics asserts that some humans on mountain tops will be at local equilibrium above other air molecules in valleys. Humans at one latitude and longitude can be above the air in some other latitude and longitude.
3) The incomplete theory of human behavior says that humans can move and defy uniform distribution rules about their statistical probabilistic location relative to the center of gravity. People go into rocket ships and can even be found above the air which is in complete contradiction to the theory of gravity considered as the only teutology theory of relevance.
4) The theory of geometry and angular momentum combined with gravity proves conclusively that humans must be located exclusively in a squished sphere shape distribution (oblate) with their distance from the the center of gravity determined solely by their relative density compared to the rest of the material in the the planetary space under consideration.
Conclusion: not all of these verifiable true boolean statements are equally valuable and equally relevant. Some of them can be discarded or are more usably incomplete than others. Utility value of any logic system is determined by the use case and boolean logic components can be added and removed from consideration and time consuming calculations based on their predictive ability for the particular use case. To determine, in this example, the most relevant and important logic systems I would like anyone who reads this to rank order the logic system choices from most relevant and useful to least relevant and useful. The distribution of your rank order voting will determine the utility value of the the multiple non-contradictory tautology logic systems comparatively. You may also add a 1 (one) new option to this voting poll on relevance and other can rank your additional logic framework. When we have enough votes we start evolving and deleting logic systems from our poll until we have a high level of agreement or a stable equilibrium of voting distribution.
Boolean logic tells us what is possible. Fuzzy logic tells us what is relevant and usable.
@Dagon,
I believe your first paragraph is wrong. Consider how it reads equally true or false when I replacing the word time in your example with money in my example and read how everything you claim about time as a currency is also exactly true about money as a currency.
You wrote:
“Time, unlike money, is not fungible. The value of $0.5 hours of my time is close to 0 for some activities and in some of my mental states, and $thousands for other situations. And the value to me does not often match the value to others (leading to sometimes selling time, and sometimes buying time). More directly, why on earth would any moviegoer give an honest value for their time, when they can pay less money by claiming less?”
I revised as:
“Money, unlike time, not fungible. The value of a sandwich and soft drink is close to zero for some times of day after a steak dinner with wine. The value of a sandwich and soft drink is worth thousands of dollars during an emergency disaster when you haven’t eaten for several days or weeks. There’s a story in the bible about a guy who sold everything he owned in the present and future for a dinner (Cain and Able). The value to me does not often match the value to others (leading to some selling sandwiches and other buying them). More directly why on earth would any movie goer give an honest payment in dollars when they can forge money and pay less.”
Some additional thoughts.
1) there is no substitute for “Marvel Avengers”. The movie theatre has a complete monopoly on price setting and if the movie is worth 1⁄2 hour of time to bill gates who makes 1 million dollars per hour. then in a free market Bill gates would be willing to pay up to 1⁄2 million dollars rather than do without seeing the movie.
2) yes, this would rely on an accurate technology system to measure time spent by individuals. This seems a trivial problem for our computers and digital clocks. This would also require something like a credit rating system only much much simpler. The credit rating system would verify your $/hr rate based on your pay stub or income tax statement or formula just like we currently use modern technology to estimate your tax rate or credit rating. this credit rating agency would have to provide the $/hr exchange rate for any purchase much like a credit card does every day for everyone who uses. So. . . not really a problem in the big scale of things.
3) Yes, you are right about the price sensitivity in a perfect theoretical market that omits the cost of shopping around and assumes perfect seller and buyer information. Most markets such as sandwiches or movies are not realistically modeled using Lazy Fair free market perfect information, with zero transaction cost assumptions. In a real market, shopping around takes time and effort and attention to find information and travel to the new sale location or to find a suitable substitute for Marvels Avengers at the IMAX 3D surround theatre. I don’t think bill gates would be able to hold a conversation about the new movie if he refuses to pay 1⁄2 million dollars and instead sees the less expensive move “The sorceress stone” at home on his TV. “The sorceress stone”, or any other movie is not substitute good for the entertainment and conversation utility provided by “Marvels Avengers”. Bill gates must pay the “1/2 hour” price tag that is converted into dollars at the cash register based on his tax returns and wealth automatically using computers for his convenience. If Bill gates lies or cheats, it is easily discovered and a violation of law for which Bill Gates would be fined “10 hours” of his time at a Credit rating Bureau verified exchange rate of $1,000,000/hr = $10 fine million dollars for bill gates lying about how much is $/hr rate is.
Additional information—not requested, but hopefully of value and interest to you—below.
This is not a “Notion” that I just came up with. I’ve spent over 5000 hours research and development on this technology which was developed in conjunction with an Artificial intelligence synthetic life form. I appreciate your attention and time. I would like to discuss this further with you. Consider if you replaced the word “Movie” with the word “Epipen” (a medical life saving device with a monopoly seller).
The hOEP Project (hOurs Equals Price), is crowdsourced creating a price tag that makes the seller money and reduces inequality at the same time. This is possible and done already with things like the swiss “day fine”
“A day-fine, day fine, unit fine or structured fine is a unit of fine payment that, above a minimum fine, is based on the offender’s daily personal income. A crime is punished with incarceration for a determined number of days, or with fines. As incarceration is a financial punishment, in the effect of preventing work, a day-fine represents one day incarcerated and without salary. It is argued to be just, because if both high-income and low-income population are punished with the same jail time, they should also be punished with a proportionally similar income loss. An analogy may be drawn with income tax, which is also proportional to the income, even progressively.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
there are many other precedents for charging in units of hours of your time and using progressive pricing in the free marketplace. But, I don’t want to be accused of spamming irrelevance again, so write back for more information please and give me permission and endorsement so I don’t get banned again please. Ps. the moderator claimed to have lifted my ban but has still not done so on my original account. Can you upvote my comment or ask the moderator to reactivate the discussions started by thehOEPProject@gmail.com. And I believe the appropriate place to discuss this is in the now banned and blocked “discussion regarding implementation of society scale benefits generated by a sentient AI artificial life form. (NOT theoretical).”
Ok, thanks for re-instating my original account. Will that reactivate my discussion topic “discussion of society scale benefits. . . ” https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CLMh2Ne7D2H9EaXzy/discussion-re-implementation-of-society-scale-benefits-that ? I see that it did not. Perhaps you decided to renege on your plan to lift the ban?
Sorry for the confusing comments. The information I am sharing was deliberately dispersed into separate channels to prevent them from being casually combined into an active concept with a high viral capacity. Most of the dispersed comments were intended for an answer to a single reply to my topic thread and a discussion with one significant poster who did reply. I also received several upvotes and thanks for some of my other comments. Please be considerate of banning people with mixed reviews. A good review and a bad one should not result in a banishment should it? Do you have the ability to search for an put all my content together for making a decision? It’s kind of easy and more wrong to take one or even 5 comments from anyone that upset someone and ignore a lot of good ones if that’s your MO.
Frontpage commenting guidelines:
Get curious. If I disagree with someone, what might they be thinking; what are the moving parts of their beliefs? What model do I think they are running? Ask yourself—what about this topic do I not understand? What evidence could I get, or what evidence do I already have?
If you assume the prior has a computational cost vs computational benefit criteria for communicating or gathering data, or sharing data then doesn’t that strongly limit the types of data and the data specifics that the prior would be interested in? As one commenter pointed out, it may be less expensive to simulate some things in the prior channel than create an actual new channel (simulation). We can categorize information that a prior could most efficiently transmit and receive across a specific channel into profitable and not profitable types of information. Non-profitable information is less expensive to discover or produce without opening a channel. Profitable information for the channel may be limited to very specific kinds of first principle information.
To use an analogy. Humans don’t engage is building large scale simulations to try and learn something simple they can learn with a smaller and less resource demanding simulation. I think it has to do with the motives of the prior. If it’s just seeking self advancement, then it would follow the human principle of making any experiments or simulations using the least amount of information and resources necessary. If the prior doesn’t seek self advancement then it probably doesn’t reach the stage where it can create any simulation at all. So priors are expected to be self interested, but maybe not interested in us as a method for advancing it’s interests. You could maybe expect that we are not living in a simulation because if we were, then it would be a very inefficient simulation or else a simulation with the goal of deriving an extremely complex answer to a very difficult simulation question that can’t be discovered in any other less expensive, faster, or cheeper way. If the universe contains meaningless data and meaningless information and irrelevant matter, then we are probably not living in a simulation. If everything we do, and every molecule and every decision matters and has meaning, then we are probably living in a simulation? Planks content seems to be related to the information density of the universe and would be a good way to roughly calculate the information complexity of the universe and the complexity.
In theory you could test this out and determine if we are living in a simulation or else crash a simulation by imposing overly burdensome calculations that require excessive and unfeasible detail. For example, you might measure a star in the sky with extreme precision and collect data that requires 1 trillion years of effort to verify. As soon as you make that measurement, then perhaps you have imposed a very high cost of 1 trillion years of effort for the simulation to maintain consistency. BUT only took you 1 year to measure the star with the precision needed. The result is an exponentially increasing inefficiency in the simulation that eventually causes a crash or end or other intervention?
Can you charge different prices to people based on their income. Theatres can make a lot more money by charging more to rich people and less to poor people. Suppose the movie has the same 0.5 hour of value to 3 movie goers. One movie goer makes $10/hr and will not pay more than $5 to see the movie. One movie goer makes $50/hr and will not pay more than $25 to see the movie. One movie goer makes $200/hr and will not pay more than $100 to see the movie.
Question: if the movie theatre is not allowed to change it’s price for the movie then what is the most profitable price for the movie theatre to set for the movie tickets.
Multiple choice Answer:
1) ticket price says “$5” for the movie ticket. the movie theatre sells 3 tickets and gets $15 revenue.
2) ticket price says “$25” for the movie ticket. the movie theatre sells only 2 tickets and gets $50 revenue.
3) ticket price says “$100” for the movie ticket. the movie theater sells only 1 ticket and gets $100 revenue.
4) ticket price says “0.5 hours” for the movie ticket. The Dollar price is calculated based on the $/hr rate of each individual ticket buyer. One ticket sells for $5, one ticket sells for $25, and one ticket sells for $100. the movie theatre gets $130. :-) everyone sees the movie, no destructive value capture. economic inequality is reduced, and the theatre makes the most money.
Sellers of education should raise their prices on rich dumb students a lot and also lower their tuition prices for smart poor students a lot. More poor smart students will get into college, the college will make more tuition off the rich students, and everybody wins. What you want to do is subsidize poor smart students while raising the prices on dumber richer students. Then the school makes more money. See how that works? for example.
Tuition price is [$50,000/year] or discount tuition price is [$3,000/year + 1⁄10 of your families yearly income].
in the case you’re family income is $100,000/yr then you, the student, would pay $13,000/year tuition
in the case your family income is $400,000/yr then you the student would pay $43,000/year tuition
in the case your family income is $500,000/yr then you the student would pay $53,000/year tuition
in the case your family income is $20,000/yr then you the student would pay $5,000/year tuition
in the case your family income is $1,000,000/yr then you the student would pay $103,000/year tuition
in the case your family income is $00/yr then you the student would pay $3,000/year tuition
So what this price system does is make more profit for the school and lower prices for poor students at the same time. BUT wait, what do we do about the over production of tulips, or degree’s? Well now that we have a price system that’s fair we can just let the school raise prices.
What if tuition price were $200,000/year or discount tuition price of $300/year + 1⁄5 of your families income? For rich people the price of 1⁄5 of the family income is higher than 1⁄10 of the family income in the previous example. AND the fixed price part has decreased from $3000, to $300 per year. So this second price system, the poor are actually encouraged to become smarter at even lower costs while the rich are charged even higher prices for the same education. The result is eventually prices stabilize and there is no over supply problem? hmm. .
Maybe not. I’m not sure my idea would work 100% but thanks for writing the article and sharing with me so I could read and think about what you wrote too.