The Sequences and Related Cults

 Yudkowsky's Sequences, at first blush, look like they're useless for anyone who needs to read them. If you need to read them, you can't possibly be literate. Permanent cognitive poverty. Maybe if you squint it's the midwits' guide to peak midwittery.

 But wait, they're just lying. Anyone can figure these out in under, generously, five minutes. And did. And that's the purpose of The Sequences.

 By pretending the obvious is difficult, it gives them an excuse when they intentionally indulge in Sophistry. "Forgive me Egalitarianism Lord, for I have sinned." They're just weak and fallen vessels who couldn't possibly live up to the lofty standards of *checks notes* not confusing a finger for the moon it's pointing at.  

 The bargain is: I will let you be a treacherous slime, provided you let me be a treacherous slime, and pay your shekel to the first among equals, who showed us the way, the path, and the light. Many found this to be an attractive bargain. Just, you know, not the kind of bargain you can openly advertise for. Some subtlety is called for (not too much).

 

 Coincidentally I just found out big yud used a japanese phrase, of all things, to allegedly encourage his cult to not be ashamed of pulling ahead.
 The japanese. I'm dead. Should have used finnish instead, lel. 

 What genius could possibly conceive of hiding your success so as to protect it. Truly, only the most astronomically shining stars should show such stupendous skill.

 No no this is a genuinely clever exercise in camouflage. It really did make big yud a bunch of money, and I understand there were sex cults too. Yes fat? No problem! We're ~~sapiosexual~~ just like jesus platonically intended uh I mean we're all atheists here. We do everything jesus told us to do, but he didn't like exist or anything, plato was a hack we're trying to bit-for-bit copy the republic coincidentally. So much a weird coincidence.

 This whole !!science!! thing made Sophistry very difficult. How are you supposed to pretend to be scientific without, like, actually giving up your experimentally incompatible scams? Without a grant, I mean? Big yud just wanted to help. And get paid. To help and get paid and fuck some whores for free. (posiwid)

 What everyone wants, really. You understand.
 You did read the sequences, right?

 Clever, but, sadly, immediately vincible against anyone of higher IQ, as these things always go. Merely another way for mortals to mort around and divert themselves while they wait for senescence and accumulate suffering. 

 I mean, do you really think jesus didn't tap magdalene? Really? Tee hee. That's a good one.
 She wasn't a prostitute anymore, see, because she didn't take metal in exchange. Totally different.
 P.S. "Hey, don't fuck other men." "Oh damn big j, I would never have figured that out if you hadn't told me. Great advice!" "Stealing is wrong. Lying too." "Shit, dropping spicy ones over here!"

Shooting 2.0

  As with the butler shooting, my working proposition is that tyler robinson was handed blanks, and his muzzle reports existed firstly to hide the real shots and secondly to make the catchers think they found someone relevant. In this case there were two layers of patsies - hardly a difficult concept to develop. The fake shooter was chosen because he profiled as someone who wouldn't admit to having co-conspirators if told not to do so. Conveniently cops and especially the federal buttspelunking incompetents will enthusiastically accept his [lone shooter] story at face value. Cuts down on paperwork, see.

 Lone shooteroids are just lying. If you can tie your shoes you're not that stupid.

 There is in fact zero chance he didn't have blanks. Otherwise it would have been ninja numbers. Mass shooter injures 11, kills 0.
When he ditched the gun they replaced his fake rounds with the real ones and booked it themselves. The shot hit the neck because they learned not to aim at the head. They were going [centre mass] but silenced sniper rifles can barely hit the broad side of a barn. Likewise they used a bolt-action because syncing to a semiauto is a serious pain in the neck, among other advantages. That's why the firefighter was hit at butler; the real sniper barely had time to aim. This time, instead, robinson noticed when "he" hit the target first try and left, rather than firing more "rounds," very convenient for his backup.

 The butler guy was shot because he was at entirely the wrong angle and would have noticed the wound was on the wrong side, possibly noticed he had blanks, and possibly mentioned it. Turns out they missed anyway, so whatever, but never mind. Meanwhile robinson could be permitted arrest because he doesn't realize he didn't have a harmful weapon.
Blanks and real rounds sound different, and an experienced shooter with a front-row seat, such as the guy holding the gun, will notice immediately. Leftish hoplophobes are therefore chosen.

 If you want an edgy conspiracy theory, it's that this is a false flag.  Special forces, disgruntled with republicant cuckery, decided they needed motivation. Cui bon: it could hardly have been better for rightoids, after all. Same way 9/11 was, at best, a saudi operation. 3/4 of hijackers being saudi nationals, assuming the fbi didn't just lie. Had nothing to do with iran regardless.

 If instead it's [leftoids are really that stupid], they will try to shoot someone else in a few months. Because the public-assassination leftists really are that stupid. Hilariously, it might even work. Might intimidate or exhaust the republicants. "I don't have time to report more leftoids for ""free"" speech violations, I have to go to work."
 

 Later I will posting the idea that Democracies are fundamentally spy government. Now, thinking it's more precisely black ops vs. black ops. Rightoid black ops is special forces. Leftoid black ops is CIA, state, MI6, &c. Putin being KGB not a coincidence etc etc.
If you think about it, could the Envy theocracy ever be run by anyone but black ops.

Domain and Range in Logic using PD

 Mathematical functions have domains and ranges. The domain is the set of numbers which produce valid equations. E.g. f(x) = 1/x is not valid for x=0. Likewise logical proofs have domains, and the validity is restricted to the domain. 

 In the prisoner's dilemma, provided both players are rational, it is always best to cooperate. No form of defect/cooperate is possible, so the only options are defect/defect and cooperate/cooperate. So, you morons,, pick cooperate/cooperate.

 This proof is not valid for anyone who doesn't meet some minimum standard for rationality. For example, game theorists are not sufficiently rational. You can't trust them to know they ought to cooperate. 

 

 When using theoretical principles, the first important thing is to remember they have domains of validity. If you get into a car, check the gas in the tank. If you get into a theory, check the domain.
 The second important thing is using the domains in reverse. Outside the domain, the theory is flawed, and the flaw in the theory is an exploitable vulnerability. While being outside the prisoner's dilemma domain isn't proof you should always defect, it is a hint that there is some profitable defection. Further, there are times you should always defect, and in those moments, knowing the domain directs your attention to exactly the topic of defection.

 It is also possible to use the domain as a measurement instrument. If you're not sure if the theory is valid, try it, and if it's falsified, you have determined that you're outside the domain. Physicists pull a trick like this all the time. Pick up theories not for their useful conclusions, but for useful domains, for the purpose of using the theory as a domain-measuring instrument. If you have a kind of stove you can't see with your eyes, you buy a frying pan not for the purposes of cooking, but for attempting to cook, to see if a thing is a stove or not. 
 Likewise you can attempt cooperate/cooperate to test the rationality of a person. Indeed mortals are supposed to naturally do this; you permit an opportunity for a small treachery, to see if they're trustworthy.
 

 

 P.S. A [high-trust] soyciety is when you permit large treacheries without testing first. A [low-trust] soyciety is when you never attempt to be trustworthy. Turns out both never-defect and never-cooperate are bad strategies.

 

Soycial Evolution

 Mortals want to torture each other and themselves to death. A bunch of soycieties tried this, and they're not around anymore. They didn't last long enough for anyone to notice they were trying it.

 Some soycieties tried half-torturing each other to death. They are also not around anymore.

 The soycieties that survive at all have heavily compromised their core mission, in one way or another. However, as the soyciety gets richer, they compromise the compromises. They see they can afford to relax the strictures. They try to make a purer and purer version of their ultimate goal. "Surely," they say, "We can torture ourselves just a little bit more without dying?" Can't suffer if you're dead. The idea is to get as sick as possible without actually dying. As we can see, the question can be asked many times. Ultimately, however, the answer is no. The success with previous incremental re-Forms drives confidence in the last, final re-Form. They try to get as sick as possible without going over, and they always screw up and go over.

 Not to mention it's common to kill a soyciety with a slow poison, then, while dying of that, continue the re-Forms, "we didn't die yet, it's fine," continually moving up the final doom. 

 

 America looks like a place they build a ship for the express purpose of sinking it, and it looks that way because it is. They're not holing it below the water line and selling the bulkheads for scrap by accident. That's the point of the whole system. Any reform based on the idea americans want to live is fundamentally misguided. That's not the Form of the american.  

 I strongly suspect the nicene council et al knew about this. They wanted to keep soyciety poor, because a rich soyciety can't maintain its maintenance. Can't resist the urge to go out in an orgy of self-mutilation.
 "Blessed are the meek." Rich man, camels, needles, etc. Russian serfdom; the oppression was part of what kept russia from playing russian roulette. No serfs? Instant leninism. Conveniently, the tyranny of e.g. serfdom is the torture the members of soyciety crave. 

 It's why culture ossifies so readily. Any clade that didn't ossify would evolve rapidly toward extinction. Most new ideas are bad...but the good ones are deliberately suppressed, so the proportion is irrelevant. 100% of newly adopted ideas are intentionally chosen for being bad, unless there's extreme violence involved.

 The only point in soycial commentary in a suicidal soyciety is to exploit the new loopholes. Stab that blood-sucking proboscis in early, while the flesh is still juicy. Equivalently, it's important not to stand under bridges that are about to collapse. When your americoid neighbours go beaver and start gnawing in the supports, find another place for your homeless encampment.

Examples of Definition Failure

 Plato talked about forms. He was confused. The literature contains cogent refutations from such luminaries as plato.
 What you want are definitions. Reality is too big to grasp directly. We are small and have small cognitive hands. Hence we bolt handles onto Reality and grasp those instead. The first handle is arbitrary, but after that there's right ways and wrong ways to bolt handles in relation to each other.

 Example:
 If you try to define [life] physically, you will find either nothing is alive or everything is alive. You can still make a semi-functional  handle, but you have to throw down arbitrary cutoffs. [Life is what we define as alive.]
 Life has goals. It has some outcome it will try to secure. This immediately goes recursive; life tries to stay alive. If it loses the ability to strategically direct energy, it will lose the ability to pursue any goal. This is a definition that doesn't converge. You can't define things in terms of themselves.
 [Life is something you can kill.] You can stab it and it stops moving. Machines are alive...

 You have control of actions, but not consequences. You can define things any way you want, it's fine. You can't control what the consequences of the definition are. You have to decide on an action, or definition, based on its immutable consequences.

 Alt: you define life as [having consciousness], which is not a physical property. That's cool, that works, [life] is a scalar. Except, now, when you're sleeping, you're dead. You suicidal maniac, you kill yourself at least once a day. You enjoy it, you lunatic.

 Natural language works by arbitrary definition. You have a type specimen and a fuzziness quotient. A cat is defined by a platonic [form of the cat] except that platonic form is brain-specific. The fuzziness - how different something can be and still be a cat - is also arbitrary. These types of definitions are not logically useful. The form is hard to communicate. The form is an inaccurate recording of the specimen. Even if it wasn't inaccurate, the specimen has changed and therefore no physical object does or will match the definition. It's a quick and dirty pragmatism for the stupid.

Soycial Oil of the Divine Snake & Cultivators Cultivate Self-Harm

 When writing, the virtue signalling fails and one's true issues come forth.

 "He tried, but he kept coming back to that disastrous commerce raid. Where was the compassion there? Where was the compassion for his Earthly Realm brothers and sisters? When he sat with Brother Long through his last night, perhaps that was compassion, but so what? Wasn’t he dead anyway? All the people he gave first aid to, all the lives he saved, didn’t they die anyway? And yet somehow, he and Hong, the ones who hid, survived and collected the rewards. And the one who earned best was the one who spent their lives most easily- the great hero Ku.

"A person who achieved great merits for the sect. Who tamed a mighty monster, and slew a great villain while weakening, very slightly, the power of Black Iron Gorge through sect-sponsored banditry.

"So damn compassionate. So compassionate, so frugal, so humble, it made Tian want to puke. But somehow, somehow, the heretics were worse. It seemed like it shouldn’t be possible, but they were."
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/107917/sky-pride/chapter/2335156/chapter-35--the-first-of-the-three-treasures

 Despite his intentions, the author has correctly modelled a realistic situation. Probably this is cryptamnesia, he's copying an event he saw in real life, except with fantasy instead of distracting, irrelevant details. 

 The one who spent the lives of others, intentionally and with callousness aforethought, got the most rewards. This is exactly why the heretics exist. The orthodox have set up a soyciety which doesn't punish this sort of behaviour, which means they set up a soyciety which does punish this sort of behaviour, by being incapable of defending itself from the heretics. 

 This ku seemingly accrues great rewards. All of which will have to be spent defending himself against someone higher up likewise spending his life with callousness aforethought. He might die anyway. You perform all these moral [sacrifices] and it turns out the profit is 0.
 The amish are as happy as billionaires, but never had to deal with HR. Never have to make a "voluntary" contribution in their lives.
 If you follow this thread to the end, it's about mortals pretending they can provide a replacement of the divine, and likewise pretending they don't notice how comprehensively they're failing.

 In real life, rewarding viciousness rather than discouraging it will directly fund heretics. If spending lives is subsidized, then you maximize the subsidy, maximize your payday, by spending as many lives as possible. The [heretics] in this story are merely doing it without the denial phase, as another example of the fact Jedi are a kind of Sith. Sith, but with a shallow, monochrome whitewash. Which is another way of saying everyone, even dumbass fiction writers, knows christians worship satan; christians merely say they oppose satan. When the bibble claims nobody is righteous, not a one, the subtext is, "Nice job, keep up the good work."

 In this story - not that the author does or can know this - defence against heretics would require that the wuxia level cultivators can trust the xianxia levels not to fuck them over.
 "The orthodox cultivators, Ancient Crane Monastery very much included, genuinely believed in the three supreme virtues."
 Nope! Not even a little! Haha, good joke! The virtue-signalling managed to flicker back on, see. When the author stops telling the story and starts describing the story he thinks he's telling; the story he wants you to believe he believes he's telling.
 The wuxias can't make the relevant reports without being ripped off or even directly punished. The messenger will be shot, thus nobody carries messages. Hence, the heretics can operate with sufficient impunity. The wuxias are mistaken for allowing themselves to be associated at all with the xianxias.
 Should have joined the heretics. At least, lived in their city.
 Don't get horrible curse poisons crippling you for life if you're on their side, if you can win a war against them from afar, you can win even easier from inside, heretics clearly have hiding arts which you need against the xianxias...etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Choosing the orthodox path is assenting to barbarism and betrayal. Wrong in every way unless the goal is self-mutilation.
 Which is why the wuxias associate with the xianxias; getting killed was the point. They don't change because it's working as intended.

 Xianxia in general is embarrassingly accurate. Hardly anyone makes it up the ranks... It's specifically because they all assent to self-mutilation. The only ones who achieve transcendence are the misfits who tried to cut off their own path and failed. That's why it's rare, why it seems there's no set path, no blueprint. It's trying to end up in Hell and missing. By [overcoming] the will of [Heaven] they mean overcoming their own free will. Internally overturning a cosmic law to avoid having to simply choose a different choice - that's xianxia.

 The [tribulation] they get when ascending the stage is Heaven trying to helpfully kill them, the way they wanted. "Bro that isn't how you commit suicide, here, let us help." And, the bards tell us, it is indeed helpful nearly every time. As often as could reasonably be expected.

Ultimate Law, Morality but Real, Alphomega Justice

 The tension between personal benefits and social benefits, of the individual scope and the wide scope, is often found under the umbrella of morality. There is no such thing as universal mores, so that's an issue. This issue can and should be solved individually, and I will now explain in exhaustive detail. Keep in mind that, as it turns out, making it non-moral and just fixing it solves all supposed problems found under the [morality] umbrella.

 

 The tension between personal benefits and social benefits should be decided by making society benefit the person, and as such upholding society is always the best personal move. The tension is fake and γαι, more on that later.

  Bitcoin doesn't fix it, but a simple contract does. Society agrees to provide benefits to the member, according to their individual preferences and costs thereof, and in exchange the member agrees to provide benefits to society so that society is capable of maintaining and increasing its benefits.
 The member agrees not to harm society's ability to provide him with benefits because he can't gain more from such harm than he loses in the benefits.
 The member agrees to let the society use force to stop him if he contravenes his stated word.*
Society agrees to pay its debts and to forgo enforcement on the member if it is found to have failed to provide the benefits, or to have applied unagreed costs.
 They agree on a method of determining when the contract is breached, which is isomorphic to deciding the exact terms of the contract.

 *Which is why 98% women don't go well with contracts, and can't be full members of society. If you try to use stated words like this, enforcement costs will exceed the benefits of the contract. Unprofitable. She should be a member of a family which deals with society on her behalf and likewise deals with the foid on behalf of society.
 It's hard to tell through all the modern degeneracy, but perhaps enforcing the given word of a male peasant is also more expensive than any benefits society can receive from the peasant. Like women, the peasantry has to be held in conservatorship, though in this case by a lord rather than by a family.
 In each case, rather than agreeing not to cause harm, the livestock in question has to be physically prevented from having the opportunity to cause harm to society. If this can't be cost-effectively done, then they are wild and go in the wilderness, not in the city.
 If you can't marry a woman you can't rape her either - not part of society, these roles don't apply. On the topic of exceptions, perhaps 1% of women don't have to be held in conservatorship; rare but not vanishingly so, and it's feasible to test for this in advance.

 

 Notice that this contract is not a phd dissertation. You don't have to be a world-historical genius giant astride the world to think of this. In part this is why I can speak abstractly. I don't need to specify an engineering blueprint for arbitration, because you can competently figure that out for yourself. Difficulty: average adult level. The difficulty of the idea is not what prevents anyone from using it.

 What's hard about this is in fact that's it's so obvious, that it really is like explaining that the sun rises in the morning. The challenge is having it occur to you to try at all. No really, imagine that vividly; you're having an issue with a subordinate at work, or a contractor, and it turns out the root problem is that they don't know the sun rising makes it morning. How long does it take until it occurs to you to explain that the sun rising makes it morning?

 The contract is not used because mortals make soycieties, not societies, and the point of those is to harm their members for the benefit of other members who claim to benefit on behalf of soyciety. Collectivism. Often, causing harm and getting away with it is the whole benefit in question; just in case you thought soyciety had any shred of legitimacy.

 Anyone who doesn't want to solve the tension of person with society by making society benefit the person is obviously trying to benefit a person, themselves, at your expense. Fake and γαι. They are a criminal, and they go in the stocks.

 Empires fall because they are soyvilizations. The purpose of soyvilization is self-mutilation, it works as intended, thus soyciety dies. 

 Having done malice, let's also do stupidity. 

 The usual method of philosophical morality is a weird combination of bottom-up and top-down, where they try to apply morality top-down by deriving it bottom-up from principles.
 We already know what we want from society. Benefits in exchange for service. It's a lot easier to test a prototype for errors rather than attempting an exhaustive search of all possible moralities. Turns out there aren't any errors, you can just do the obvious thing. Sign a contract with society's representative such that you're promised benefits in exchange for services, and apply a reasonable arbitration and enforcement mechanism. That's it.

 

 I feel it's important to repeat that it's ungrateful for society to provide no benefits. Being a member should profit the member. If society doesn't value you, there is no reason for you to value society, or more precisely there is no reason for you to value your contribution to society if society itself doesn't. Go ahead and believe it. Don't spend stuff to no benefit, even beyond not cooperating with defectors. Society should express its value of you in cold hard cash, because it's sufficiently difficult to fake that signal. Taxes are soyciety, the exact opposite of how a society functions. You should be charging society rent for the privilege of your membership.

 I charge soyciety rent too, but you can always con a dishonest man; its illegitimacy means it can't enforce any demand for benefits in return. Its attempt at parasitism makes it vulnerable to parasitism. The only downside is that eating soyciety means eating soy. It's a food, that's what it's for, but on the other hand it's soy.

 

 There is no reason the individual benefits of the individual members can't be individualized, except cost constraints. And logical coherence, which applies to everything. Some benefits cost society more than the individual can or is willing to provide in return. Next you can't value costs not being costly, or value receiving more from society than you can afford. Meta-values are generally invalid, due to the series failing to converge.
 Within reason, everyone can have their own idiosyncratic social contract.
 More importantly, this is Freedom. !!Freedom!! even. Any reasonable arrangement of values is compatible with this social contract.

 Insofar as being individualistic is costly, then perhaps some conformity is accepted for higher reverse-taxes. It depends entirely on what the individual wants, how much they want it, and how much they can pay society for the privileges. The contract can be re-negotiated, again subject to transaction costs, but when it's valuable it can be done. 

 Because it can be re-negotiated, I don't have to work out arbitration and enforcement from first principles. If something isn't working, try something different. Can simply use known solutions until a problem is found with them through praxis. Can use new ideas whenever and to whatever extent is reasonable. In short, your security doesn't have to be my business, the business of theoreticians. !!Freedom!! Likewise anyone who chooses wrong doesn't damage my business. He has to take responsibility himself.

 In some cases power and flexibility have no tradeoff, no conflict. In the case of the social contract, not only can you maximize both, increasing one increases the other. 

 All enforcement is what the individual finds reasonable. Or they don't sign; they don't sworn to contribute to society. 

 Enforcement on those outside society is highly contaminated by [[collectivism]]. If you think about what they want at all, with the exception of offering them something to entice them to sign the social contract, you're getting scammed. They won't pay you for your regard; they don't value it. Giving them any regard is imagining value they don't have.
 Treat outlaws like outlaws. Outlaws might be bipedal and featherless, maybe they can speak a language, but in spade language they're wild animals and should be treated like wild animals. Do whatever it takes to minimize the costs they impose on you. Force them to stay out, basically; pay the cost of a fence and you're good. The only correct place for an outlaw that's inside city boundaries is a zoo. Their complaints are as meaningful as a buzzing fly unless they're making a credible bid to sign the social contract and be subject to its rules. 

 For anyone confusing outlaws with other societies, note that societies should sign contracts with each other. What is valid diplomacy? What is invalid? How do passports work? What is an act of war? It says all this in the contract. Agreed to in advance. 

 Sadly mortals do not have reasonable arrangements of values, and can't form societies. Regardless of their ability to adhere to their given word, they will choose not to adhere to it; breaking their oaths is a common terminal goal for mortals. Soyciety only. They swear, that they might betray. Have to pick up some loyalties if you don't have any, or you can't betray them.

 P.S. Get fucked all the way up your ass, plato. Get fucked until your brain is pulped from the bottom. Justice could eat feet first and you wouldn't know what hit you. "Why am I dead? What happened?" Get fucked except you would probably enjoy it. I suppose that technically means we both win. Soyciety is footnotes to plato, society is anti-plato. Soyciety is when plato is under-raped.

 You may note that soycieties do try to mimic society in certain respects. There are, allegedly, rules about diplomacy. It always ends up startlingly corrupt. There's no explicit social contract because the owners of soyciety refuse to pay penalties for breaking their word. And soyciety members mindlessly let them. On the contrary, diplomacy rules are designed precisely to be subverted preferentially by one group instead of another. Result: catastrophic decay.

 Moral of this story: don't be human. Discriminate against humanity. Humanity is why you can't have nice things. Help me find other anti-humans.
 Alt: prove me wrong. Sign a social contract and form a society. Pwn me good, show me your gigantic reverse-tax bill.

Minor on Collectivism

 Collectivism is when an individual claims to be all of a community, and thus benefitting him individually is beneficial to everyone. E.g. if you empty your wallet into his, everyone becomes richer.

 Spade language is important because it makes stupid lies sound stupid, and collectivism is always a stupid lie. 

 If you both really did get richer by paying him, he would be able to pay you for the privilege, out of the profits, and emptying your wallet into his should end up with more money in your wallet. He wouldn't have to appeal to [[collectivism]], he could appeal to your self-interest. This obvious scam is a scam precisely because it doesn't work that way. Indeed moderns have this whole [investment] thing where you do this the non-scam way. Nobody has to justify stocks or bonds based on collectivist reasoning. 

 If it's collectivist and not obviously a scam, that means it's not obvious.
 If it has to be justified using collectivism, it is unjustifiable, and they're confessing.