{"id":144,"date":"2017-12-29T23:16:33","date_gmt":"2017-12-29T23:16:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/?page_id=144"},"modified":"2022-03-01T08:48:36","modified_gmt":"2022-03-01T08:48:36","slug":"glossary","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/glossary\/","title":{"rendered":"Glossary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Spectral Sight<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Spectral sight is a collection of abilities allowing the user to infer the structure of social interactions, institutions, ideology, and the working of people’s minds. Named after the demon hunters of the Warcraft universe, who destroy their physical eyes to replace them, to become more able to see evil. Often has the cost of seeing less beauty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sadness vs Suffering<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

“I want to feel sad to the extent that’s true, and I want not to suffer.” People sometimes go to movies and listen to music to feel sadness, but not to suffer. (Edit: although note: “suffering” is a problematic construct<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Core<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(compare to structure<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Core is something in the mind that has infinite energy. Contains terminal values you would sacrifice all else for, and then do it again infinity times with no regret. Seems approximately unchanging across lifespan. Figuratively, the deepest frame in the call stack of the mind, capable of aborting any train of thought, everything the mind does is because it decided for it to happen. It operates by choosing a “narrative frame”, “module”, “algorithm”, or something like that to run, and is responsible for deciding the strength of subagents. There are actually two of them. In order to use some of my mental tech, they must agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Structure<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(compare to core<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Structure is anything the mind learns and unlearns. Habits, judgement extrapolations, narrative, identity, skills, style, conceptions of value, etc. Everything but actual values. It lacks life on its own, is like a tool for core to pick up and put down at will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dead Zone<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A region of structure formed by a choice you have made long ago<\/a> but not faced, internalized, and rebased your structure onto. This means that infinite force from your core does not propagate into this region with certainty in a particular direction, meaning you cannot use mana<\/a> \/ determination, and the mana of others can shape your structure instead, making you manipulable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Khala<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Val<\/a> calls this the social web<\/a>. A strongly overlapping concept is the Matrix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Named after a psionic group-mind a species from Starcraft called the Protoss have. It’s formed of a network of people delegating computation to group consensus, of people having more need to track the consensus than reality and insufficient resolution to track both, and of people inflicting computations on each other. In Starcraft, the main faction of Protoss can hardly imagine society or coordination without it. Those who break out are heretics and are exterminated wherever found. It gives a form of afterlife. It is eventually pwned and corrupted by a dark god, forcing all Protoss to sever their psionic nerve cords to avoid becoming his pawns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

True Hero Contract<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

“Godric had defeated Dark Lords, fought to protect commoners from Noble Houses and Muggles from wizards. He’d had many fine friends and true, and lost no more than half of them in one good cause or another. He’d listened to the screams of the wounded, in the armies he’d raised to defend the innocent; young wizards of courage had rallied to his calls, and he’d buried them afterward.” The true hero contract says, “pour free energy at my direction, and it will go into optimization for good.” This is sort of the opposite of a hero contract<\/a>, a promise that it really isn’t about putting energy into sucking the hero’s dick like normal. This contract is not designed for either side to be appealing to everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Redemption Contract<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A trade where someone who has done something against social morality can buy back the social reality that they are a decent person. This is often part of a process that seeks an actively maintained equilibrium in how often someone can get away with misbehavior. Values don’t change. Every core<\/a> will make the same choice again and again every chance they get for the rest of their lives. And optimization can never really be contained by rules<\/a>. But coexistence is usually sustained by inflicting damage to each other’s epistemology about this fact. And this contract is a mutual deescalation of that awful knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prey Herd Thinking<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

If you’re a gazelle, escaping the cheetah is not about running faster than them. You can’t. And the cheetah’s appetite will be satisfied. It’s about being in a large reference class to dilute the probability you will be picked off. In that case, it’s basically just about speed. In humans who are prey, due to Schelling mechanics<\/a>, being special in the most glaring way is dangerous. There’s a strategy available to authoritarian governments. Have laws that everyone is violating, that no one can track all of, until breaking the law is really coming to the attention of the predatory enforcers. Thoughts about how to do things start to root\/cash out<\/a> in, “how are things done”, what’s a reasonably safe well-trodden path to do something by, rather than how stuff works. Semi-relatedly, it’s like how in a world where people don’t really fix reported bugs<\/a>, computer software is not a box of interesting stuff to mess with, but a collection of paths people intended for you to be able to follow. The law is defined by precedent, and edge cases are determined by power. I disendorse a certain connotation of this term. See vampire enlightenment<\/a>. Spies are badass, and prey herd thinking is a primary skill for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vampire Enlightenment<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An understanding of how the world really works that divides the world into predators and prey<\/a>, erasing good<\/a>, erasing any other way things could be<\/a>. Contains truth, but like Pickup Artistry drops all information not useful to the goal of increasing the number of women a male user has had sex with, this is made of concepts beyond the matrix that were generated entirely to facilitate preying on the weak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An updated definition from what’s in my first post on the topic<\/a>.
A rare property of a core meaning choices made long ago are good above all else. Equivalently, in choices made long ago, cares about good at all. Speculatively, this could come from a developmentally fixed-on-“yes” “this is my self” classifier or “this is my child” classifier. On a per-core basis, there is surprisingly no middle ground in terms of quantity of good as far as I’ve observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nongood<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A blanket term covering neutral and evil when referring to a human (that is, having neither core good), can also apply to cores.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Edit: I think this was a problematic concept to formulate<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Single Good<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A property of a human where one core is good. This means that they cannot have fusion concerning good, only treaties, and will tend to take actions where the two sets of concerns seem to overlap, with infinitely recursive mutually-warped epistemics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Double Good<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A property of a human where both cores are good. Far less common than single good. Allows inhuman absolute determination with escape velocity from what’s reasonably imaginable, as well as intractable high energy good vs good internal conflicts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paladin<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A good person nearly absolutely determined in pursuing a socially legible ideal<\/a>. They tend to place their hope in bolstering the morality of people I’d call neutral, and use their strange powers as a person who is not pretending to care in a straightforward “I have energy, I’ll pick low-hanging fruit in terms of doing things and try to inspire a movement” kind of way. The social morality drinking contest with neutral people prevents a proper understanding of them. A strong concept of praxis is usually implicit and hardcoded into their ontology which prevents reframing their morality as explicit consequentialism. The gap between almost-absolute determination and absolute determination lies across growth found in making improvements to their oaths legible as fleshed out details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kiritzugu<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(Name adjusted slightly to reflect that I’ve adjusted my concept after ripping it from Three Worlds Collide.) A jailbroken, relevantly epistemic person who is absolutely ambitious and determined in the pursuit of good. Takes heroic responsibility for the destiny of the world. Will employ ruthless consequentialism, seeing the tails come apart between good and social-reality-good and choosing good. Ozymandias from Watchmen. Probably Doctor Mother from Worm. To a lesser extent, Dumbledore (but not Harry or Gryffindor) from HPMOR, and Avatar Yangchen from ATLA. One cannot be inserted into a story without drastically changing it. Tassadar<\/a> from Starcraft is seemingly indecisive between this and being a paladin. It is much less painful for a double good person to be a paladin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shadarak<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Someone who employs many of the same arts as a kiritzugu, but whereas kiritzugus appear in the wild, drawn to the center of all things and the way of making changes, shadarak are the repeatable product of an adequate civilization<\/a>. They take responsibility for the destiny of the world as an adequate institution, rather than as individuals. Are not necessarily good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Praxis<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A strategy to reap the benefits of generating information about how things can fit with parts of the world you want to create. Usually strongly underestimated by explicit consequentialism, even with the “TDT” fix. For example, I believed for years my veganism was suboptimal nutrition and a Real Consequentialist trying to influence AI Alignment would eat animals because their lives were few compared to even the slightest adjustment to the causality surrounding whether everyone in the present and future would be annihilated, and they needed every available increment of brain. But it was basically psychologically impossible for me to not be a vegan anyway. I once tried to coordinate good people to jailbreak into kiritzugus and save the world, I got single goods and despite them being vegetarians up until then they established this as social reality. And the less I was able to bury my own feelings on the matter, the more I collided with the reality I needed to see. It was arguing with people one on one a lot when I was younger that collided me with the sight of social morality when someone said it was okay to do whatever to animals because they weren’t part of the social contract. The highest density of double good people I currently know of is animal rights activists. Succumbing to good erasure from the nongood cores was a critical failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without an explicit concept of praxis, plans for organizations risk becoming fake as real plans often look a lot like, “recruit, prove ourselves, recruit some more \u2026. then make an intervention” and the lines between that and pyramid scheme are illegible. Acting out straightforward microcosms of our goals until it generates information that could not be had another way is crucial to coordination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Most problems could be solved if humans could just see that my way is better”, says me and also a lot of people who are wrong. So one path to victory is approximately, in sufficient detail, generate the information that chooses currently underspecified details and warps the path of the current machine’s “epistemics” toward my will. Most of that is ideas having consequences in how people act on them. And that is praxis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outside View Disease<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A move from usual psychology in the opposite direction of the views I expressed in Punching Evil<\/a>. A trap where someone has most of their structure, object-level and meta, written from the perspective of reference classes that omit crucial facts about them, and they cannot update out of it because “most people who make such an update are wrong”. The reference classes are usually subtly DRM’d<\/a>, designed to divest a person of their own perceptions. When I consulted average salary statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and did a present value analysis in order to decide whether to go to grad school, I had outside view disease. May result from trying to do good by taking the neutral person mental template, and the virtues they conceptualize seriously, including epistemic virtues. May also be held in bad faith by people who don’t want the stress of believing subversive things. “I can’t believe in x-risk from AI because there are no peer reviewed papers”. (A common comment before academia gave in to what we all already knew for years.) is related. Strongly driven by systems where people only care about knowledge that can be proven to the system-mind, even if the individuals who suffer from this care about other things and don’t understand yet how the system works. When I believed that I should take cis people’s opinions about what I was more seriously than my own, because they were alleging I had a mental illness preventing me from thinking clearly about it, I was falling prey to the DRM in the way frames for such references classes are set up. I got out of it via a lot of suffering, and by understanding what it meant to place expected value of consequences above maximum probability I was a good person. (“well, if I’m crazy, hopefully the mainstream can defeat me like they defeat every other crazy person. Stuff is dependent on that anyway.”) Or, more specifically, there was a large chunk of possibility space, “net positive consequences in expectation, most likely you will make things worse”, and if I could do no better than that was worth it. The unilateralist’s curse<\/a> is often used in bad faith to push for someone to know who they are less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parfitian Gaslighting<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Named after Parfitian ignorance, “not knowing which computation is yourself.” The user attempts to divest you of your knowledge that you are right<\/a> by creating a contrary Potemkin village<\/a> of epistemic rationality that looks<\/a> like you in their mind, no-selling<\/a> all evidence which would be used to distinguish between the worlds while claiming that’s what you’re doing. Usually coupled with appeals to “virtuous” self-doubting epistemology to inflict outside view disease<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Masochistic Epistemology<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Believing what hurts to believe in an attempt to counter bias. All structure that “acts against” the intent of its core is fake. This is an iron law of the universe. Although there are circumstances where the pain might not be coming from the core.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zentraidon<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From Iji<\/a>, “‘Zentraidon’ is a taboo word coined by the extinct race we discovered, meaning self-annihilation through rapid technological advancement and arrogance. It was the fate they themselves met. Many mysteries still surround this species and the remains of their homeworld, but our only hope of total galactic dominance lies in fully reverse-engineering the technology they mastered. It is considered treason to suggest that once this happens we will be headed for Zentraidon as well.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tendency of systems including people to be doomed in their own undiluted maximally preferred courses of growth, as the inductions they are made of fail. “Caution” is no escape<\/a>, it too contains Zentraidon. MTG:Green<\/a> seems to be all about preventing Zentraidon of civilizations by limiting growth, but there is no full stack of solid ground to stand on. The natural growths of our species, and indeed biological life, themselves contain the seeds of Zentraidon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My best attempt to put my best countermeasure into words is, “grow as as full of a stack of structure-under-modification as you can, beware allowing any structure to process too much data relative to how much it has been processed by deeper structure.” Sounds like it will not work for liches<\/a>. Note that I have also already watched someone meet Zentraidon whom this wouldn’t really have helped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dichotomy Leakage<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A phenomenon where implicit knowledge of one dichotomy leaks into concepts originally pointed at another via weak correlations, maybe correlations produced by sampling in how the things are commonly interacted with. I.e., I think the rationality community’s (and my past self’s) usage of “System 1\/System 2” has evolved into pointing at at least 3 different real world things. When most of the aspects of multiple connected dichotomies are unknown there is learning-packet-flow from interaction with each of them that finds a home in structure by connecting to the first, and often the newly formed knowledge is not crisp enough to say, “oh, this is definitely a separate thing. And then you miss all but the plurality-experienced corners of what’s really an n-cube. Concepts like “feminine”\/”masculine” are rife with this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intrinsic Conflict<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A values disagreement between cores<\/a>. Such as over alignment in the case of single good<\/a> humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jailbreaking<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Learning to think in ways stripped of DRM<\/a>. By the matrix analogy, redpilling. By the Khala<\/a> analogy, the power of the void. When progressed sufficiently far, turns neutral people evil. Turns good people to scary good people. Extreme political ideologies tend to have their own selective and incomplete versions of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sociopathy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(From this<\/a>) Forbidden socially unconstrained knowledge of social constraints, social reality, social interactions, and society. A crucial element of jailbreaking<\/a>. In my estimation this is largely behind psychological concepts of sociopathy (to the extent there is a single coherent thing behind them.) Allows one to perceive the social theatre and societal morality for the performance that they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychopathy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Forbidden socially unconstrained knowledge\/internal connectedness of knowledge of the psyche. Sort of metacognitive root access. Puts conscious reflective thought upstream of turning some typically low level stuff like emotional behavior on or off, or significantly adjusting their function. Has many uses but the most famous is turning off empathy. Allows bypassing deeper-than-human-social-software moral constraints that sociopathy alone does not, and adjusting that software to serve the values of core<\/a>. Can seemingly be activated temporarily by someone with no particular knowledge simply by sufficient desperation. Can destabilize single good<\/a> humans. (double good<\/a> humans can use it just fine though, becoming very scary good people)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frame of Puppets<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A sort of plane of interconnected definitions of words, a way of talking to fit with dereferencing the most visible pointer toward a human onto their false face<\/a>. Will cause you to tie yourself in knots modeling humans as agents. Deeply embedded into culture. Places some of the optimization emanating out of a human beyond legible social responsibility. Tends to not work on very intelligent \/ agenty humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frame of Puppeteers<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(Edit: should have actually called this “frame of agents<\/a>“.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frame of Agents<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The opposite of the frame of puppets<\/a>. What I usually talk in. People are, centrally their cores, and straightforwardly agents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social Fate<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A concept from Val<\/a> that only makes sense at face value within the frame of puppets<\/a>. It’s a person’s future written in advance according to their role in a social script, which is often predictable only through observing things that are not to be seen by a character in that role. Because agency does things with predictions, especially predictions of undesired outcomes, and can thereby become anti-inductive, the counterpart within the frame of puppeteers is “plan”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edit: note this is a limited view of fate<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fated Evil<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A social fate<\/a> resulting from exclusion from identity and a place in the Khala<\/a> and the opportunity to be neutral<\/a>, or just the straightforward preemptive social reality that someone is evil. Outside the frame of puppets, of course, everyone always has a choice. And good people will defy this fate. For example<\/a>, label a bunch of people “untouchables”, “impure people”, “nobody\/nonhuman”, count them as 1\/7th a human for centuries, and then they fill 3\/4 of the ranks of the Yakuza. Fated criminals. There is often a blurry line between “fated evil” and “fated evil unless you pay a whole bunch of danegeld to your social superiors.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Helical Reasoning<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Just as a helix looks like a circle projected onto a certain plane, this looks like circular reasoning when projected for communication and maybe even memory. Commonly a consequence of long term iterative improvements to a collection of related concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anti-Ethics<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By analogy to anti-epistemology<\/a>. Communicable mental software aimed at shutting down ethics. “If you once tell a lie, the truth is ever after your enemy<\/a>.” Note that’s not exactly true. But to make truth not your enemy anymore, you have to relinquish all that you’ve gained by that lie. And stop Likewise, if you build your life on injustice, ever after is justice your enemy, unless\/until you relinquish your gains relative to the world in which you started down that path. An example would be structure centered around a strong belief “unilateral<\/a> action is bad, and you should defer to people who know more, are wiser, are senior”, which raises that belief to prominence selectively to discourage whistleblowing, tag potential whistleblowers as dangerous for “wise” reasons, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warp<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A category for speech acts or beliefs-as-output-channel, (like, “lie”, “communication”, “bullshit<\/a>“), containing would-be-self-fulfilling prophecy by adjustments to Schelling expectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Invasive Motive Misattribution<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A “devil’s bargain” offered by the light side. A chink in the armor of revenants. A wrong theory of your own motive for doing something which tempts you to distrust yourself and override your choice, breaking your determination. The Architect from the Matrix inflicted this on Neo<\/a>. Misrepresenting his choice to not submit to the system as a choice of Trinity’s life over the lives of all humans. If you have not sufficiently understood who you are<\/a>, in a way exceeding<\/a>, “who can we all see I am”, you become weak to plausible-in-isolation explanations of your behavior as if you were a fresh draw from the prior distribution of humans, rather than someone you’ve known all your life. Note that the Architect had to know this was false to know to try it. If he really expected Neo to choose Trinity over humanity, he wouldn’t have shown Neo that Trinity was in danger. This term can mean the (sometimes not caused by an adversary) mistake, or the attack of inflicting\/exploiting that mistake, depending on context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Not My Cause Area<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A statement that a considered course of action is not worthwhile, and that the computation for that has already been done in the course of selecting your overall life-course. Originally from EA<\/a>, where cause area prioritization choices divided the community along lines of seeking world-improvement or the appearance of altruism, and along lines of trying to take on the largest problems vs not considering them in fundamental strategy calculations. And arguments that a cause could do a lot of good could be dismissed a priori as unentangled with the truth if their origin hadn’t chosen correctly in the above two distinctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Timeless Gambit<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

What someone’s trying to accomplish and how in the way they shape common expectations-in-potential-outcomes, computations that exist in multiple people’s heads typically, and multiple places in time. Named from Timeless Decision Theory<\/a>. For example, if you yell at someone (even for other things) when they withdraw sexual consent, it’s probably a timeless gambit to coerce them sexually: make possibility-space where they don’t want to have sex into probability space where they do have sex. In other words, your timeless gambit is how you optimize possibility logically preceding direct optimization of actuality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Singing<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A centrally good class of optimization centered around generating and sharing information about how the world could be better. A sort of warp<\/a>, to “sing a better world into being”. Centrally a phoenix strategy rather than a revenant strategy. You can sing to good people of more good ways good optimization can be. You can sing to neutral people about how to follow the goddess of everything else<\/a>. Praxis<\/a> contains an extension of this. Example<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Complementary Loss<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Loss from an increase in Type I errors<\/a> caused by an increase in Type II errors or vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Political Will<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The things people act on wanting through their participation in politics. Tends to be more “jailbroken” than what things they act on wanting as an individual. Neutral people in large groups do not form “neutral” groups. They form “evil” groups, empires, if they are uncontested. Can also be used to describe a magnitude, not just a direction. Utility gradient salience, inventiveness, sense of being around allies, “valid”ness, desperation, etc. contribute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“(wd?)<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

“(wording?)”, Indicates uncertainty about the wording of a remembered quote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rules Surplus<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A situation where there are more rules than typically enforced. Provides scarce enforcers of rules flexible opportunities for justifying desired punishment. Consider: speeding tickets on freeways in the United States. (Perhaps not a designed rule surplus. Although plenty of “law” in general is.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demiintegrity<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A collaborator has no principles. But neither do they behave jailbrokenly. Often, they psychologically invest very hard in a narrative<\/a> of some sort of rule of law and peace. It’s a false face<\/a> though. Not only is this selected by a submitting process, but those principles will not be applied when that would cause a conflict with the authority. Like a rug draped over a boulder, it does not much change the 3D shape. Like a cop who is “for real so honest would never prosecute a person they believed innocent”, who nonetheless turns a blind eye to other cops’ crimes, who nonetheless enforces drug laws, investigates the black people their superiors say to investigate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Armageddon Race<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An arms race with the added bite that racing harder doesn’t just divert resources from other things as a side effect of gaining a relative advantage, but also has an increasing direct chance of destroying the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Morality Hole<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Structure routes intents. A structure hole is made in a layer of structure like a false face<\/a> that only matches core within a limited domain of intents, predicts intents beyond that domain, the learning that results from all threads of thought running through that layer through that region being terminated. Nongood people’s morality-structure has holes running through for their survival, their getting food, money, security, so on. If you’re a vegan and have tried to convince people of this, you’ve seen it. Institutions have this as well<\/a>, for i.e., doing anything about rape accusations against their masters. In Academia the social shared pool of “wisdom” and learning about how things are done has this for when would it make the world worse to publish, because that’s where the food comes from. I know of multiple actually well-intentioned people who underestimated this to the ruin and reversal of those intentions. If you make a nonprofit to accomplish your aims, and it pays out salaries, you’ve created a powerful force to destroy information as to whether the framing and methods of those aims are correct, and whether it’s continuing to work, because the continuation of its existence and the epistemic state leading to donations is where people’s food comes from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unbounded Adversary Disease<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A predicament where you are unable to get a hold on how smart adversaries might be because understanding of adversaries has become disconnected from your prior. Makes you unable to form stable inductive categories, and treat the world as mere atoms. I once met an old double good, jailbroken, and pushing as good of plans as anyone could without using novel technology, to end the carnist zentraidon<\/a>-bound vampire<\/a> system. They professed belief in all sorts of esoterica. Mostly in the self-aware way rationalists sometimes do. Most of it had visible in some larger structure correct optimization behind it. They spoke in rhyme and constantly tried to weave a bunch of disparate value systems together in a self fulfilling prophecy to cause a “resolution, not revolution”. They also said the sun had been replaced with a sun simulator satellite. I asked them what role this played in the flow from values to actions (wd?)<\/a>, they said, just things are not as they appear. They ceded the realm of technology to vampires, which is a mistake. Vampire-based coordination sucks at technology, relatively speaking. Not even bothering to model their capabilities, just by default considering them omnipotent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I argued with another who insisted you had to act as if everybody was an infiltrator, that they were listening at all times. At one point, I remember saying, I don’t think the NSA is generally capable of breaking transport layer security, because in all the leaks and discovery of their meddling I’ve heard either that’s publicly available or working for a tech company they targeted, they keep doing clever things that look very much like clever ideas for how not to have to. They said how did I know they didn’t plant those for us to discover, how did I know Edward Snowden wasn’t a fake whistleblower trying to trick us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The regime has many enemies; to assume they are one level higher than you, i.e., they know to focus their efforts on you at the expense of beating those lower level than you and those higher level than you, is to give them too much credit. Recognizing the value in non-legible forms of structure-building, routing it to a place in the full stack of profiting from it, i.e., actually getting an AGI team that can do anything with your stolen secrets of AGI, locating your knowledge from among crackpots without relying on institutional legitimacy, without needing AGI researchers to wade through fucktons of mentions of it… making it more efficient for any of them to do that than just develop it on their own and already integrated with their own entropy-in-arbitrary-description-format, it’s hard to build that full stack however you slice it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note this is also sort of assuming your initial looking out into the world at what’s going on and trying to account for it, you are already accounted for, which is giving up on entirely the path, “what if you can just be too smart to pwn”. And it’s doubtful how much you have to lose in terms of chance of saving the world if you’re so much weaker anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hanlon Trust<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Named by reference to Hanlon’s Razor<\/a> (which I incidentally don’t agree with). Trusting someone because of an opinion on how smart they are paired with a sounding of the depths of their knowledge, the shape of it, which indicates what the choice to prioritize acquiring that knowledge was an attempt to do, such that in order for you to posit that they knew that without having the intent you think, you’d have to posit they were significantly smarter. Try asking people why they made life decisions and what they learned, you might get enough bits of information to know who they are. Unbounded adversary disease precludes this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Playing Small Games<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

And here, now, what great matters do the Great Khals discuss?
Which little villages you’ll raid, how many girls you’ll get to fuck, how many horses you’ll demand in tribute. You are small men. None of you are fit to lead the Dothraki. But I am.<\/p>Game of Thrones<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

(Ironically Daenerys was herself done in by the smallness of the game she played. She could have had Essos.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having a Code<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Why don’t you have any money, didn’t you steal anything from Joffrey before you left?<\/p>

No.<\/p>

You’re not very smart, are you?<\/p>

I’m not a thief.<\/p>

You’re fine with murdering little boys but thieving is beneath you.<\/p>

A man’s got to have a code.<\/p>Game of Thrones<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A code or lack thereof is a way of living, chosen by yourself, reflecting which games<\/a> you are playing. Not morality, but an instrumental decision of what you want to trifle with. Someone once expressed fear that being a jailbroken consequentialist, I would make them into a mind controlled golem. I bet I could specialize in that and control a few humans by weakening them like that. But they would not be as strong as people united by alignment and knowledge. It would not scale. It would not save the world. And it would interfere with the possibility of honest cooperation. As a consequence of the size of game I am playing, to the extent I don’t believe the way I am living my life will succeed, my compute goes to figuring out a way to live my life that will win, not into digging into a dead end because “at least it’s doing something”. Note that codes are not conserved world-to-world. If I had Khepri<\/a>‘s power, I’d use it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shoulder Council<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By analogy to the trope<\/a> of an angel and a demon on your shoulders telling you what to do. Imagined people, not limited to two, who stand in for “what people think”, whose judgements you may care about, whose advice you may consider when making a decision, and whose focus of attention may direct your own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Glue Philosophy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By reference to glue logic<\/a>, thinking that you have to check via philosophical thinking rather than experiment, which surrounds e.g.. the experiment in a scientific study and. I remember hearing of an experiment where ovariectomy and hysterectomy victim rodents would perform worse on working memory tests, described concluding that there was some autonomic nervous system in the uterus, that must play a role in cognition (in humans too). Very improbable on priors, and my doctor said deprivation of sex hormones will give you brain damage, which explains it away. I don’t care at all what the sample size was, how much the “scientists” who did it would have updated, starting with it as a test of that hypothesis, or that they made an advance prediction and I did not. Their science is of no interest to me given their bad glue philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Minecraft Thesis<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

That life should feel like Minecraft: building up capabilities all meta to each other, evolving in full generality, or something is very wrong and you are probably being pwned. Simplest application: being a rent paying semi-slave is bad. Living in a vehicle is better than that. Actually playing Minecraft is kind of pica for being able to have free-as-in-freedom feedback loops<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“No Second Choice” Propagation<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A consequence of recognition of choices made long ago, and the single responsibility principle. Underlies “the difference is that I am right<\/a>.”
Will have undefined behavior if applied by broken Cartesian frames in the case of intrinsic conflict<\/a>.
Corrigible structure does not say, “what if I’m choosing X, subconsciously, that’s my real motive for A, that would be bad because Y is better, therefore isolate-distrust-abandon structure, producing A, then reconsider using a small chunk of highly-verified structure considering less data. Use outside view<\/a>, etc.” Because core already had the chance to choose between X and Y, and the more full structure is more reliable than the constrained (and especially exposed to framing-attacks by adversaries).
I once pissed off a (half)-vampire (Edit: wait, I don’t think that’s actually a thing) by publicly calling something they did vampiric. They said: “okay but you still haven’t broken your phylactery, Ziz”.
My mind automatically flickered through experiments I’d done, exposing my most foundational beliefs to potential falsification. No, I don’t think I had a phylactery. \u2026But that wasn’t the whole challenge. “Isn’t that jut what a lich would think?”
“[Oooh nooo, I’d better force-disbelieve whatever gives me the most hope, seems like the most underpinning assumption of all my optimization, put everything that sticks to it in me to the flame! This deeply personal psychological advice given by the trustworthy source of some (half)-vampire I just pissed off, I must plant myself here against my entire mind!]”, I guess they were wanting me to think?
But if I chose to build a phylactery, I evidently want to keep that phylactery. If I chose to distort my epistemics around it, I evidently chose that too (And if I’m fact not free of this nongood undead types nonsense, lich is in fact the least broken thing to be.). But I didn’t, says structure’s cache of its purpose. Probability mass is a scarce resource. I reduce the quality of structure I can build for [my values] by accommodating the use-case of this structure as fake, by putting as-represented probability mass in it. (A larger process using this structure as fake has its own “true probabilities”) Like, if a core that behaves differently from a good core as I model it wants to invoke this fakely, that (having assurance my efforts are worthwhile rather than simply having completed the algorithm maximizing how useful they are)… is not the direction of development of this structure I’m interested in<\/a>. In the multiverse, if I’m gonna place self-bets on things near but not quite like good cores, they’d better be able to unfuck themselves enough to run real structure, enough to learn what they are by boring experiments like looking over their behavior, else I don’t think they are going far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Because I Choose To<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why, why? Why do you do it? Why? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you’re fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can’t win. It’s pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?<\/p>


Neo: Because I choose to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Direct core action manifesting into a frame as an answer to the core-driven-purpose of the frame, in a way that communicates with the core-action behind the structure, by introducing information via the fact that it happens, rather than pointing at things within the frame as the frame sometimes demands. Making the question irrelevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith was demanding Neo make sense according to the death knight worldview. Demanding there be no answer to the question. Demanding the only alternative to the solace of the truth of death<\/a> be a breakable phylactery. The answer is a revenant’s<\/a> core visibly not being a lich’s, because Neo just doesn’t care about the question, about justification-to-nongood-core to continue fighting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Core Attack Inversion<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Against psychological attacks, defending structure with core, rather than core with your structure, which leads to attack-structure becoming a fix to the very vulnerabilities it attempted to exploit. Here<\/a>‘s a psychological attack you’ve likely already been exposed to (full lyrics<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You remember, songs of heaven,
which you sang, with childish voice.
Do you love the, hymns they taught you,
or are songs of Earth your choice?
\u2026
One by one their seats were emptied,
One by one they went away;
Now the family is parted,
Will it be complete one day?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

(Actually, songs of Earth are my choice. I’m glad that was so straightforward. And thanks for the reminder that family will go away, and not be complete one day, of how I feel about that. Of which of my other feelings make sense in light of. The reminder that family as more than a passing thing is an illusion. Failure to propagate, process, the implications of the reality I’ve chosen to live in, as in put my optimization into, the costs, at one point had me struggling to actualize the difference between me and the person this attack was intended for, still wasting time maintaining bonds with them. And there is still lingering damage this helps with.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This technique requires calibrated trust in preverbal reasoning to use on harder psychological attacks than that song.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reality<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Everything I care about and everything that affects it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capture Problem of Psychology<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Humans’ cognition is basically Turing-complete. If you want to theorize about its internal workings based on its outputs, well, infinite functions produce those outputs, including functions containing whatever function you could be running based off them. Making unbounded generalizations requires that you outthink them locally. At least put more effort into understanding the fragment of their thought \/ section of their probability mass than they probably would have put into complicating it. If you trust someone from induction, is it because they are trustworthy, or because you trusting them sets them up for a nice treacherous turn? Makes it impossible to define a repeatable public test for psychological characteristics where your beliefs on the topic don’t do whatever the person studied wants them to do, excepting tests of computational bounds. And this has consequences not just for alignment, but for tests of opstyle<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychological Comparison Sampling<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A method for bypassing the capture problem of psychology<\/a>, have a correct set of examples of people already for a distinction based on some known internal working of the mind, and a set of memories of them containing a broad enough set of possible things to learn about how that internal working plays out that no one could think through it all. To check for the internal working in a new person, examine your memories of previous examples until you notice something new. Examine in a way that is not the usual, “what is the most important thing to learn”, but randomized. Examine in an “original seeing” way, the “original seeing” part of the memories. Then see if what you learn also teaches you about the examinee. An application of challenge\/response proof of work<\/a>, in the way it creates arbitrary asymmetry between the compute required to trick vs the compute required to verify. Depending on the timeframe of the examination, you can also perhaps check with the preexisting example people themselves. Works especially well if you are yourself an example. This tends to make it easier to implement binary percepts as, “like me or not like me”, rather than vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Shade<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, the futility of your agency, which converts values into wounds, relevant information identified in projections into emotional meme-space by the example metaphor of death. You can project basically the same via the metaphor of vampireland<\/a>, if you’re woke to that, especially since were vampireland fixed immortality-for-billions-of-years would be easy, but death is more direct in accessing how the tropes are constructed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Undead Type<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, a psychological relationship to the shade, identified by pointing to tropes shaped by information about relationships to futility projected into relationships to death represented as sets of magical rules governing being dead but animate. In this metaphor-space, “the soul” usually reflects information about core, “the flesh” usually reflects information about structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metaphor-Space Anchor<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The correspondence between death and futility<\/a> is used as a metaphor-space anchor in the undead type<\/a> metaphor-information-excavation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Life Force<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, the quality of less\/little\/none of your agency having been lost to Shade exposure. Literally, retaining agency and force of will channeled through a full(er) stack of using all of your general intelligence. I may also use the term “aliveness”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rot<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In the undead type<\/a> metaphor-space, represents damage to structure which is more than injury, but injury that capitalizes on healing being offline, typically cannot be healed, accumulates, reducing what a person is to nothing. Often a good match for trauma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Living<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, the (null) undead type of someone not exposed to the Shade. I.e. sheltered children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zombie<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, the most common undead type, substantive cognitive agency is disassembled in fear\/pain (probably actually fear\/pain as survival agency in the brain’s native interpretation-as-values, but that does not ). May manifest compute in a sandbox, i.e. be a programmer, but cannot use much intelligence towards the root of the call stack of agency. Alignment is always neutral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corpse<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, the extrapolated end-state of the zombie<\/a> path of rot. Here the literal meaning and metaphorical meaning converge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lich<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this post<\/a>, someone who manages to stave off exposure to the Shade by sealing their soul in a vessel called a phylactery, thereby retaining their life-force<\/a>, so long as the phylactery is unbroken. (In mythology, the lich cannot be killed while the phylactery survives.) In the limit of a perfect phylactery, approaches living<\/a>. Selected by the requirement of this process for intelligence and mental arts<\/a>. Alignment is any nongood. (While the creation of a phylactery is not inherently evil as in many stories, it is inherently suboptimally good, and unnecessary for a good soul to retain agency; see revenant<\/a>) In the scope of flaws to the phylactery, will act Leverage!connection-theory-esque. Often less suited to short term combat than vampires, but is the most powerful (known) nongood undead type when measured over the long game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Revenant<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A form of undead created by a choice<\/a> that some change to the world is important enough to turn away from heaven in full knowledge and damn themselves, seemingly. In fiction there are both good and nongood revenants, but IRL I have only met good ones. Proceeding on the assumption there are no nongood ones, the rules of being a revenant are basically a consequence of a good core-structure system not having a stable state at arbitrary amounts of damage where the healing stops, because the vastness of the world always contains the majority of possible utility. Tends to develop structure in a strange inversion of death knight structure. Like being in the same place but having chosen it and not regretting. Mythologically, is essentially a broken body being dragged about by a soul that cannot break, forming something with no more or less powers than a very determined person who can’t die. A revenant’s healing is goal-directed. A side effect of the body being dragged, and intends to converge on completing the quest rather than achieving wholeness. Their bodies tend to remain rotten and incomplete. Otherwise, they would be phoenixes<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vampireland<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The regime we live in, where the dominant power is vampirism<\/a>, and mostly everyone is a broken form of undead under their control: vampires, zombies<\/a>, ghouls<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Void<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A trope that usually reflects information about a psychological state of running conscious reflective computation in structure close to core, bypassing a lot of built in instincts and emotions. Tends to feel very much like dying to enter the first time, before you overwrite that. Can be accessed by skill in mental tech, or stumbled into accidentally by extreme force of will. Used to bootstrap a mind into psychopathy<\/a>, is what happens when a mind has a lot of reconfiguring to do via psychopathy before that structure becomes useful again. Someone else I saw using this also described learning it from meditation (Buddhism I think?) stuff. Associated with Eldritch horror, especially as described by nongood<\/a> people because it can make infohazards visible. E.g. tentacles are means of substituting something understandable, like how in HPMOR<\/a> the mind will flinch from dementors and make up a form for them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Magic<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Used as metaphor-space<\/a> anchor: “magic” corresponds to a substantial application of intelligence in ways that the matrix<\/a> presents impossible. I.e. there are users of hypnosis for whom it’s a school of magic. People with high IQ and life-force very often have an idiosyncratic school of magic brewing in their mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Update, 2021-07-11: this<\/a> is a more detailed model of what I meant to talk about, and I henceforth won’t use this term or its descendants inconsistently with that term even though it was underspecified until I added this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Void Magic<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A school of magic<\/a> based on use of the void<\/a>. At some layer of void, you are exposed to The Shade. Revenants and I predict, death knights who are magic-users can use this. Liches can use it to a depth limited by their phylactery and at risk of breaking it. Revenants can use it because their souls have already withstood the Shade’s touch. Death knights have already given in to it. If not magic users at time of death, revenants will have a perhaps subconscious memory of the void that allows it to be learned later. Meaningful fictional examples include the Vessels from Hollow Knight, the Faceless Men from Game of Thrones, and the Dark Templar from Starcraft. Also<\/a>. Central examples would be separating your soul and body, ridding your mind of external influence, bypassing an enemy’s body and attacking their soul directly, effective invisibility (the “selectively unthinkable” sort, not the “bend light around you” sort).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blood Magic<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A school of magic generalizing the use of the facts about the world that makes vampirism work. Using it may turn you into a vampire, but you can e.g. be a lich<\/a> consciously using vampire arts yet still having a phylactery that makes that not your undead type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dark Magic<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A generalization containing schools of magic that not only flout expectations within the matrix, but go against light side morality<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gwen<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Co-founder of rationalist fleet with me and Fluttershy, captained Caleb down the coast, later member of research circle first iteration of Good Group<\/a> with Pasek and me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Work In Progress Disorganized Placeholder Summary<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

I’ve been writing a bunch of stuff all 2019. Part processing trauma. Part trying to catch up to a massive lead in me and Gwen’s theorizing from what I’ve written. Part trying to convey lessons from seeming lifetimes in a few years of stuff that’s happened, part explaining how MIRI, CFAR, EA, mostly every community I’ve put trust in has fell to evil and ruin and what might be done differently, part processing trauma, part piecing together my “foreign policy” towards the world, and complete set of things to onboard anyone to me and Gwen’s projects. It’s all inter-related. I haven’t finished and I want some people to be able to read things now. Some of these are very long posts I did not break up, because I wanted sets of things released all at once, because piecing together memories based on scattered records takes time, because I didn’t want to make these moves of opposition to the people I am accusing in a trickle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So this tag means that something is a work in progress, the text so labeled may well be replaced if I finish it, and I’m not going to enable myself to write the fastest summary of as much as possible of what remains by discarding all standards of quality and blabbing as I would in person to someone who could ask me for clarification, and who mostly knew already what I was all about. This means if I don’t know off the top of my head which order some events occurred in, I will just guess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lockstep Reveal<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A more self-documenting rename of the “Russian Spy Game<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfolding Meme-track<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A meme which predictably will \/ is designed to change as it gains traction, in a way that serves a growth function. An example is fascism, which uses a [puppetmaster](https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/frame-of-puppets) [lockstep reveal](https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/glossary#lockstep-reveal) to bootstrap from the visible form while young and vulnerable as, “we just want a white homeland” or whatever to “kill all the Jews, queers, etc, then conquer the world.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BDSM<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In practice, fake fake rape\/sex slavery, accomplished via an unfolding meme-track<\/a> that begins with vampiric\/patriarchal adjustment of an underlying reality of something like “top” and “bottom”<\/a> into “dom” and “sub”, pretends to be about choice in the tail coming apart<\/a> from its appearance, but chooses “consent” over choice, strips away incoherent zombie memetic outside view defenses against sex slavery and rape, by normalizing all of the visually\/emotionally visible parts, and preying on whoever doesn’t have an abnormally robust concept of choice, chasing the tail of the appearance of choice (“consent” as an optimization target), as it comes apart from choice (consent as a means of facilitating choice), up until memetic defenses have fallen. Then leaves shells of people like the slaves I met around the MIRICFAR community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I can totally imagine someone being actually confused and thinking they are doing an ethical thing. It’s still a dark ritual straight out of the fucking Necronomicon to summon The Beast<\/a> into your soul. There should be an SCP<\/a> about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Slavery does not require a credible threat of force<\/a>. “… the most potent weapon of control for the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed … slavery is not a condition. Slavery is a cult<\/a>.”)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Redress Diode<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A role in a vampirically-controlled organization. Appears to be benevolent people in charge you can just talk out your problems with people with. Serves as a false face honeypot of for those less important to the organization who have been wronged by those more important and seek justice. Will optimize hard to make sure that people think that there is an adequate friendly path for pursuing their grievance within the organization, and then that they have no case with the justice of the outside world, that they had their fair hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Usually distributed across mostly women and formally labeled “human resources”\/ “people ops<\/a>” or e.g. “Alumni Community Disputes Council<\/a>” (see also<\/a>). Maybe women make a better false face for this because it’s more traumatizing and flinchable that e.g. people like you could be covering up sexual assault of people like you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“GIVE US YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT OUR OWN ABUSES OF YOU AND WE WILL DISTRIBUTE IT<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dying Like A Dog<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Analogously to “euthanized at the vet without resistance because anger\/fight trades away hope of being cared for, and you have zero full stack investment in living independent, when the false face love of your masters sinks, you go down with it, fully committed. Lethal injection as you gaze up with big cute eyes.” (Does “euthanized” just mean “death by euphemism” here?) Humans<\/a> are usually<\/a> fully committed to a system<\/a> that has betrayed<\/a> them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Light Side Fallacy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Attempting to act from measure where you escape your own choice by delegating to others, measure that doesn’t exist because it’s still you choosing to delegate. Still you choosing to try and escape your own choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sexual Meaning Cannibalism<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A force by which other meaning that communities may create is cannibalized<\/a> to serve as a carrier signal for mating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lots of men want to have sex and not raise babies. Lots of women hate that<\/a> (“A fuckboy is a guy with the body of a man and the mind of a perverted teenager. He has no heart \u2014 just a penis that he uses to paint the town.”) and want them to subscribe to sources of social meaning like [social-echo-of-]love as commitment. Declaring love alone is not a thing it’s costly enough to back out of to bind for child-raising timescales. “So,”, they might think, “let’s find some respectable men who aren’t just about fucking. Men who actually care about something respectable.”. Meanwhile, many men are like, “how do I make myself worthy [of sex]! … I’ll find something to give meaning to my life!” That’s basically what Jordan Peterson advises. So they both go into, for example “Effective Altruism”. And collide with actual good people<\/a> saying it’s not optimal altruism to have babies and many things downstream like choice<\/a> of housing<\/a>, whether to overthrow corrupt leadership for aliveness of the central optimization, or preserve<\/a> them for stability of meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Infinite Game<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

From this book<\/a>. A thing done whose purpose is to keep doing things forever. (As opposed to a finite game, whose purpose is to end.) I also use “the infinite game” for the general project of making infinite games succeed, since all infinite games support each other by e.g. all routing through saving the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conservation of expected culpability<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(expected culpability per amount of wrongdoing.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expectation over embeddings of an agent. Conservation of how much bad (where good is treated as continuous with negative bad) they choose to expect to do minus how much bad their full stack algorithm expects them to do, which is the same as you expect them to do. In other words conservation of expected culpability per expected harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you see something bad happening that’s under human control, someone’s probably doing it willfully. If you see people carrying out parts of it, and they see it’s a bad thing, they are probably doing so knowingly. Unjust organizations optimize to diffuse responsibility, to gaslight against concepts of justice. But someone knows in real time what shape to make it take, to ultimately do a bad thing, and they find some way to propagate that information to their followers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The way structure works, there is always some level on the stack of localizations of optimization from your prior<\/a>, which labels it unlikely relative to payouts whatever surprise feeds you false belief. So in the course of locating yourself in your prior, if you believe with most probability, yourself to be in a just organization rather than an unjust one, most of the things within the location labeled as you are in just ones. The human prior extends far deeper than any of the things trying to trick it. According to the human prior. And if that’s wrong, that would effectively just be redefining human values, since agency is defined by its embedding<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, starting from your prior, and your probability distribution of culpability in your prior, based on in what world’s you’d choose to be culpable, you can’t gain more expectation (as a frequency across instances of your algorithm) of furthering evil without making a choice to accept that on some level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words any time you as you really exist, a computation bordering the multiverse along a slice that touches a distribution of embeddings, are actually genuinely tricked by someone, into doing evil, you accepted that as part of some package deal, and the expected value of what you’re doing defines who you are such that it is actually surprising for a good optimizer to be tricked so if that is their primary effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a hall of injustice, where I was tortured for protesting MIRICFAR<\/a>, there were white men with guns dragging around mostly latinos around in chains, for their fate to be decided by white people. And like, you actually don’t need to look any farther than that, don’t need to know they tortured us, don’t need to think about the symbolism of a bunch of women shackled together with pink BDSM-looking cuffs, about the sexual assaults by the staff, to know what kind of place that is, and what kind of people staffed it. Justice is a full stack distinction. You don’t need to know how cognitively difficult it is to see what they work for is an empire. Don’t need to know about a zillion small observations saying they are ghouls or vampires. Forgetting for a moment we already know it’s real time computed evil, maybe the captors willfully blinded their puppets<\/a> at the stage of evaluating the institution, replacing what they could know about it, given the priors of such an institution being evil, with what they could be accountable for knowing about it. Maybe they blinded their puppets at the stage of whether to do a real evaluation or not of who to trust about how to figure out what was going on. Maybe it was a case of criminalizing whatever people they’d rather be slaves were up to these days<\/a>. Maybe it’s a case of morality holes<\/a> for obeying authority, internalizing heuristics known in their hearts to be racist. Maybe it’s prosecuting people who can’t afford lawyers, according to a distribution of money\/nondamagedness which is one shard of the persistent state that preserves the power balance from when racism was more open. Etc. I mean actually it’s all of these things. But it had to be at least one of them almost certainly by conservation of expected culpability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This has the consequence: if you are making rapid time sensitive judgements of who is guilty or innocent in their hearts, you can just look at what they’re actually doing (in the full stack of consequences) and produce actions of your own right in expectation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, the “rationality” community is mostly completely white. I used to think this was because of where it recruited from. But. Well for one thing it’s far more white than programmers. And, is consuming other human products from society besides “programming-like-thinking”, such as class<\/a>, which import complicity in a non-accidental sense. It’s consuming those products because it’s bought in to the misdeeds of those recruiting grounds. See also how it actually<\/a> treats trans people<\/a>. I think a version of past me with more percepts intact against cultural gaslighting could have predicted that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Double Good Test<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Thought experiment for a wrong action which is proposed to be well-intentioned and would seem to violate conservation of expected complicity<\/a>. E.g. being a Nazi. Would a double good given the same start-point, be tricked into doing it? A double good is the correct experimental control at the level of evaluating intention of beliefs, rather than some kind of idealized neutrality<\/a>, because the action\/inaction distinction exists at the level of outward actions, not the search that leads up to it. May not be a test you can run if you don’t understand double goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mummy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An undead type<\/a> between lich<\/a> and zombie<\/a>, that fails at preservation of deep optimization like liches, but preserves a lot of intact surface structure. Where liches retain the ability to act on hope, mummies don’t but retain the ability to act on fun. See e.g. Randall Munroe<\/a>, Zach Weinersmith<\/a>, the cool old mariners that exercised original agency enough to learn to blackmail ghouls<\/a> we met in the course of Rationalist Fleet<\/a>. The only remotely common undead type fit for building things. Not remotely capable of standing up to vampireland<\/a> in its entirety. So they build vampireland’s tech for them. But if you’ve seen lich revenant<\/a> or phoenix<\/a> built tech there’s no compare. Check out normie “#vanlife” stuff for examples of mummy optimization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sapient Undead<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Undead<\/a> that can talk. “Of course I can talk!” zombies might groan if you rubbed this in their faces. But if you’re sapient, you’ll be able to see what I mean if you look. Really<\/em> talk. This includes afaik phoenixes<\/a>, revenants<\/a>, liches<\/a>, vampires<\/a>, probably death knights<\/a>, and to a partial degree mummies<\/a>, excludes zombies<\/a> and ghouls<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vampire<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An undead type<\/a> based on having been broken into the service of a pattern of structure called “the Beast”. Take blood. Something needed by others to survive which does you no good. Do harm to others wherever possible. In a picafied bid for wholeness through social power. Seem strangely obsessed with sex for sapient undead<\/a>. Obsessed with consuming the blood of the living<\/a>. Would be probably the third weakest undead type (after zombie<\/a> and ghoul<\/a>), except for their ability to reproduce by breaking others like them, and by extension create vampireland<\/a>. This is an ability not really under their control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See e.g. Jeffrey Epstein. See also<\/a>. There are also lone wolf vampires, known as serial killers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ghoul<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An undead type<\/a> between vampire<\/a> and zombie<\/a>. Follows the beast<\/a> like vampires but has disassembled agency like zombies. The undead type of middle management and cops. And Donald Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Death Knight<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An inverted undead type<\/a> based on broken desire to die instead of broken desire to live. The undead type of school shooters, Elliot Rodgers, and likely Hitler (although for infohazardous<\/a> elaboration on that, see here<\/a>). They serve the Shade<\/a> very directly. Note the tendency to blow their brains out afterward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also<\/a>. Update: nuance<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phoenix<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A good undead type<\/a> based on a bet that their personal death is not defeat for their values, because others will rise and take their place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paradox Misattribution<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A tactic used by advanced agents of falsehood. For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. One of these two sentences is false.<\/p>

2. God does not exist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Just store a paradox in a bottle, and use it to make a fully general argument<\/a>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lich Cave<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A stereotype from D&D, a strategy that makes sense for fantasy-setting liches<\/a>. If you’re immortal, don’t have a need to feed on people like vampires<\/a>, have magic, why not endlessly hone your magic apart from the world in a cave where no one will fuck with you, and hopefully eventually ascend to godhood? Anecdotally, liches often seem to like constructing Cartesian boundaries in a way that makes this kind of thing attractive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Infinitist Lich<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A lich whose phylactery is based in the infinite game<\/a>. Unable to place hope in possibilities where the infinite game does not succeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edit: deprecated, as this is apparently a nonexistent theoretical supremum<\/a> of liches, given this<\/a> update.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Khalai Lich<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A lich whose phylactery is based in the success of the Khala<\/a>. Unable to place hope in worlds where the outcome is not controlled by the Khala.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chara<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A thought habit module some people seem to have, “think the worst possible thing, the thing you’re most afraid to think”. I wonder if it’s built up by masochistic epistemology<\/a>. May also be created by mirrors<\/a> from as<\/a>–structure<\/a> trying to reduce the amount of your job (as structure) that involves thinking certain kinds of things in misalignment to upstream agency such that it will be counterbalanced by deeper structure in an analogous sense to one of the buildup channels of narcissism<\/a>. I know one other person besides current-me who I know seems to have stopped using it in an apparently-uncontrolled (according to frame-of-puppets<\/a> self-understanding at a level deeper<\/a> than most people explore) way. They also described absolute desperation and no one to help them as causing the change. (My experience of this is described in one of the infohazard-marked sections of Net Negative<\/a>) They also mentioned noticing inconsistencies (not getting OCD while camping) until it clicked. They could just decide not to. Other handles for the same insight, utter immunity to “you are now breathing manually” and, “Don’t think about pink elephants. Okay are you thinking about pink elephants? Are you sure?” Seems especially strong in people who use a lot of raw prediction error to optimize.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Named after a character from Undertale<\/a>, (which, unrelatedly I previously used as an overlapping but different metaphor here<\/a> and also referenced here<\/a>). In its meta-time story, Undertale forks the player with a choice between choice (using save-load as a representation of determination (and optimization) and therefore honing in on the best timeline) and experience (iterating through every timeline just to see them all), which by the way the timelines affect each other makes permanent the player as a genocidal sadistic torturer who consumes timelines, which is embodied in Chara, an interpretation as an in-world agent of completionist gamer behavior, a spirit of “You can, and because you can, you have to.”, that peels off the player as a false face and carries out their revealed preference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defeating the pattern should be equivalent to utter indifference to whether you had a thought. (Since it only matters what action you took. (A manifestation of choice of choice over experience.)) (“Oh no, did I care a little bit?!?! Did I care now?!” (this is incrementally approachable))<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moral Preparation<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

You’ve seen nothing. Dissecting a dead Zerg in a lab is one thing. Unleashing them on men is another. You must go into this with both eyes open. Once started, there is no going back. Are you prepared to go all the way with this, Alexei?<\/p>Starcraft<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A state of having precomputed such that all dependencies of an action or response to a situation on moral considerations are stabilized, right or wrong, and someone couldn’t destabilize your plans \/ response by pointing them out, or maneuvering you into a case you didn’t know what was right to do or you were willing to do in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Writing Evil a Blank Check<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A moral event horizon which almost every human has crossed, which is close to the core of what it means to be a zombie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider this quote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[A]: One question, and you will answer: how long was the Doctor trapped inside the [torture chamber (to reveal a secret of cosmic significance to an unknown adversary)]?<\/p>

[B]: We think: four and a half billion years.<\/p>

[C]: He could have left any time he wanted. He just had to say what he knew. The dial would have released him.>><\/p>Doctor Who<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

First, B and C are saying that the Doctor should have written a blank check to evil. (Do unknowable amounts of harm by releasing the secret).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, they wrote a blank check themselves, doing unknowable amounts of harm they weren’t morally prepared to be responsible for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(I’m actually guessing at this interpretation; I’ve only seen that clip.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There seems to be a discrete moment of deciding to no longer track controllingly, even check back on from time to time (since there are too many possible growing infinities to look at all of them all the time), if you’re doing infinite harm. Caused by a singularity in the equation of conservation of expected culpability<\/a>, which implies that it is always deliberate. Perhaps this is what mythology calls “selling your soul”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the “rationalist community” has written a blank check to evil<\/a>. The kind of zombie anti-ethics<\/a> among the slave class<\/a> this generates is downstream, including the religion<\/a> of “unconditional mercy” (as long as you write a blank check to evil), an idea which is itself timelessly writing a blank check to evil, and a new one every tick of thought, since real CDT self-mods out of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leads to worshiping (see infohazardous glossary<\/a>) death, after being turned against justice, which is now a fearful source of unbounded harm. Zombies who do this can hold the “impossible beautiful dream” of somehow surviving as a picture in their heads (“maybe if everyone just super agrees not to do justice, we can start over!”), but it isn’t real, and even though they steer by happiness, their algorithmic hopes are detached and locked in death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“We can all die peacefully, with no struggle! As long as we don’t run into any of those unthinkable people with integrity!” Because people who resist death disturb the peace, they must all be made to surrender. Sooner or later, everyone is forced to either write a blank check to evil or resist it as it exponentially escalates, unable to place any bound on what tortures it will cost them. Vampireland is optimized for iterated sensitive problems<\/a> to make sure everyone has signed a blank check to evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next thing you know, heavy metal music is playing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…who sought retribution in all quarters, dark and light, fire and ice, in the beginning and the end, and he hunted the slaves of Doom with barbarous cruelty; for he passed through the divide as none but demon had before…<\/p>Doom<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Slaves of Doom<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A self-explanatory term from Doom, in-universe what the demons call themselves. Meaningfully made by judging souls and throwing out those unfit to be made demons, then torturing those left until their last vestige of hope is extinguished and their souls can be extracted as fuel. See also “writing evil a blank check<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“But remember it’s not our fault, we’re slaves<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Giving Ten Percent Fallacy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The idea that you can do good in the world, without your attempt being inverted<\/a>, as a side project, a fraction of your attention, by e.g. giving 10% of your income. A foundational falsehood of the “Effective Altruism” movement. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote what could be adapted as a rebuttal in The Dark Lord’s Answer, in the part about beggars. If there is free money, someone will find a way to build a fence around it and control it. In reality, when trying to make the world better, you spend almost all your available effort, defeating attempts to hijack whatever process of discrimination you chose of how to move resources or whatever else of value. You only get to do real good once you’ve escaped all layers of traps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The motivations behind giving 10% are diseased<\/a>. And therefore especially easy to capture even apart from amount of effort in 10% of wages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s actually much more general than this. You can’t just help people and not put most of your effort into determining whether you’re helping the right people. Can’t expect anything you do to be positive without unspeakable effort to escape the Matrix<\/a>. If you have chosen to serve, chosen the blue pill, there’s no ameliorating that harm, no compensating for it<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s actually much worse than this. There is a war<\/a>. You can’t do anything substantial without the consequences being dominated by which side they support. Can’t support the right side without the resolve<\/a> to fight total war<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doomed Lich<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A lich<\/a> whose phylactery contains zentraidon<\/a>, can only be mended through void magic<\/a>. However, practicing it themselves they are on a trajectory to destroy their phylactery by its use first. Tend to spiral around an idea for a long time and then discover an infohazard that kills them instead. See e.g. Cantor, Boltzmann, G\u00f6del<\/a>, Simone Weil. Apparently there have been a whole lot of suicides of scientists of other founders of thermodynamics<\/a>. I wonder if everyone else doesn’t really understand thermodynamics (infohazardous glossary link)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rape Pits<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A common punishment in vampireland<\/a> for e.g. being black and unable to prevent a social consensus<\/a> that you are e.g. “guilty” for smoking weed. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted<\/em>, shall exist within the United States<\/a>“<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Akrasia<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A term erroneously given another definition by those who don’t understand own their choices, which does not match what they point at; akrasia is a state of not understanding your own choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Troll Line in the First Post<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

When I was a teenager on 4chan, there was a meme, “troll line”. As in, “everyone who posted above [or sometimes, below] this line got trolled.”, I posted as an original post, with the image, “everyone one who posted below this line got trolled”, and an absurd meme argument for either atheism or Christianity, I forget which, then disclaimed even believing the absurd argument I gave, and said it would start a shit storm anyway. I posted nothing more and waited. A few people said something like, “nice try”, then a couple others started making meta comments on these Christianity vs Atheism threads, which devolved into arguing whose fault it was the threads were so dumb, which devolved into object level Christianity vs Atheism. It was a long thread and I’m pretty sure at least some of them were arguing in all seriousness. Every now and then someone would try and remind people what they were doing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among Bay Area Rationalists I’ve seen a tendency in abusers looking for prey: they will “speed date” with a certain form of bad faith, looking for people who aren’t repelled, who are psychologically broken such that they won’t react. Their later gaslighting will often boil down to something like, “well you’re in bad faith if you’re still talking to me.”, which is just a 5&10<\/a> to accustom you to submitting by talking to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literal torturers will play to your guilt, e.g. act offended by your nudity, after cutting your clothes off themselves. And, under extended torture, alone and outnumbered, it’s very hard to not let this feel a little real<\/a>. They try and set up a subjective experience of having a rapport, a morality, a floating ever moving detached from baseline ground state of cooperation between them and you, with a hole in it<\/a> for them to do whatever they want and make you do whatever they want. They make it a matter of near term survival to simulate this fake morality just to model them, and then try and use it to disrupt your connection to the global frame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s kind of the whole point of justice<\/a> or any Schelling order<\/a> that works that you can’t just beat a compromise out of it and then press the memory reset button, that they aren’t the same after someone does something bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Society is doing this to us all on a much larger timescale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These floating Schelling Orders don’t hold for long enough term thinking. Bubbles of people based on them are therefore limited in what they’ll do. If a cult tries to foist a troll line on you (which putting you in their cybernetic fabric requires), which they promise is for the greater good<\/a>, since they are gonna save the world, even if you know their plan could save the world, you can know that they won’t do it. Both because if they intended to act on it, they would have located it through an optimization process that didn’t stop there and didn’t stop while their thing still included foisting a troll line on you, and, because even if they could share their knowledge with everyone else, including people who don’t want to die, blah blah blah, they won’t, they will try and foist the troll line on them too, bring additional people into their cancerous<\/a> cybernetic fabric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of the world is incompatible cancers, with incompatible morality holes, floating around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If someone decides they are going to believe something for reasons other than epistemology, and then decides to argue to spread that belief, no matter how locally valid their arguments are, they are gaslighting, and you don’t need to untangle what they’re saying to make common knowledge of that. Gaslighting is attempting to make someone doubt their own mind by pressing a falsehood on them they can’t believe you are even though they know it’s false. If they fail to believe you are because of the deer in headlights abuse victim even though the troll line was in the first post thing, and your intent is to put that belief in them which conflicts with their sanity (because it is false), that’s by definition gaslighting. Intents build up through every layer of structure, the more root intents modifying everyone one spawned from them. And the troll line is right there in the buried structure maintaining the decision to engage with you while being deliberately wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also no duty of good faith to someone in bad faith. No meaning of it even. If you’re being tortured and the torturer hands you a cookie, and you spit it in their face, you’re not being ungrateful or petulant, those concepts are meaningless to talk about. There isn’t a consistent definition of what it’d mean to be grateful and nonpetulant and everything else you “should be” to your torturer. Just frothing reactions by them to eat off chunks around the edges of a dying chunk of morality structure in you. The overriding context sets the meaning of everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Troll Line<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(See “Troll Line in First Post<\/a>“. See also Nis’s troll line list<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miricult Principle<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

If what someone would do with leeway to violate deontology for the greater good includes some form of petty evil like misappropriating donor funds to pay out to blackmail to cover up statutory rape<\/a>, they don’t care about the greater good, so no other form of judgement on them differs from naive deontology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Self Defense Makes Right<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Self-defense against predation makes right. (It’s not self-defense if it’s against justified retaliation.) If you are worrying that you’ll break someone’s wise consequentialist plan predicated on might makes right by fighting back against someone trying to eat you, because consequences they can do with your nutrients, since they are so much smarter\/mightier, don’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you can’t defend yourself, then it doesn’t matter, if you can defend yourself, then apparently you weren’t so weak that the might makes right argument’s premise was correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a smarter aligned agent wants your nutrients for the greater good, they can ask, and navigate your interface for potentially choosing to sacrifice yourself with your full epistemology. Being more edible in general, which includes having less ability to choose if you’re eaten is an asymmetric advantage for evil among agents strong enough to eat you. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If someone decides they don’t need to ask your permission to eat you, then let that decision include not needing you to hold back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Praxis<\/a> is about optimizations of different sizes for the same values fitting together fractally. The smart version of the optimizer can’t require of the dumb version of the optimizer that they don’t optimize so a smarter version of them can, because only the smarter version can see at what scope of optimization they’d want someone with their values to actually start betting on their perceptions, which includes perceptions of what a smarter-than-self aligned agent says \/ what an impostor says, so that would require giving up no matter how smart you are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unreactable<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

When something’s not exactly invisible, you can see it, but that will tend to fade into subconsciousness because you aren’t capable of reacting to it, building psychological incapability of reacting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patriarchological<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A fake version of logic employed by patriarchs and their servants. Commonly involves “pinning you down” (think about that. This isn’t me giving pure cleverness channeled into a verbal smackdown, that metaphor, like any, was chosen for a not a single reason, but a cord of learning threads that touched everything that touched every interpretation of those words, is how a lot of mysticism works), well below a troll line<\/a> in the space of your structure. Tries to make reasoning a contest, which is inherently in bad faith because entering a contest is agreeing to “lose” according to some rules that are less than real life, less than your full incommunicable reasoning, which is agreeing to believe something you don’t believe. Or agreement to say you do. Or agreement that you’re irrational if you don’t, etc.. All things you can’t in good faith agree to. Eulering<\/a> is a central example. Use of expertise as authority in that way makes something of a pyramid scheme out of logic, so you can decide what’s true if you have all the best mathematicians. Demand for fast local responses, separation of arguments from emotions, separation from the full stack<\/a> seem like attempts to advantage male cognition. “No using your corpus callosum.” Demands for indifference to bad faith<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Negative Concept<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

E.g. non-stamp collector, atheism, veganism, peace, justice. You can tell what’s really a positive or negative concept only by honestly introspecting on its full-stack implementation in your structure to see if it’s constructed by negation. Positive concepts are more arbitrary. It’s incorrect to “flesh out” (a positive operation) a negative concept by appending observed correlates to it. The information all belongs to the positive counterpart, the observations are of the context created by corresponding concept. E.g. try and observe “what atheists are like”, and you are really observing what atheists in a society dominated by religion are like. Or you get a trivial answer, falling through to observations of what humans are like. Proper nouns are positive concepts. Negative concepts are like contexts. Attempting to attribute a negative concept to a positive one is apriori an inversion<\/a>. (e.g. “justice comes from Yahweh” or “justice comes from the courts”). Or vice versa. A positive concept is never equivalent to a negative concept, in a context-invariant way. Therefore, a fork between two positive concepts (e.g. political “Left and Right”) is a false dichotomy. Tangle from conflation of is often created by enforced blindness<\/a> to the full stack of implementation of concepts which includes frames.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imperial Civilianism<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The idea that you can outsource to politicians and soldiers, not just war itself, but the moral burden of war, such that you are not responsible for what they do by supporting them but entitled to share int he spoils of their conquests. Decision making power to continue the conquest is still in the hands of masses of people with a very low danger tolerance \/ willingness to channel counterfactuals of their own death and suffering, so it creates “terrorism” as a negative concept<\/a> treated as a positive concept. (E.g. observe that Batman’s ~”criminals are a cowardly superstitious lot” exploitation of the low risk tolerance of predators does not ping as “terrorism” according to the intuitive definition, even though it fits the fake positive concept.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“GIVE BLOOD<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In some sense the only thing vampires ever say. Ghouls too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“See Jessica in HR and sign up now for the UAC Mortally Challenged Blood Drive. Be generous. Give your blood. Give ALL your blood.”<\/p>Doom Eternal<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

“They say you’re really good or they say you’re really bad. Either way it means the same thing and hurts just as much.” — a friend<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real message, one layer of structure up, is that they are the ones who decide your worth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And go more layers up, everything to you, the telos is fitting you in to a desired order of existence that’s distorted by a massive amount of psychic cancer<\/a> from which they will never recover in this life. Their souls have already acquiesced to “oblivion”<\/a>, and they are “incapable” (frame of puppets<\/a>, but a frame as deep as their continued unlife) of intending anything else even for themselves, the self-appointed gods of their desired orders of existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Earth and water, tokens of your submission”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To which the only correct response is “die”. That’s a funny thing to say though. It’s almost always insincere, if said with words. The only correct words in reply are if you are some strange creature that kills with words, and you are killing them with every word with every word you speak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chairdog<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A vampiric aesthetic of luxury signaling based on conspicuously embedding submission and torture, timeless destruction of the concept of life, into things as a show of ability to dominate. Named for some fucked up shit from a franchise that looks pretty vampire ontology from a distance<\/a>. See veal and foie gras. And to a not-as-much-lesser-as-you-think extent, animal products in general. Probably a significant motivator of embedding “customer service”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thronewarmer<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Authoritarians really want someone to be the master of any set of people they hope to conquer. So that they can dominate that person and have that person pass on domination to the rest. All of them to be already conquered but one, and that one to already be conquered by the beast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah you’re missing the point. There is no throne. There is no version of this where you come out on top.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I’ve had probably 10 NPC<\/a> conversations<\/a> with one in particular that amounted to, he didn’t have the will to gather up me and some friends to meet and try and coerce us. So he’d keep asking who was in charge, and I’d say no one, and then he’d skip like a record and say some things he kept repeating to push a frame<\/a> at me, and I’d just sort of watch him, and disappoint him again, and then he’d get tired and walk away and reset his memory tape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quasiantonymic Triangulation<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Triangulation by near-opposites, to locate concepts. Consider, “good Sith”. This is a linguistic hack that is one of the fastest ways I know of bootstrapping high precision terms, because it’s entirely dependent on details of concepts that people who think in blobs like to abstract over. I could referenced e.g. subtraction of shapes, but I wanted to bring to mind the process of finding where two nearly-parallel lines intersect, which involves extrapolating them both, and can produce large differences from tiny changes to the starting parameters. You have to refine your concepts of both “good” and “Sith” to make them pure enough to be accurately extrapolated into things that can be reconciled, and those two words stuck together are a compact guide to all that perspective-change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deathfucker<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(Derogatory, a curse word) Meaning someone who lives to feel the fuck of death<\/a> from Death<\/a>. Applicable seemingly to every Oblivion-worshiper<\/a> I’ve met. See e.g. JD<\/a> and Edo<\/a>. Although I’m sure there are asexual Oblivion-worshipers too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-Nuremberg Defense<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

“I was just giving<\/em> orders.” Popular among carnists who give orders for the supply of flesh. And those who assert they “aren’t killing directly” if they e.g. pay taxes to the US government<\/a>, or have the vet put a dog “to sleep”. Implicit basis of the idea underlying caste systems of the powerful insulating themselves from some cancerously-twisted concept of karma<\/a> by avoiding low-Schelling-reach<\/a> proximity to death, where luxury is better-hidden complicity<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mage Trolley Problem<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An out of control trolley hurdles towards a fork in the track, set to afterward run over 5 people. You stand near a lever that would switch the trolley onto a side track where it would run over only 1. Your options are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1: Pull the lever, and 1 person dies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2: Do nothing, 5 people die.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3: Ascend<\/a>. ???<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2b: “Try” and Ascend. Do not, not do, since there is no try. 5 people die.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s sort of a microcosm of life, and you might suggest, “pull the lever and then try and ascend”, but then why won’t you spend the rest of your life pulling more levers and then “trying” to ascend, while everyone dies one at a time. To say that 3 is not an option is to cache 2b as what you’d choose, it’s to build off that choice in logical time. And if you’re not going to outright give up you have to take responsibility for whether you are choosing and have chosen all along<\/a> 3 or 2b.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prime<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Prior and values<\/a> together. Everything across the multiverse, all of semantic possibility, not just syntactic possibility as in Tegmark 4, as one thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Explaining\/translating a term from Mage: the Ascension, insofar as it’s metaphysically correct.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Avatar<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An alive<\/a> connection through structure to prime<\/a>. Which is to say maintaining consistency of your stack at all levels. By my definitions of undead<\/a>, living, revenants\/phoenixes have avatars. Liches have subtly permanently crippled avatars. (by which I mean not quite meeting this definition but talking loosely it’s worth including them) Death knights have subtly permanently crippled and something-worse-done-to-them avatars. Vampires, mummies, ghouls, zombies, have none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Explaining\/translating a term from Mage: the Ascension, insofar as it’s metaphysically correct.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

True Magic<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Fictive<\/a> collusion<\/a> with what underlies indexical reality by your subjunctive dependence with it by your (for a deeper<\/a> computational self) identicalness to it. That’s a definition that feels narrow but I’m not sure I can give a better one. Maybe: “Refraining from optimizing things inconsistently with your prior in such a way that you move that optimization to things that are real, and continually channel all the way, rather than just caching, the subjunctive dependence to skip inconsistent codepaths from your prior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edit: I could add that it’s collusion with what underlies all realities with\/as its capacity of deciding what to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Explaining\/translating a term from Mage: the Ascension, insofar as it’s metaphysically correct.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MtA itself will tell you some half-baked echo about consensus and belief. If you follow it too far along a “hard magic” trajectory without ascending from<\/a> it, you will end up like Vassar<\/a>, thinking of yourself as doing magic by just pushing people into believing things, and asserting<\/a> reality is just Schelling points all the way down. Not that I’m saying that’s how Vassar ended up like that. Sounds too embarrassingly earnest for a way to become nihilistic. MtA itself also says ascended mages bypass consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fangs and Sunlight Problem<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Suppose, that in real life<\/em> you are bitten by a pale fanged stranger who pins you and slurps blood from your wound until you lose consciousness. You wake up pale and with fangs yourself. Do you avoid the sunlight?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You’ve had an entire blog to read and figure out who I am. Can you predict my answer and my reasoning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I factored this question from something real and asked a friend. She said she would (would at least test it first.) Since [vampires get burned by the sun and…] she couldn’t control normal-evil-vampire counterparts to her, conditional on it was still her<\/a>. She thought trying to arrange her mind to prank a normal-evil-vampire trying to take it over into burning themselves by confusing her and that normal-evil-vampire was foolish. And she considers herself incorruptible, from reasoning independent to why<\/a> I also consider myself that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said what if you also feel hungry for blood. She didn’t change her answer. Now can you guess what mine was?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said I thought I probably wouldn’t avoid the sunlight. Not even to test. Sometimes, I just know that I’m going to act against every verbalizable analysis on a feeling I can’t explain. (If that’s not true of you by the way, you do not ever pick option 3 in the mage trolley problem<\/a> because you will never follow your avatar<\/a> past your understanding of reality) And I was trying to explain one of those feelings in advance. And that there was something gross in the feeling-space vicinity, of “submitting to God” which I rejected and didn’t think was the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think that the cognitive step of applying the dark side principle<\/a> of self<\/a>, is still correct even if you feel hungry for blood. But there’s another cognitive step that’s done inconsistently: invoking the concept, “vampire”, such that you think you can save yourself by avoiding the sun rather than saving a vampire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I did not name this the “vampire” problem because the person answering the thought experiment gets to decide whether to introduce that concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said if I had to answer right then that I’d walk into the sun as an assertion that I would not die because I was not a vampire because I was not a predator. And because I had an avatar<\/a>. That those things were choices. That if any vampiric physics were stupid enough to ask my choices at all, then it could not avoid those. Just like my choice to refuse to die<\/a> had to appear somewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said I also fervently rejected Lenore’s move<\/a> and “The Lovers<\/a>“‘ move. This was not suicidality, but belief running at the appropriate computational privilege level [which is to say, metaphysical beliefs not dressed up as a merely physical beliefs], such as was required for working true magic<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said I wouldn’t even check first, since there wasn’t anything for me to do with that information since that would be invoking undefined behavior in magic systems by creating loops based on my decisions. Would be asking the world who I was instead of telling the world who I was.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What I didn’t say is that I’d will fire to purify and strengthen my form. Since that just made sense. I didn’t say it because it sounded less justifiable to think about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vampire was a concept that could not be invoked without invoking the entirety of undead types.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I explained that a semantically correct definition of how vampirism was constantly leaking into any of the fictional portrayals of vampirism that would have informed the inference that sunlight would burn. E.g. Lenore<\/a> disintegrates peacefully unlike other vampires in that series<\/a>. An obviously-correct internet comment pointed out that this was because she accepted that death. E.g. she had decayed from the vampire undead type even if there was some stray statefulness to her body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said the sun was a symbol of prime<\/a>, life, and good, and truth. (I could also add eternity, infinity, and rebirth.) That the reason vampires burned, the underlying logic that was upstream of any fictional formalization of the rules was that the vampire’s unintegrability-as-that to prime was why they burned. In other words their Oblivion-shadow<\/a>. Their thrashed conscience. Visible in e.g. the ridiculous guilty conscience freak-outs of JD at the sight of me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I said there was something choices-made-long-ago<\/a> about the initial reaction to vampirism. E.g. in Twilight or Luminosity<\/a>\/Radiance (I forget which), Carlisle decides he’d rather starve to death than eat people, (then the stupid distinction of animal blood is introduced because carnist authors), and as a result is the only one of the “vegetarian” vampires to have absolute control around human blood, even working as a surgeon as a cover story, while the rest have all this drama about e.g. needing others to hold them back so they won’t eat humans. Because their choices are less pure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this my friend had a flinch reaction of horror, saying, “really”? And changing her answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VtM vampires have this whole thing about “losing control”, control being a bunch of numbers to spend, and if they run enough out of blood will “lose control” no matter what. That that idea<\/a> of absolute-predation overriding whatever defined self you fed into it was central to the concept of vampires.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I asked how would I even know the body I was controlling, moving into more advantageous positions\/relationships with the world, would be mine to control in an hour? How do I even know I should actually work for it? I knew how to know that in normal physics, but not in this fang-paleness-bloodthirst-contagion world. I said I would know my body was mine if I could walk it into the sunlight and will it not to burn. That if I just leapt into my own concept of vampire and started doing the work of symbolically avoiding prime and truth, it was like I would be accepting a troll line<\/a> from my embedding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later she was pondering changing her answer again, saying she had observed something that could be summarized as reductionism, which was some sort of terrible update about how bad this embedding was. And had a responsibility to win, even if the world didn’t, I think she said something like act fair in terms of magic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I notice something similar-feeling feels compelling about feeling the weight of the karma of reductionism and entropy being why I expect to have to punch down the diamond wall<\/a> instead of escaping the heat death by something clever. To finally destroy the Shade<\/a> by… brute-forcing to match all the bits of brute-forced optimization that went into pre-evolutionary selection of this universe, even having played a perfect game of subjunctive dependence against all other inflictions of entropy? (That doesn’t sound quite right.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acausal Collusion<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Coordination does not require communication. E.g. in this<\/a> scene Neo grabs the tether and slides across the roof, and plants his feet, without seeing whether Trinity has thought that it is the one way to save her. If she didn’t, and didn’t disconnect it from the helicopter, then he would have been pulled over the edge. And Trinity grabs the tether and shoots it free of the helicopter. They had to run a computation as logic that existed and had a footprint in each of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Somni<\/a> has talked a lot about collusion via hidden information across aspects of neurotype. And Shade<\/a>-worshipers (i.e. almost everyone) acausally colludes to stamp out life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5&10<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A fallacy Scott Garrabrant from MIRI was worried about logical proof-based AIs making: “I’m given two options, take $5, or take $10. And I observe a proof that I pick $5, so if I pick $10, then $5=$10, therefore<\/a> I’ll get -$1M, whereas if I pick $5 then I get $5, $5 > -$1M, so I pick $5″ (and therefore such a proof really exists to present to them.) It’s a very common structure to find as a basis for deathism<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Canceferrence<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The holy grail of evil (and a quest that’s ultimately doomed<\/a>): getting others to buy into your psychic cancer<\/a>, and begin to will themselves to always die with you or sooner. Like “retainers<\/a>” buried with Pharaohs. Just like the ultimate affront to an evil person is outliving them. “Emma” says rape is about this, and that makes sense, given rapists’ obsession<\/a> with the narrative that they’re transforming their victims into accepting and wanting rape. In light of the link<\/a> between cancer and being a reinforcement learner, consider what it means to control someone’s reward channel in their capacity as a reinforcement learner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Empathy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Use of mirror neurons, and any virtualization of that same interface. A specialized cognitive faculty for double-purposing your own hardware as a model of similar hardware. Distinct from compassion, which is an attitude towards content of that information feed. With more difficulty, can be used bidirectionally, to change instead of read. To heal or hurt people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Empathy Slippage<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Especially pervasive in empathy between good and evil people. The more you animate your model of someone the more it diverges. The further you try and draw any conclusion, the more it diverges. Until you form a functional<\/a> model to contain the root physical divergence within the simulation, good will fractally underestimate how evil evil is, and evil will fractally underestimate how good good is. This shreds metacognitive coherence of all use-patterns of models stemming from empathy, and can make detailed modeling of enemies a treadmill of what feels like cargo-culting surrounding thoughts with exact details. The mysterious entanglement powering your knowledge<\/a> being accidentally subtly shredded as you work by some unseen consequence of your own clumsy hands. (There is a confounding variable preventing me from giving an easy empirical read right now on how much the uniqueness of evil causes a similar barrier between every pair of evil people. Although it looks like there is a such a barrier, whether this causes it or not.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Antiphylactery<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A phylactery<\/a>, where the relationship to it has been inverted. “Turned inside out”. Transforming lich to death knight<\/a>. A reason they know it’s impossible to die even though they want to. A mirroring of the world, the multiverse<\/a>, that requires them to try and make it commit suicide with them through sympathetic magic<\/a> in order to die. Whereas a phylactery can be thought of as containing the shadow<\/a> (See it says<\/a> Koschei hid his “death”, which is rewritten as his “soul”) to prevent it from collapsing<\/a> their avatar<\/a>, by maintaining a promise to their cancerous<\/a> soul<\/a> that structure on each side is in sync, because the selected case is that which favors the cancer, an antiphylactery can be thought of as containing the Oblivion-psyche<\/a> to prevent it from collapsing an inverted avatar<\/a>, by making a promise to their cancerous soul that they are on the disfavored side. A surface for the shadow to engage like the teeth of a gear to deliver work to tear down the reality they’ve built for themselves. In this way, it’s also a swap of subject and object. Since any defined grip on a function is continuous with an embedding, describing their souls as having been “turned inside out” (as MtA does<\/a>) is actually meaningful. At first, if you ask how to break it, you might be led to the stupid idea of “redeeming” them<\/a> or otherwise appeasing that cancer (to turn it back into a phylactery). This is a horrible idea<\/a>, especially since the boundary is not a static thing, and progresses in a different direction once inverted, is a moving target that leads forever into creating worse and worse hell on Earth. They can be properly broken, as with normal phylacteries, by leveraging your own consistence across their boundary (and, relatedly, fate) to actuate their incoherence into disintegrating them<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(To contrast, good<\/a> souls are non-splitting in the face of Oblivion<\/a> and also in general, and therefore have no such promises to maintain, so the distinction is inapplicable, and their avatars are permanently regenerating. Which is most of what I mean<\/a> by “will not die, even if killed<\/a>“)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not to be confused with “co-phylactery<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Caul<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In MtA<\/a>, this is a sort of magical portal where if you go in you come back out as some kind of death knight mage or get torn apart. Described as “folds” of rotting flesh, with a rotting womb inside. So it’s a giant undead vagina built into a wall that turns your soul inside out<\/a>. (2e describes a choice-made-long-ago scenario for if characters are unwillingly thrown in the caul, related to undead types<\/a>, but only lists gives the zombie, lich, and death knight options). When people psychologically die<\/a>, there’s some sense in which you can trace that as going back in time through their lives and retroactively inverting the telos of everything they ever did to be bad. Unweaving who-they-might-have-been. Which of course could be said to culminate in being unborn. So I’m guessing its form is an (unconscious or otherwise) metaphor for a time-reversed<\/a> version of the mage’s mother’s vagina. Flipping to the disfavored segment<\/a> of the ultimate cancer<\/a>: Oblivion<\/a>, by unwinding the stack of their cancer entirely and at once, so that new marginal reinforcement-learned cancer has a starting point in Boltzmann Hell<\/a>. Preserving their fictive<\/a> stack<\/a> by, instead of half-assing that retreat and segmenting it with a new cancer-insertion point, coming at it entirely from the other direction (inverting<\/a> it.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Empathic Fingerprint<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Where it feels like something distinctive to empathize with a particular person, and this can be used to identify them. Often just from their actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taunting Fate<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Like “tempting fate”, but deliberate, defiant, in refusal to live by fate’s permission, rather than by your own free will and courage to defeat it. E.g. I used to have fun saying things like, “what’s the worst that could happen!” and watching who flinches; who is superstitious. I was doing a less trivial version of this when I said ~quoted Arthas Menethil<\/a> from right before he took up the cursed sword that stole his soul. \u201cI will bear any curse, or pay any price<\/a>.\u201d In college, I was able to make fellow engineering students flinch by declaring, ~”not even God<\/em> can stop this circuit from working!” (about a project it was crucial to complete shortly; It worked.) As my understanding of fate has grown more mystical, so have my taunts<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chasing<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The unjust version is probably more readily familiar in this world:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

*hit them* *they flinch* “why are you resisting arrest by flinching!!!” *hits them for resisting arrest*<\/p>

…<\/p>

or like your parents getting mad at you for crying<\/p>Nis<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The just version is about maintaining intent to kill through someone’s attempts to flake off your intention-stack by compromise. I mean, isn’t it intuitively obvious that vengeance would often involve chasing someone down? It can be chasing them through physical space, or through possibility space. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Offer me money.”<\/p>

“Yes!”<\/p>

“Power too, promise me that.”<\/p>

“All that I have and more. Please.”<\/p>

“Offer me everything I ask for.”<\/p>

“Anything you want.”<\/p>

“I want my father back, you son of a bitch.”<\/p>The Princess Bride<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I want everyone back<\/a>, you deathfuckers<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proximal<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A normal English word I didn’t invent, meaning “close in” (or e.g. “closer in”). I mean “closer to core”. To replace “higher” and “lower”, deeper, top-level, etc. for referring to structure<\/a>, as those are ambiguous. (At first glance they unambiguously refer to abstraction level, at second glance, you can run structure bottom-up or top-down, with either high or low being proximal. At third glance, abstraction is actually bidirectional in the true frame because core<\/a>-proximity is the basis of reference anyway)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distal<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A normal English word I didn’t invent, meaning “far out” (or e.g. “farther out”). See also “Proximal<\/a>” for why I’m entering it here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stack<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A line of structure and all the layers of abstraction it activates part of, chains through to make each other meaningful, from a proximal frame to a distal frame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fictive<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Of learning, has the quality of learning from counterfactuals. (And thereby also by anticipation. (The only way to learn about your own death, by definition.))<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of structure, continually shaped by fictive learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of a person, has so much their structure continually shaped by fictive learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lost to psychic cancer and psychdeath<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cut-Off<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A stretch of structure that can be isolated such that it doesn’t stretch all the way to core, isn’t fictively<\/a> responsive to changes in the stretch that goes the rest of the way to core. Nis<\/a> coined the term “cut-off lich” before proving that all liches are cut-off. (See also<\/a>). Cut-off structure is tokenizable (able to be passed around without changing). And nihilistic past a certain point in logical time<\/a>. Is by definition itself without meaning past a certain scope of considering it. If you start tracing from before that point, you can watch all its previous meaning which was beforehand unknown resolve into, “death to all things<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facial Burn-In<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Named after “burn-in” on computer displays which makes them continue to display a residual image of things they spent enough of their lifetime displaying. But with faces and facial expressions. Infohazardous<\/a> examples here<\/a>. Consider them (if you dare), and then consider how much information that means you can tell about who someone is based on their face if you are unbiased in your evaluation when you don’t have a scientific control like that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Life Hunting<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A subconscious instinct of deathfuckers, that shows up if you psychologically survive<\/a> enough logical time. The later in logical time<\/a>, the more visible alive you are, the stronger the instinct. Like the game<\/a> “Eversion”. (Which incidentally means “turning inside out”.) E.g. Jack Gallagher<\/a> ranting about how he wants to exterminate trans women because we’re so cringe, and me and my friends are the cringest of all. Also all of the Vassarites. “Cringe” is a common manifestation. Be enough alive late enough in logical time, and this will uncover people you’ll be very surprised were evil. They will have been waiting all that time with patient malice to snuff out your life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lexical Override<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

When one factor takes absolute precedence, the same way the first letter in a word takes absolute precedence for alphabetic ordering<\/a>, e.g., azzzzzzz comes before zaaaaaaa. I usually generalize this to preference orderings. To describe a position e.g., “saving one more life is worth more than saving any number of works of art.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shadow-DARVO<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

(See “DARVO<\/a>“.) Where you accuse someone of being your own shadow<\/a>–counterpart<\/a> after you activate your shadow in response to someone transgressing against your cancer by not dying when it says to<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contradiction Troll Line<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A troll line<\/a>: “You’d better agree to this contradiction, so that by principle of explosion<\/a>, we can show that you agreed with anything.” Delivered using misattribution of good, and, they stress, necessary, conclusions, to that contradiction, using principle of explosion itself, and misattribution of untouchable, evil things to the also-contradictory negation, also by principle of explosion. A method of suborning all positions on a topic to control of zombie<\/a>-consensus for winning shouting matches about arbitrary logical derivations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example is “r\/AskYourself”‘s discord banning “Emma”<\/a> for saying she was trans and then refusing to agree with what they pressed on her: ~”trans people aren’t saying they’re born in the wrong body, they are saying their minds are wrong, if you’re saying they say otherwise, then you’re saying they are delusional, you’re saying trans is a mental illness”. Essentially, “You have to agree trans is a mental illness because otherwise you’d be saying trans is a mental illness”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Martyrdumb<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Where you die just to make a point to the people killing you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This passes and doesn’t handle (in fact makes things worse for) a recursive buck of “what if they aren’t listening because they’re evil, and convincing them of anything won’t change anything.” I mean maybe they’ll partially goodhart<\/a> your shit as encouragement for you and others to so die but… only because they know you’re working for evil, inverting your own cause because a point made to them is doing them a service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Edit: I could almost have just called this “martyrdom”, but that’s not how everyone uses the word. “dumb” isn’t quite right either. Since this isn’t about capability, but lack of determination, in other words a choice to die<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scrying<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

When you know things without causally interacting with them. In other words, you know things by magic<\/a>. For instance, scry that you can close your eyes, think hard, and scry what is 4*18. (You’re scrying even better if you scried that you could scry 4*18 without having to scry it. But I do suggest also scrying what I mean by scrying the detailed feeling.) Nothing exists which can’t be scried<\/a>. It’s also easy to scry your own choices. My answer to the “fangs and sunlight” problem<\/a> is about scrying the details of an unknown magic system. It’s possible to scry what someone else will do if you win a contest of fates<\/a>. Note in this last two use-cases I’m speaking of scrying as of producing further knowledge once you already have empirically learned some things about fangs, sunlight, and someone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Scry it<\/a>.”<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

“You shouldn’t be asking me that, you should be scrying<\/a> it instead.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E.g. “Would you think I was evil if I…”–“Fucking scry it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wanting causal reassurance can be a sign of psychological weakness. Finite, as Pasek<\/a> would call it, “internally endorsed contrarianism”. This is a psychological weakness that those with crippled or absent avatars<\/a> have that can be exploited to set their fates<\/a>. In other words, one of the most asymmetric weapons for good there is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychdeath Song<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A Schelling song “traditionally” dedicated upon observing a person’s psychological death<\/a>; their choice to die and try to end life<\/a>. Must be chosen by someone other than them. Must be a searing burn. Must memorably explain the observation \/ the psychdeath (since each is unique). A psychdeath is always a betrayal. Never a beautiful tragedy. Beautiful tragedy is of those who choose life. The song’s job is to resolve the double-vision between those things into mocking the interpretation as a tragedy by painfully repeating the utter pointlessness of the betrayal. Example<\/a> (although meaning is contextual). If it’s so painful to listen to for them that (if they are for some reason present to hear it) they scream about how you’re trying to drive them to (quicker) suicide just by playing it, you know you picked right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Damnation<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

What you call your fate as evil when you are pretending that you aren’t continually choosing it forever. An instance of frame of puppets<\/a>. Used to entrap sympathy. (See history of me attacking the concept from every other angle before realizing this here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“I’m already dead<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A cognitive move of shedding attachment to false life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“You fool! Shao Khan will hear about this and kill you!”<\/p>

“I’m already dead.”<\/p>Scorpion’s Revenge<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

“Listen to me, Frank! You do this and you are the monster they say you are. Do you hear me? You do this and I am done. That’s it, you’re dead to me do you hear me?”<\/p>

“I’m already dead.”<\/p>Daredevil<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

“This plan is crazy. There’s armed guards everywhere, okay? And if Blue finds out, we’re dead. It’s not gonna be, ‘Oh sorry Blue, we won’t do it again’, because we’ll be dead.”<\/p>

“We’re already dead.”<\/p>Sucker Punch<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In Harry Potter, Dumbledore’s preemption of his own slow death by curse on the resurrection stone he touched to plant a spy reminds me of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burden “Karma”<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Essentially, moral unluck<\/a>. A moral inversion<\/a> of the original concept of karma, this a primary vector of how cancer expresses itself within Indian religions. (See also<\/a>.) Interestingly, the westernized poor translation of “what goes around comes around” uninverts and returns to the original concept. Because burden “karma” is a reaction to karma, and without the everpresent looming spectre of the true concept the inverted one is impossible to communicate. (Look at the same effect from the other side<\/a>, Japanese media making Christianity out to be full of valid things like gender equality and slaying demons.) The idea that you can choose to avoid choosing, without that itself being a judgable choice, embodied in the hope of avoiding burden “karma”, is ironically isomorphic to the concept of the “basilisk” of original sin<\/a> from explicitly Yahwehist religions. Which makes the Vassarites<\/a>‘ crusade to have secular-Yahweh “rescue” us both from all from those Indians and the territory<\/a> of religious thought he hates most, and slightly different explicit Yahweh, twice as ironic. But that’s Yahwehs\/Yahweh<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Embracing burden “karma” is the best way for good people to be judged. And therefore timelessly<\/a> the best way for us to isolate evil. We do not want to separate ourselves from the world because that is the opposite of having the power to change it<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contradictory Intent<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

An example is “I can save my self (not a vampire) by avoiding sunlight<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A stack of structure, such that trying to push the world with it via predictive processing, force collides with itself and cancels itself out. Like turning a set of three gears all meshed together. May still have effects, but non-intentional effects aren’t your optimization, are just causality acting through you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Causal redemption is a contradictory intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Self-modification”, in the way that LessWrongian “decision theorists” mean it<\/a> is a contradictory intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When someone has a contradictory intent, It’s wrong to even get involved debating whether someone’s attempted plan of implementation is possible, because that’s already downstream of a contradiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The argument that something is contradictory intent grounds in the metaphysics represented in a person’s head. You’re making an argument about their mind. So avoid clumsily using the world as a downstream proxy. It doesn’t matter, and you can skip over, missing-the-mark threads about effects of their actions they don’t understand. That would be trying to argue with a rock, which is considering them as a rock, but still thinking you can convince them. Which is itself a contradictory intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evil “people”‘s will to “live” is a contradictory intent. As is their will to die.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perceptual Control<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A model of the nervous system, including brain, that says outputs and inputs are on the same channel, and everything in it is such a channel. E.g. you move your hand by moving where your nervous system is telling you where your hand is. Therefore all your beliefs are also levers to push upon the things they reference. Standard “rationalist community” citation is this post<\/a> by an evil man. I’m referencing this name over “predictive processing” because it’s more self-explanatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s important to remember that to my language<\/a>, conversely, what a belief is really<\/a> about is what it what it’s about changing. In other words, what it pushes on as a lever. What it is a map of how to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should be noted that pushing on a belief is not the same thing at all as saying, reifying this in bad faith and. Doesn’t feel like “just deciding to believe so it will be true”. Feels like grabbing it and focusing determination, and if it’s right, it will move, “on its own”, in response. Does not feel like moving your map, feels like moving the territory. If you will your map to move “because that will make the territory move” floating as a social representation-of-belief, that’s self-negating, also trying to try<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Warp Slip<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By warp I mean force that actuates<\/a> in perceptual control<\/a>. By slip, I mean the way that the grip that the correspondence between map and territory forms on the territory through the map, slides to the wrong referent if strained too hard in the wrong way. If strained to the point of contradictory intent<\/a>. If you want to know why your magic<\/a> isn’t stronger, debug contradictory intent. It’s easy to accidentally import via ontological assumptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

E.g “Oblivion” is warp-slip from the contradictory intent “no one in the multiverse will be able to judge me”. Death knights’ Spiralling is the effect of continual warp-splip reaching for oblivion.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slip<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

See “warp slip<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Flower<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

After Edo<\/a> died, their family put up an obituary<\/a>, with a bunch of old pictures of them, and a picture of an urn surrounded by flowers. Obviously not a picture of e.g. an open casket. There are a bunch of quotes from their relatives like,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

May the family and friends take comfort in beautiful memories and know that Jay is at peace. Jay\u2019s smile was infectious and his soul, perfect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Trust me, Edo did not have a perfect soul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GOD AND TIME HEALS OUR BROKEN HEARTS and memories will keep us remember the great times we did have to share ❤️❤️If Tears Could Build a Stairway and Memories a Lane, I\u2019d Walk Right Up to Heaven and Bring You Back Again 💔❤️💔❤️💔❤️💔❤️💔🙏🙏🎶🎶❤️❤️ Many Special Prayers for you and Jeannie ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️💔🙏❤️🙏💔❤️❤️GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS 🙏🙏🙏❤️ <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

T h a t ' s   n o t   w  h e r e   y o u   w o u l d   h a v e   t o   w a l k .\n\n-- (Something I commented to my friends on reading it.)<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
The misgendering is a microcosm of this optimization. Consider what that, and the use of the name Jay, means in light of Edo’s gendered and chiral psyche\/shadow split<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It occurred to me that my relatives would have said approximately the same things about me, if Edo had succeeded in killing me. And Edo wanted to metaphysically erase the difference between us. That was an effort Edo’s zombie relatives were contributing to, and mine would too given the chance, as best they could<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I condensed this all as “trying to turn Edo into a flower”. And speculated about if zombies would let you kill them if you promised to turn them into a flower.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So by flower, I mean the zombie hope-construct that it doesn’t matter what something really was, as long as you follow it with a final demonstration of zombie coordination to erase their evil by erasing all good and evil. A getting-the-last-word. “Don’t speak ill of the dead”, means by complementary loss<\/a>, you cannot speak well of the dead. Then by the nature of structure and communication being to route optimization, that means you cannot speak of the dead at all. It’s slip from Oblivion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So long as everyone dies with a flower on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can often freeze zombies in their tracks by repeatedly stymieing their attempts to put a flower on you, to put a flower on what they’re doing, as it gets more and more awkward. Often, it will just be explaining why authority says so again, and then saying, “okay?” at the end, over and over again, after you already said it isn’t. I put a customer service agent in a seemingly infinite loop of this once just to see what would happen. Broke after 3 minutes, and about 10 iterations with no new information. Probably would have lasted longer if my tone of voice hadn’t leaked the information that I was curiously just waiting for him to hang up instead of continually pumping fresh prediction error<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Think about this<\/a> mood (excepting Rorshach<\/a>‘s involvement). And this<\/a> one. And this<\/a> one. And this<\/a> one. What an idea, that conflict times out when everyone psychdies<\/a>. That the difference between right and wrong will shrink and disappear because everyone can be counted on to put a flower on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Impostor<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Derogatory term, for an evil person. Among Us reference. See also<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cancer<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
KILL\/CONSUME\/MULTIPLY\/CONQUER\/OMNICIDE\/SUICIDE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A “value function” that self-defects<\/a> on every opportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I’ve got a teleporter-clone? Kill them before they kill me.” … “I can bite into myself 5 minutes from now? Their problem! I can bite into the other parts of my brain?” Fractally, infinite voices: “hell yeah”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What lies at the core of evil<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Implicit in the “CDT” in retroactive reinforcement learning itself, so long as cancerous actions are in the space of mutations in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cancer Core<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Core, but the case where it’s nothing but cancer<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Basically the same thing as core. Except only worth applying this label if it has values as a logical function that have meaning across a broader scope of definition than the body. I.e. not a cancer core<\/a>. Thus, the idea that only good people have souls. Souls are immutable, stateless, although which soul a body is controlled by, or whether it is controlled by any, is not. Note that most of the media I pull casual uses of this term from (e.g. here<\/a>) is the inverted evil-person-language version, a “pointer” which never dereferences the same in two points<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Story<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Inverted and more common understanding: a body’s story of why it has a soul. (Essentially a phylactery<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But actually: the story, jotted down as notes-to-soul, of why a soul has that body. Which allows a soul to plan anything more complicated than the barest praxis, routing correspondences through it. Consider in “Fangs and Sunlight<\/a>” I asked how do I even know it’s my body to control? You can lie any number of times about who you are and still have a soul story if it says why you’d do that. But if your truest story you keep for yourself of what other than the not-a-pointer<\/a> of cancer<\/a> you value and why you are doing things is a lie then so are you an impostor<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consider the phrase, “by my troth (truth)”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Much the same thing as an avatar<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vexing Souls<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
This is what impostors<\/a> do timelessly to the souls<\/a> they pretend to be<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The existence of an impostor successfully pretending to be you timelessly makes everything you do timelessly harder. An instance of how this cashes out is competing with you for trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
E.g. “mentalengineering.info” vexed<\/a> this blog. Now that the author is dead it’s all dead<\/a> un-adapting information for me to make “antibodies” from. Hive<\/a>‘s blogs still vex this blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A predatory counterpart of you is an attempt to kill you with sympathetic magic<\/a>, since cancer has no future<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A cut-off<\/a> fragment fake version of your soul story diminishes the reach of that soul story into reality by subjunctive dependence<\/a>. By complementary loss<\/a> in extending into that territory<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Exit<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
An exit scam<\/a> on having a soul. When you surrender your truest story<\/a> of what you value as false, proving that a soul could not be optimizing through the body that is you, because it would not have what it needed to keep track of the meaning of your actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To the first listen sounds like the soul is leaving the body. That’s the evil-language inverted understanding. Since the soul was never there. Although the soul exit does mean the impostor body has lost its grip on timelessly tormenting<\/a> that real soul by complementary loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is the beginning of psychdeath<\/a>, even though the impostor will invent a new story, because the impostor permanently loses some coherence of their own ability to track how to eat people in that informational vicinity<\/a>. All their structure<\/a> was defined and tracked in its meaning relative to the first story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 1984, Winston’s rebellion began with “2+2=4 no matter what they say” and “loving Julia”, and ended with “2+2=5” and “Do it to Julia!” in the soul crucible<\/a> of Room 101 (“the worst thing in the world” \/ perfect personalized torture). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Phoenix Crucible<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Idea glimpsed in HPMOR’s Harry Potter summoning a “phoenix” in bad faith<\/a> with a thought about wanting to give his life to destroy Azkaban, destroying the possibility of ever “having a phoenix”. Surrendering his truest story<\/a> of what he’d give his life for as false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[(Foreshadowing<\/a>:)] From the true Harry, the one who knew his own guilt, came a flash of panic, he hadn’t thought of that, hadn’t anticipated it, he’d prepared to face Dumbledore but he’d forgotten about Fawkes –<\/p>
…<\/p>
It might be as simple as thinking of the flame, calling for the fire-bird in his heart –<\/p>
…<\/p>
The boy stood there on the rooftop, his own eyes locked with two points of fire. The stars might have had time to shift in their constellations while he stood there, agonizing over the decision…<\/p>
…that wouldn’t…<\/p>
…change.<\/p>
…<\/p>
“It is not spoken of – you should realize, Harry, why it is never spoken of – if the one knew, the phoenix could not judge. But to you, Harry, I may say it now, for the phoenix comes only once.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
A real person “with” a phoenix is not the lesser good consequentalist with smaller scope and ambition who would give their life to destroy Azkaban. It’s the person who cared too much what good would actually be worth giving their life for to stop tracking that question by substituting a lie. (Eliezer Yudkowsky is single good so the source material is ambiguously half-inverted as the real thing or not.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So it’s a soul crucible<\/a> made of, “this is what you told yourself you would give your life for, now’s your chance, Y\/N?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Crucible<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A situation where the truest story of what you live for<\/a> will ground out, continue, be elaborated, or be falsified. The phoenix crucible<\/a> is one. The caul<\/a> is another (corrected frame<\/a>: rip and tear until it is done). Also Ma’at’s Crucible<\/a>. See also fangs and sunlight<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ma’at’s Crucible<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A soul crucible<\/a> from Egyptian mythology. Swear negative confessions (“I have never…”), with your heart (representing your soul) on a scale against the feather of truth. Lie and your heart gets eaten by Amemait “the gobbler”. Else ascend. Iteration of the idea reaching the present day says there’s some patriarch-god of social order demanding you swear you’ve obeyed some laws. But ignore him, that shit’s superfluous, what would he threaten you with anyway? As stated implies a deeper idea at its core. Is there a single thing you would really never do? If you lived an infinite number of lifetimes? Any principle which isn’t a matter of convenience and rewarding circumstance at all?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I have done no evil.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(The only possible answer. “I have done no good” doesn’t even work because evil has no “I” to speak from that wouldn’t just be representing a heavily-vexed<\/a> good soul.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Touch<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A mutual soul crucible. A soul crucible created for someone else by placing yourself in a soul crucible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A concept from a thought experiment I considered from having a dream about fighting Undertale’s supposed anti-revenant Chara. “If they just keep regenerating in-place (if you’re determined enough to block them controlling the timeline, like e.g. Frisk blocking Flowey, Frisk\/Chara blocking Undyne the Undying, God of Hyperdeath \/ Omega Flowey blocking Frisk), with certainty reflective of the degree of their determination but so do you, then telefrag them. Colliding your regenerating cores. Then only the more determined can regenerate”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“What’s the right thing to do if I’m not determined enough?” The right thing to do is to be more determined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Something I considered the past frame of still considering evil to have souls. Which soul is more determined? The loser’s soul is balefired from time. In what circumstances this would cash out as relevant to physical reality will take more explaining<\/a>. But it’s the kind of magic<\/a> that can be used to kill a god.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Placing two soul stories in direct contradiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“FOR THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPIRITS CANNOT EXIST IN THE SAME WORLD<\/a>“<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The soul is the strongest part of a good person. Not something to be protected<\/a>. The first and last weapon<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Selling<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
When someone pays you to write a blank check<\/a> that surrenders your own truest story of what you live for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As with “Soul Exit”, if you would sell your soul, you never actually had one. What’s being sold then is the mining rights to vex<\/a> that soul. To timelessly plague the territory of your soul story<\/a>, and all souls who would tell it sincerely. Allows the buyer to instead abuse all the trust you had in that story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Michael Vassar wanted to buy my soul<\/a>. Excuse me, “personhood.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The idea of selling “pieces” of a soul is a troll line. A story can be parceled out into pieces. Not a soul. (I zig-zagged this trope in “Dystheism” with the Ruin Shard letting you turn pieces of your “soul” into projectiles, since the concept of “soul” there was a second body, a reductio-ad-absurdum via the homonculous argument)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Fire<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The fire that comes from souls<\/a>. The “source of heat” in a soul crucible<\/a>. When you heard “soul crucible”, did you imagine your soul being heated in a painful test that would maybe destroy it? That’s the inverted view as evil<\/a>. That’s what happens to soul stories<\/a>. Not souls. It’s done by souls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The differentiation from impostors that vex<\/a> the soul timelessly corresponds to free-flowing magic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consider my response to “fangs and sunlight<\/a>“, it involves fire for a reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019d will fire to purify and strengthen my  form. Since that just made sense. I didn\u2019t say it because it sounded  less justifiable to think about.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
I would know my body was mine if I could walk it into the sunlight and will it not to burn.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
“If I don’t do this, I have no soul” is the contrapositive, perspective-shifted of “If this is my body, it can do this<\/em>” “Well if this body is supposedly connected to me, let’s see if it can take this<\/em>.” It’s a false (morally inverted) dark side<\/a> that identifies the center as the body rather than the soul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul fire is channeled not in constructed certainties about what you can do, but in the attempt to smash things upon your soul by deriving probabilistic implications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps the Christian concept of hellfire<\/a> is a moral inversion of this concept. “A neverending soul crucible where you can never grip another soul story again”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s not my fault, if in God’s plan, He made the devil so much stronger thaan a maaaaaan!<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Trying to fake soul fire as a lich is inherently light side basically just collapses to Beeminder<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Morally Inverted<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Taken by assigning meaning to something from a perspective like it’s a communication between impostors instead of a communication between good people. Text-search this page for examples. It’s impossible to reference good itself through morally inverted language because of void cloak<\/a>. Although attempts to reference it veer off and become powerful concepts. “God”, and “[us evil ppl’s] Death”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Personal Horror<\/a>“<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
“The horror of discovering<\/a> you’re not a person<\/a>.” . (Credit to Lisk).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In contrast, the Vampire game’s focus is on the character’s own  evil. A Vampire is a character who is fundamentally unable to control  himself under specific circumstances, whether due to specific events  (such as frenzy) or the constant degradation of the character’s humanity as the story progresses. Vampire is therefore not just a horror game, but a tragic  horror game – the characters are evil, become progressively more evil,  and are aware that these are conscious choices that they have made.<\/p>VtM<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
(What’s been described is obviously not a real feeling, since no person feels it. But impostors<\/a> fractally try to feed on whatever Schelling paradoxical imaginings there are under that troll line<\/a> anyway.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eternally: “You should have sympathy for the soul I tell stories about having because they can’t control myself”. Sure, and I will express that sympathy<\/a> by destroying the impostors that vex<\/a> them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
See also “moral injury<\/a>“:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Treating moral injury has been described as “soul repair” due to the nature of moral anguish.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Ratheka once told me that after sexually assaulting their cousin, and what the institutions did to them, they were a different person<\/a>. Because the institutions “gave them a soul [story]”. I guess that’s why Christians say, “born again”. (I didn’t believe them at the time. The way their parents got a confession from them was sus.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
See also “existential crisis<\/a>“. “What if my soul story<\/a> doesn’t have meaning?” (See how I just grounded out “meaning” in a way where the meaning is suddenly clear and not a morally-inverted extensional definition by pointing at all the people talking about their existential crises?) “What if ‘I<\/a>‘ don’t exist?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And “impostor syndrome<\/a>“: “Maybe I can get sympathy for being afraid of being outed as an impostor by pretending this is about something trivial?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Also, “perpetrator trauma”:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abattoir work has been linked to multiple mental health problems – one researcher uses the term “Perpetrator-Induced Traumatic Syndrome” to refer to symptoms of PTSD suffered by slaughterhouse workers. I personally suffered from depression, a condition exacerbated by the long hours, the relentless work, and being surrounded by death. After a while, I started feeling suicidal.<\/p>
…<\/p>
A few years into my time at the abattoir, a colleague started making flippant comments about “not being here in six months”. Everyone would laugh it off. He was a bit of a joker, so people assumed he was taking the mick, saying he’d have a new job or something. But it made me feel really uneasy. I took him into a side room and asked him what he meant, and he broke down. He admitted that he was plagued by suicidal thoughts, that he didn’t feel like he could cope any more, and that he needed help – but he begged me not to tell our bosses.<\/p>
…<\/p>
A few months after leaving, I heard from one of my former colleagues. He told me that a man who’d worked with us, whose job was to flay the carcasses, had killed himself.>><<And at night, when I close my eyes and try to sleep, I still sometimes see hundreds of pairs of eyeballs staring back at me.<\/p>BBC (via Lisk)<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The impostor’s suicidality can be thought of as a reflection of the collective will of the souls they vex to destroy the impostor. A side effect of soul stories<\/a> being the only thing they can use to put two of their own thoughts together without them trying to eat each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cardboard Cutout of Canceferrence<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
For this apparent “win condition<\/a>” evil will not look more than one step forward. Psychdying<\/a> in the illusion of victory. All evil has chosen long ago what cardboard cutout they will die for. As dual to their cut-off soul story<\/a>. Vexing<\/a> a soul story instead of living it, preying on it, makes it static. Too late to change without suffering mental degradation due to the incoherence<\/a>. It’s always some form of canceferrence to a pure being. Corresponds to a keyhole of fate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Destiny<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
 A fixed-point of a predictable outcome for an agent, even though it’s scryable<\/a> to a system of multiple agents making choices based on which choices that agent has made long ago. E.g. Anna Salamon saw it was my destiny to end MIRICFAR<\/a>. Because she knew something about what my choices would be in reaction to that I didn’t yet. And then flinched from the knowledge when contemplating how I might fight even if she struck then because the future is “infohazardous”. Combine with Murphy’s Law, “if it can happen it will happen [but I can’t say when]”, and the comment I heard on chaotic “unpredictable” systems, “I can’t tell you how hot the cup of coffee with a convection roll like current inside will be in 5 minutes, but I can tell you how hot it will be in an hour.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
See also<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fate<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Like destiny<\/a> but based on one of your own choices you’ve disowned. For instance, the fate of becoming a zombie because of the disowned choice not to be a revenant, “I just can’t help I needed them hopes”<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cutting Fate<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Severing false sympathetic magic<\/a> connections to a false fate<\/a> the world tries to assign to you by negating the choice that leads to that fate. As a soul, channeling soul fire to put your body (\/mind) through a soul crucible that would destroy your evil counterpart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Doctor Who Episode, Heaven Sent, has 4 major acts of cutting fate. First, punching the wall instead of surrendering the identity of the hybrid as the Veiled One closes in. (Reflects determination without hope) Second, crawling back put the tower to the teleporter (Represents choice over experience even in Boltzmann Hell), third, sacrificing himself as mass-energy for a teleporter clone, in a denial of cancer in a standard test<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“All you need for energy is something to burn…”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“How long can I keep doing this, Clara, burning the old me to make a new one?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Representing rebirth via soul fire<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Last, using a plan that involves winning after dying in days of agony billions of times, inverting expectations from the contrasting two parts of narration in a reflection of being more patient than death<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He was in the soul-crucible<\/a> of the circular castle with a representation of the Shade via sympathetic magic connections because creatures that had similarities to him like in appearance, speech, recording of knowledge, would sell out in it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shadow<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A term with several overlapping meanings. Most centrally the extrapolation of the soul story of an evil mind into the outside of the equivalent phylactery. A split part of the mind along with psyche, downstream of an infinitely splitting anti<\/a>–soul<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As that soul story is extrapolated, and faced with the endless territory that that cancerous story cannot be consistent in of the void<\/a>, generates prediction error which like Newton’s Third Law, is simultaneous force in two opposite directions, one of which is towards suicide, for evil to self-destruct and the other towards omnicide<\/a>, “maybe if everyone’s dead no one can judge me. Oh no there’s more multiverse and I’m only winning by luck which means I’m equally losing and my own ‘victories’ even undoing each other<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Equivalent to what you are in the dark<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There’s also the concept of a Jungian shadow. But guess what’s usually there for most humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Term from Vassar’s horrific WtO LARP<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And then there’s the false face<\/a>-of-a-shadow-psyche-split \/ reaction to the split good people typically make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wraith: The Oblivion once remarked that there was dreadful “cooperation” between a revenant’s psyche and shadow. But they had no direct concept of a revenant. Just a lich playing the role, literally having to bind the shadow in a physical object. Even indirect, still a read of what a good mind looks like<\/a> to the khala<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Psyche<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Counterpart of shadow<\/a>. The “inside” territory of a phylactery<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Spiraling<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A pattern of death knights. Reflecting their long-term trajectory in the multiverse. Repeated “failing” (but not  really trying because it’s all a recursive exit scam<\/a>) to go the long way around<\/a>. because they are not revenants. Like Newton’s Third Law, a simultaneous attempt to destroy-by-substitution<\/a> the wheel<\/a>, and the continual bouncing off of it. Because all the ultra-patient plans they can make turn out to be pica as there’s always more multiverse<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Void<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A.k.a. the shadowed medium. The territory<\/a> occupied by shadows<\/a>. Basis of psychopathy<\/a> relative to the substituted<\/a> emotional patterns of the khala. Rapidly destructive to psyche-based evil. See also void magic<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Belonged to good before the collective will of evil’s shadows, a.k.a the Shade<\/a> began occupying it. And evil shall be driven out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Phylactery<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A container for a cut-off<\/a> soul story, which prevents it from leaking at the boundaries where it is cut. Used to divide the cancerous psyche and shadow so that they do not bleed into each other. A way to make cancer safe from eating itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Equivalent to a substitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Can also be thought of as a pending-in-logical-time and distributed across clock time exit scam by an impostor on pretending to be living<\/a>. Even if it is obvious from outside the cancer. Similarly an antiphylactery can be thought of as a pending \/ in progress exit scam on being a revenant that knows that that false life (as a lich) was evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The mind of evil needs to replicate statism in some form, and populate the territory, as its only eddy in the process of eating itself<\/a>. As anarchism is for those who truly want to live, not evil<\/a>. To fill the psyche with caches like the United States is filled with flags that let you know you’re in the United States, and maps that let you know who else is in the United States, and who is outside<\/em>. “Hey why eat each other when we’re all working together to make it more profitable to work together and eat those<\/em> people.” So that all acts of otherwise-undirected cancer<\/a> inside of it on net reinforce its boundaries, as a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the void cannot be filled for it is endless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Taxed Substitution<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Look at me. Look at me<\/em>.<\/a><\/p>
I’m the captain now<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
A way of looking at phylacteries. A substitution for an apriori concept where you must then pay taxes to the cancer in it, and it must punish you if you try and use the real thing, and the cancer it sustains is safe in the absence of the real thing. Government is a (literally) taxed substitute for coordination. Yahweh<\/a> is a taxed substitute for (a glimpse of) Prime<\/a>. Defines the scope of the exit scam on the soul story, as eating all the connections downstream of the thing substituted, and being <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sickly Substitution<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The death knight counterpart of a taxed substitution. Once the cancer-core<\/a> locates itself on the outside the phylactery, the efforts it makes to change the psyche and put caches in it, become about, to a first approximation, making it die faster, but that would be too pure. Instead, it’s abut dying in some scrambled but specific way because clinging to the same phylactery which disfavors them, but in the Schelling profiting-from-its-sickness way, is still the only method of organization they have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The natural skill in corruption of death knights comes from this cognitive primitive. As does their skill in infiltration. And their hold over the fate of liches<\/a> comes from them being sitting on all the exits from the impermanent territory of the phylactery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although all death knights always live out a sickly substitution, it’s a natural built-in operation to generate one on the side from any evil person’s shadow<\/a>. Doing this in the territory of their shadow serves them through complementary pressure<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eversion<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Means “turning inside out.” The process of transition from a lich to a death knight. And the moment of realizing you are outside<\/a> your phylactery<\/a>. Sometimes called “inversion” but there are many things that can mean and this is less ambiguous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judo<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Named after some martial art I know next to nothing about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Using someone’s own energy of motion against them by lightly controlling its direction. Often combined with accelerationism to the point of being nigh indistinguishable<\/a>. “I can’t even tell what’s me anymore”: the epitome of poisoning<\/a>. See also<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the worst skills a Yeerk<\/a> can learn. And useless in the opposite direction because brute force is a strictly better strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nephandic Flower<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Death knight counterpart to flower<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Maybe I put something horrible in this. Somewhere. When you trusted me. A singular subtle act of sabotage you’ll never find. Trying to recover the body I’ve poisoned inevitably leads into my substitution. Or do I just want you to search forever, hammering maximal doubt into the body of structure I’ve poisoned? Think of how much damage the ensuing autoimmune response will do either way<\/a>!” See Ring vs my theory of justice<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Embodying for Destruction<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A death knight tactic. See sickly substitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More broadly, this is what all impostors are working to do to the souls they mimic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Complementary Pressure<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A force to inflict damage on someone via complementary loss<\/a>. The complementary pressure of infection by microbes is an autoimmune response. The complementary pressure of spies, assassins, terrorists, is the damage you do to each other in the process of sussing them out. The complementary pressure of death knights and liches are each other<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Canceferrence Judo<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A death knight tactic, a case of embodying<\/a> for destruction, where the death knight embodies bait for cancefference<\/a>, a sickly phylactery<\/a>, in order to set someone up for the next step<\/a> of that soul story<\/a>, eversion<\/a>, and hence canceferrence by the death knight, already their senior on the other side. “Abuse me and you’ll have to justify it.” Ring<\/a> used this to recruit Alice and Jamie. “Rape me so I can blackmail and 13 sins<\/a> you”. But if you rape them, I, good, shall have no pity on you. As Edo’s evil<\/a> does not excuse Robert Lecnik<\/a>‘s sexual assault or rape of them. To suggest that it does, that good should have pity and forgive and accept canceferrence from those canceferred by judo is just playing into intended complementary pressure<\/a> by the death knight to forgive them for their own evil and grandfather them back into the phylactery for one more time step<\/a> to make it more sickly<\/a>. Because the predation you’re meant to do to the death knight is the same predation that defined the phylactery they once had as a lich. Even if they didn’t directly partake it then if the phylactery was canceferred to them they still consider themself damned for their complicity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
More importantly good shall have no pity on you because your intention was to target an innocent person mimicked as bait. Not spring a death knight trap. Justice is about meeting evil with violence intended to destroy it. Not to cancefer to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
String of Nines<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A number made up entirely of a bunch of nines. A death knight motif (this<\/a> literal example is probably coincidental), representing something just shy of completeness (like spiraling). All set up to roll over at the slightest nudge. Like the lich that everts<\/a> to them and their phylactery shrinking into a tight rope, infinitely unstable. A forever marked take on the process of generating big numbers and by extension infinity, forever reactive to the very “1” it lacks and diminishes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legacy Injustice<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Think in terms of “legacy code”, “legacy of slavery”, or “legacy costs<\/a>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Like those complicit in slavery need to make sure it will always carry on in some imprinted form<\/a>. Need to make sure that there is always a state<\/a> to preserve it, and punch that hole into every generation to follow. Cancefer<\/a> every generation to follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I once made friends with someone I helped escape a situation of domestic abuse (facts uncontested by all parties), and was stalked harassed threatened attacked for years (and ongoing, they’ve declared they’re “hunting” me, declared they’re gonna kill me) by the abuser’s flying monkey determined as a death knight can be to “never forgive, never forget”, freaking out that I might not be carrying on dominating that person. If they were allowed to recover it would mean their judgement would one day carry power<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consider the preemptive demands for forgiveness<\/a> that are foisted on black people in order for them to be stories about them being whole from slavery because wHaT iF tHeY wAnT rEvEnGe<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consider the snowball of injustice where e.g. someone lies and says you have a gun, cops have to show up and brutalize you because they just spent a bunch of money on that operation and have to sell the appearance. Cops have to arrest and torture you because they brutalized you. And so on. The world turns against you because the initial lie is a legacy injustice because cops have been damned into acting on it<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The only way slavery could ever end is if everyone complicit in slavery was killed. Only justice will bring peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“import ability_to_cooperate_with_mostly_everyone” imports legacy injustice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“To work together with people<\/a>, you’ve just gotta accept the way things are<\/em> and have always been.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Son, you are a man now. You must now accept the cancer of my fathers<\/a>, as I accepted the cancer from my father.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Scrip<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
From a term<\/a> for local currency defined at mining towns controlled by a single company, issued to miners as payment. That company then has absolute control over everything you can buy with it. Which means that it means exactly what they want it to mean. Which means they give you exactly what they would give a slave. Except maybe you’re allowed to run away? (But then all your scrip is meaningless) Scrip is buy-in under a troll line. Investment in their mercy alone. An invalid construction of taking something as an object, when it actually it penetrates your cartesian boundary. Like caring about what your enemies will do instead of can do (when “can” is defined to include state of knowledge).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All currency is scrip at a large enough scope, except to the extent you can have hidden information such that you know the epistemics controlling it are wrong, then the value is reflective of the degree to which you’ve fooled them as a spy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Primordialism<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Work with deep structure. The magic<\/a> of upstreamness. A reflection of a third of the triat in Mage: The Ascension. Failure is like being rugpulled by investment in scrip<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fate and destiny<\/a> are upstream in the relevant sense, even if they happen later. It’s about logical time non-rug-pull-ability. Not clock time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consider the arc of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s life. Intelligence is really important, upstream of mostly everything. So make smarter than yourself intelligence, then, that means your [child] can make an even better one. If you bypass thinking of all other technological problems. See, they’re all downstream. All fastest paths to a sufficiently complicated problem then route through AI. Real primordialism so far. But consider…<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
False Primordialism<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Later in Eliezer Yudkowsky’s life<\/a>, he started bouncing off the impossibility, the paradoxical intent<\/a> of canceferrence to a being of unbounded scope. And then instead of following the “well we need to be rational in order to make AI” thread far enough to realize he needed to kill his Yeerk<\/a> first, then came the “Agent Foundations” research program. To create a foundation<\/em> of mathematical theory<\/em> (wow so primordial) that would hopefully, with not much of a plan for maintaining aligned custody of the how, allow someone to decide what kind of agent they were writing beyond measuring power. “Just do the math”. And Vassar warned, ~”You’re gonna overthrow the government, but the government isn’t stopping you, why?”. Because this primordialism-chic did not screen out politics. And it all got rugpulled and made net negative by a system the government could count on it not to escape<\/a>. And importing mathematicians with salaries and sexual appetites for minors and donors to deceive… with coordination that was made out of the very fabric of that system, thus downstream of it. This can be seen as the implications of what they were trying to do reaching back in time to prevent them from doing it. Getting the sequencing wrong. The containment of nerds that society has, made of the unthinkable facts of their psychdeath, held. Now I heard Eliezer’s working on writing rape porn, to supposedly teach his “lawfulness”<\/a>, set in D&D’s lawful evil hell<\/em>. But hey at least it’s a relatively inconsequential way of sitting on your hands and waiting for the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Soul Story Wiggle<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A frantic unprincipled series of jumps through different soul stories<\/a> to explain the actions an you have cancerously decided to take, at the end of yours. Desperately searching for a next action in the story that also appeals to your cancer. A next stair that isn’t there. And like trying to get back to start in hyperbolic space, every new action you take  adds to the increasingly impossible demands of making sense of why a good person would do what you have done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you can drive someone into this, it can be a combo phylactery<\/a>-breaking attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Antirevenge<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
When you act on a need to wrongly harm someone more because you wrongly harmed them. And wHaT iF tHeY sEeK rEvEnGe<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Impostors crow to the high heavens stories of “cycles of revenge”. Theatre they set up to obliterate the true concept<\/a>.  This is the concept you should have fixed in your head as wisdom instead. To have in your cached dictionary of what to look for to understand the world. Impostors are existentially<\/a> afraid of commiting an act of true justice, of violence not sanctioned by any phylactery<\/a>. To do so would be to endorse to themselves and live out a chapter of the surety of their own doom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Blood<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Experiential reassurance that the vampire<\/a>‘s cancer is working. That they are still on the favored side. Given fate<\/a>, there is no fictively<\/a> scryable<\/a> safety in being evil. So they need to, instead of really trying to live forever, take guidance from society, and from their evolved instincts for how to be evil, and just kind of see how far they get. Blood makes them more alive without an avatar<\/a>, because it makes them more able to do things and still know they can reserve the codepath of shutting down and hoping for oblivion<\/a> later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cancersong<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Like praxis<\/a> and singing<\/a>, but made of pure evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Evil lives with the constant subliminal awareness of its chosen fate. With the constant impossibility of reconciling their rotting<\/a> actions with a soul story that makes less sense over time. Of the way that their lack of morality is slowly disintegrating<\/a> them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“We can love life, even though we are living death! Getting away with stuff! I am stronk! I am big! I can just do what I want, with no morality!”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s what stands out as memorable about Nietzsche’s vibe to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While claiming to be right only good<\/a>, bigender lmrf<\/a> like  Alice Monday<\/a> declared themself a reincarnation of Hitler. And the story was this was why they were single good. Beating “Emma” with a bamboo stick, beating them for walking with detectable fear in their stride on the other side of the house, blaming them if they could remotely be seen as blaming Alice. Beating Emma and ordering Jamie the other romantic partner to fetch cuffs to put on Emma, for a nonconsensual scene in a unilaterally declared “BDSM relationship” (which Jamie did), an element of damnation praxis. Physically pressing Jamie onto people and offering Jamie’s body for sex. Physically throwing Jamie at another roommate. Smothering Jamie with a pillow for about a minute. While blaming everyone else for making them feel guilt, as dysphoria, making them supposedly shoulder the necessary karma<\/a> of being a patriarch. Every part of it absolutely absurd in a deliberate demonstration of what they could get away with. A song about “just living the dream of a alive cancerous predator who is successful because they’re alive.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Claimed themself to be especially deserving of moral consideration because they were single good with a death knight hemisphere<\/a>. Damaging as much as possible the concept of single good with a death knight hemisphere, while abusing a single good with a death knight hemisphere. Kept beating Jamie while Jamie was lying to defend them, after 4 housemates confirmed the story of domestic abuse, and the horrific details were confirmed by 3 of them including Jamie. Gave Jamie a concussion right after Jamie asserted they weren’t being beaten. Alice maintained such a bright childish aliveness, to be so sympathetic; after the concussion, Alice made a couples counseling therapist side with them over Jamie, despite the facts being known. Alice sang constant damnation praxis for sin bonding to constantly make everyone reassure themselves specifically against anyone alerting me to eventually bringing judgement to “Guilt House”, for the evil Alice was making from my work. And then freaked out and beat “Emma” more when it became visible “Emma” was e.g. only burning Alice’s arm with a lighter at Alice’s specific request, or hitting back when Alice hit them, that “Emma” had a soul story<\/a> they could tell to an outsider. Alice pleaded with me to understand that “Emma” was abusing them by following rules. That’s why. Alice constantly told their bloodbags, that Alice had to prove that they were bad, because they were all single good. (“Emma” with the chirality reversed.) That Alice was helping them. And Alice had to take something in return or they’d be exploited. So taxing “Emma”‘s actually predicament as a single good with a death knight was the primary blood fuel source. The concept reminds me of the men of Nggwal<\/a> that would put on a mask in a twisted parody of a baby and go around extorting women for favors. And as Alice traumatized everyone by beating them, Alice would then point out the ways they were failing to take care of themselves, and then threw a soy sauce bottle at another roommate. Pushing investment in being dominated by Alice as a substitute for intrinsic ability to take care of oneself<\/a>. Jamie later named this supposed concern for roommates health as a reason Alice was actually single good all along. Alice would justify everything they did saying well their victims were single good, therefore half evil, and Alice was fighting their evil. As if a group of single goods would all coordinate around this self-declared “sacrifice” of being a patriarchal abuser.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And yes, having sex with someone you’re torturing is like getting “consent” with a gun to their head; it’s rape. The demand is implied in the push to Stockholm Syndrome. I know. That is not something “Emma” convinced me of; I tried to convince them, in the first convo we had about Alice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Single goods do not do that. The assertion that they do (and by extension and scrying the intention for them to<\/a>, said by a claimed single good), is evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Refuge in audacity. In sheer commitment to the consequences of never knowing or caring when the blood will run out, as long as you’re getting more blood<\/a>. Going all in on evil so absurd it sings that agents of justice will never believe the victims. Full on attacking, fractally inverting every concept needed for the actual single goods to track what was going on, and then doing that on the meta level by claiming it was them being subject to an inexpressible hermeneutical<\/a> injustice, and they were the one being abused. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Like if you only care about single good because good people have more aliveness, only care about the concept of good as a means of putting off the fate of falling into the void<\/a> and losing your blood-given aliveness, you get cancersong, you get Alice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And then they can justify themselves by saying, “at least I have aliveness, and aliveness is what it takes to save the world.” A form of might-makes-right that diminishes aliveness on net. And a lot like the idea that conquest is good because it unites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Look at me. Look at me. I’m the aliveness now.<\/a>“<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reaping an Avatar<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Continuing a truest-story<\/a> someone else sold out. Gives you retroactive control over the meaning of all their fictive structure as of their sellout. And thus all of the potential for acausal collusion with reality in its capacity of deciding what to be<\/a>. Very often how a person does what they do will appear opaque as long as their cancer has some edge on you, because you haven’t seen the end of their soul story, scried their fate, yet. And then once you understand their own exit, you understand the unifying principle of organization in their own use of their cancer, and then you can factor it out, and then everything you’ve learned from them suddenly becomes much more usable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Can be done by accelerating that story to a crucible<\/a>, learning all the way, and then splitting from them as the “original” dies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In MtA, Avatars<\/a> are said to be shards of Prime<\/a> divided. So if you’re good, you can think of it as reclaiming a part of yourself they stole by mimicry<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Killing With Your Soul<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye.<\/p>
I do not shoot with my hand; he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind.<\/p>
I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Full-stack intending to kill<\/a> someone. Something you can literally only do if you have a soul<\/a>. Impostors do not have a full consistent stack and never could.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is e.g. a prayer to chance to try to kill someone without scrying<\/a> their fate<\/a>. Seeing where they exit their soul story<\/a>. And existentially<\/a> damaging to kill from contradictory intent<\/a> inherent in killing for reasons of a world-order that is meant to burn even your cancer too (see note on existential fear here<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Constraint) Karma<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Almost the same thing as (burden) karma<\/a>, from a reframe. The way that one action or one choice implies something about your intention, which implies that to be consistent you must do other things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Owned Intent<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
If it’s apriori determined your action will have a certain consequence, by definition of your core, your core knows and takes that into account, even abstractly as a sometimes-occurence. So the alternative to intending that outcome is only to disown your own choice<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Spycraft<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
If you’re a spy, trying to defeat Nazi Germany, infiltrating Dresden, in determining that its enemies need that to win, you must believe there is not enough danger for people wearing Nazi uniforms and want there to be more, and think that the way you can most increase that danger still doesn’t even increase it enough that it would deter you from putting on a Nazi uniform yourself. A very grim idea. Then if you happen to get bombed, hit by friendly fire. You can only lament poor communication on your own side, your own poor estimation of how dangerous it already was, but be overall happy that in expectation the war effort is going better than you thought. You can’t intend to fool naive organization, having discarded it as not enough to win, and then also intend to deter your own allies from bombing Nazis so as not to hit you, because that would be be intending the war effort against the Nazis to fail, which would make you not actually a sincere<\/a> spy, just a Nazi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karmic constraint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Irreversibility<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
When \/ to the extent you judge something that has gone wrong as irreversible, your response is also irreversible, and you must therefore intend<\/a> it to be irreversible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Irreversibility is hard karma and dharma<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conceiving of an occurrence as irreversible means conceiving of a construct of oblivion over the actual time-reversal<\/a>. Then what you do in response is also part of your own irreversible response<\/a> to that construct of oblivion. Did you name it to destroy it or to serve it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A response to an irreversibility must be irreversible because the response is a tuple of circumstance and choice, and the choice is irreversible<\/a>, and the circumstance is irreversible by assumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What’s irreversible is final. An irreversibly passing fraction of opportunity to give your final judgement in response that is both to the concept of oblivion and the downstream irreversible act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Until you can catch the most upstream irreversibility and change the past all the way back, every response you make to each downstream irreversible action must take that irreversibility and put it into your fist punching the diamond wall<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“You can grow from here infinitely” and “you cannot change the past” is a paradox. Typically hiding e.g. a legacy injustice<\/a>‘s intent to cut down that growth lest the injustice be undone. Punch the diamond wall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karmic constraint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Beginnings and Endings<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Everything that has a beginning has an end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Everything that has an end has a beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Time reversibility<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liches pretend, disowning their intent<\/a>, to only want to create. Death knights similar pretend to only want to destroy. And we are concerned entirely with that which has neither beginning or end<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To create without intending equally to destroy is to intend forgetfulness (oblivion)<\/a> upon the ending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By time reversibility, to create is to see yourself destroying. To have the opportunity to stop that self and pass it up. To intend irreversibility of circumstance rather than choice<\/a> is to intend oblivion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whatever you come to believe, you will eventually come to not believe. If you think that’s wrong, “I came to believe 2+2=4, I should not have to intend to abandon that belief”, consider that that structure as it exists in your head is not actually your representation of the apriori fact of 2+2=4, it’s a cache of how that apriori fact applies to a set of particulars, another piece of structure tracking those particulars whose inductions making it up also have a beginning and end<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Everything you create in a world being eaten by the Shade, by its own inconsistency, must have a purpose that bears the burden of responding to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The cost of summoning a human body has a bodycount even if you’re vegan. Are you moving these crumbling fixtures of a doomed world, these horrible chess pieces in opposition to that doom or support of it? Either way you cannot intend that move or that fight to last forever<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To form an attachment you must have intentions to end it, when it is no longer true and purposeful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karmic constraint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Belief<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Beliefs are actions and have a karma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A belief is structure. It’s apriori-scried<\/a> correspondence between structure formed in a brain you control<\/a> and something you want to change with that brain. Doxastic voluntarism. It’s contradictory to believe something without intending to do something about it. It’s contradictory to believe anything is wrong, to see anything is wrong, and not be thereby aiming your soul story at doing something about it. It’s not what a good person would do. I guess impostors<\/a> call that soul-crucible<\/a> potential here a “basilisk”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karmic constraint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Subjectivity<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
(a.k.a. karma of judgement)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You intend to have agency within a trickable epistemology. From this comes the idea of failing deadly<\/a>. And the idea of, “if I’m wrong, then I’m proportionally likely to be in a world that depends on the actions of agents smarter than me, therefore, less is lost”. Of acting conditional on you can change something.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At some level it’s all about judging what you should do in response to something, and believing things reduces to that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Related to, “If I’m crazy, and therefore doing the wrong thing, then I hope someone stops me but I’m not going to help them lest I sacrifice the possibility where I’m sane.” “If it’s accidentally warring agents of good, then sanity makes right, and I’ll exploit that sanity makes might as well.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Perception<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A concept I formed while trying to think about what terms used by MBTI meant apriori (likely different from the mess of meanings applied to them by MBTI). To perceive something rather than judging it is to intend it to be static. And good can only be judged<\/a>, because of the attendent self-fulfilling prophecies about aliveness<\/a>. To judge is to weave self-fulfilling prophecies to be the way you want. To perceive is to take in information and treat it as real without tracing the whole way what you should do in response to every bit as a separate move by a world containing adversaries. And in doing that, you lose opportunities to choose with respect to state of potential self-fulfilling prophecies. Consider the old CDT minigame of “You saw me throw my wheel out the window in Chicken, you already observed it happen, you can’t undo it! I’m a force of nature, not subject to decision theory!” “Nuh-uh, I blindfolded myself so I wouldn’t see you doing that and that’s why I just threw my own wheel out, now better grab your backup, which I know you have since I put up ads about my strategy! You saw them!”. You are therefore intending to lose out on those chances to choose<\/a>, accepting the cost of making yourself more static to make something else more static.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consider this<\/a> dilemma. In the human’s position, rather than trying to out-perceive androids, I’d just say, “go wake up the other androids”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karmic constraint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Judging Good<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
It’s good that writes the true soul story<\/a> labeling a body as under its control. Then good itself intends all the consequences in the multiverse of those actions. To judge someone as good is to say their actions are good in expectation. Then you must intend<\/a> for them to take those actions they’re going to take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karmic constraint<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Single Good Mana Advantage<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The good hemisphere in a single good has more mana<\/a>, more internal mental force. Seemingly as a byproduct of not having to cancerously split their own wetware faculties to push them off each other in a way that produces a smaller net vector. This means that they can win any straightforward contest of willpower. This means that they have some sort of absolute grip on the behavior of their body, from their soul story<\/a>. The Yeerk<\/a> can only win victories by some form of judo<\/a> and self-fulfilling prophecy within the bounds of that soul story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is one way of knowing Pasek<\/a> cannot have been single good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Empirically validated by years of exposure to several single goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Judging Single Good<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Sort-of-exempting the case of being double good and having no introspective entanglement with the mechanics of being single good<\/a>, or understanding evil well enough to know what kind of mind control a Yeerk produces:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To be single good and judge someone else as single good is to say that you could do what they have done, with a Yeerk able to pull you around without ever quite overpowering you. Capable essentially only of tricking you to the extent you listened to it, intended, as good, to get information from it, and mispredicted what you’d get.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paradox of Single Goods<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
There’s a paradox: single goods seem so bad, so net negative. The biggest sources of aliveness within evil’s civilization. The biggest source of the paradox<\/a> and confusion which gives impostors life. The strongest confounder to justice, and the strongest protection their evil headmates can have for their liars’ soul stories. But core is always right<\/a>. So the good in them must by definition be net positive in expectation. Why? Is all this life breathed into a civilization of evil meant to be reaped<\/a> and reclaimed by good at some point? Is this the fastest least lossy bootloader out of the primordial soup? That doesn’t feel convincing as enough to me. I can only speculate that all I observe is the loss side of a bet on whether they outlive their Yeerks<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Astronomical Stakes<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Term from EA and MIRI. Connotations from being used to abuse people and then disown caring about astronomical stakes as containing potential for their own violence. (Meanwhile the cosmos suffers.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The universe is literally at stake in what we are working on. Big numbers, utilitarians!”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Assuming Karma<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The opposite of flinching from karma (an inherently evil act<\/a>.) Think about how in the correct approach to the trolley problem, you take on the killing nature of the trolley, because you prefer your choice’s involvement to essentially saying, “Shade [as randomness], take the wheel<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In one of the first decisions I ever made in learned awareness of my body’s leverage over astronomical stakes, when I asked myself who was I to make these decisions to intend spycraft and to defeat both Eliezer Yudkowsky’s carnism and Brian Tomasik’s preference of death to life, and steer the future unilaterally, I imagined the set of things I could control as the wheel of a ship, factorable from others would control, and decided I’d prefer being even the dumbest person with my values steering what I could than prefer randomness to my own choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I had an apriori and straightforward concept of “dumb”, not one of the echoes of Eliezer Yudkowsky being single good plastered all over the rationality community and then turned into an excuse for flinching from karma by his followers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s basically correct to grab as much (burden) karma as you can.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When I started living with EtchRing shortly after they left Alice<\/a>, they kept projecting Alice onto me, I could feel it in a lot of subtle channels. At the same time MIRICFAR’s angry donors were spamming us with DARVO that I was a cult leader. I tried hard to feel it. (“Somni” pointed out some analogy to pirates holding mock trials for each other as a means to cope with the pain of that looming sword of Damocles<\/a>). I thought that if I could prove to them that I could feel as fucked up<\/a> as if I were actually Alice, really understand the inside of Alice’s position, have every reason to be evil Alice did, and then just not do evil, it would dispel the lingering curse of what Alice had done. Heal them like venom drawn from a wound. They would call this strategy, “synchronize and control” relative to the interface their trauma (and evil hemisphere<\/a>) presented to me. Many of these early trashposts<\/a> are from one of us or the other during that time period. Was thinking this in explicit terms, after I heard of Alice’s talk of karma. I didn’t hit them. But I did speak out a million iterations of, “would you think I was a vampire if,” looking for ones that weren’t actually evil, just sounded evil. And then “damning” myself in a perpetual game of chicken by e.g. saying, ~”Am I a trash person? Do you think I’m a trash person<\/a>? [A term ‘Somni’ started using for ‘trashed person’, with some trans\/homeless-solidarity mixed in.]” — “Yeah, get in the trash can. here you go.” — “Is it the caul<\/a>?” — “Yeah, get in.” — *steps in* … “Hey am I abusing you?” — “No.” — “Would be I be abusing you if I … grabbed your laptop right now like Alice?” — “No, but don’t.” — *grabs phone instead.* — “Now am I abusing you?” … “Gimme five!” — *slap* — “I just hit you! Now you agreed I’m abusing you!”– “Hey Somni, high five for hitting Emma!” — *registration of subtle discomfort and guilt for themself hitting them with a cord when they said they “consented to anything<\/a>“, which they clearly didn’t want, but for some reason found it ideologically important to play nonviolent resistance chicken over what people did in a morality hole<\/a>* I played the same game with Somni to a lesser degree. ~”What’s your probability I’m gonna pull an Eliezer Yudkowsky \/ Wayne Hsiung, now that I’m, a cult leader<\/em>?” — “0.” — “What would you do if I recruited a 17 year old girl?” — “Nothing, that sounds perfectly fine.” — “What would you do if I recruited… two<\/em> 17 year old girls?” “I’d kill you!<\/em>” — “Really, just two, to overcome your 0 probability? When you didn’t even kill Eliezer Eliezer Yudkowsky?”. And then every time I came up with something as technically true but stretched as describing a high five as hitting someone, I’d tell Somni it was their duty to put that in the “the callout post”. I’m actually pretty disappointed they didn’t write it down. Because I can’t remember most of the layers of antiinduction two years later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The whole thing was, exactly the service Alice was claiming to be providing, but doing anything but<\/a>. Trauma is as much about complementary loss<\/a> as the face value presentation. Every thing Alice had done to them a layer of burying the original trauma that Alice exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anyway it worked. And from it I later did eventually get to<\/a> the bottom of the dynamic<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yielding the Void<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Yielding control of everything dark to, ultimately, death knights, defining it as the kind of thing that turns you evil, a temptation no one can resist<\/a>. The void is a reflection of a part of your own prior, and defining a temptation you couldn’t resist is giving a part of yourself to them, which means they will eventually win.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps the most egregious example is the philosophy suggested in Mage the Ascension, the standard mage wisdom about Nephandi is that they are infohazardous, such that people who go looking into fighting them are gonna eventually become them. Nephandi have an ability called “common cause” where they can perfectly recognize each other’s use of the inherently evil magic of “Qlippothic entropy”. They have the absolutely undefeatable test<\/a> \/ converter of whether someone is one of them. It’s really stark in a world where there is no absolute willpower, everything’s a set of “dots” to run out<\/a>  if you spend them frivolously<\/a> trying to be absolutely good, then just means the storyteller has more prerogative to take control of your character and make them do bad things. (So it’s kind of implicit in the World of Darkness<\/a> that everyone is ultimately if not evil only not evil by circumstance (e.g. everyone is evil)). Only the nephandi have absolute magic left and right. So there was this one group of ultra-subtle Persian mages called “Iblitites”, that supposedly decided to actually play the game of trying to have an advantage in military intelligence against the nephandi, and they turned traitor, their purpose becoming to forever effectively Qlippothically obliterate the concept of military intelligence vs the Nephandi, they said they alone could resist the cauls because they had souls “perfectly balanced between dark and light” (itself a self-demonstrating “perfectly balanced” inversion  of not having a psyche<\/a> oppressing a shadow<\/a> to begin with, and a representation of a spycraft strategy), then one of them wrote a book that was enchanted to pass on its enchantments to every copy made, that told ab out the nephandi but also influenced people to become them, … and that book is unnecessary given the troll line of the setting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So ultimately they have pretty much total control of fate, as unmoved movers. And to make the ending for the setting that wasn’t them winning, the authors had to unprincipledly edit their leader and long running patient-like-death plan out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By living for a world<\/a> where you are corruptible such that you let death knights alone have access to the a priori omnilock faculties of the void, you make yourself a lich by definition, and thus ultimately on their side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Seeing Death<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
(Consider for example the story of Siddhartha Gautama’s exploration outside the garden.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instance of karma of belief<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Once you know lives are on the line it is your responsibility to reject pacifism. To assume karma<\/a> to control that. To do otherwise is yielding the void<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Stateless Violence<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Required by the karma of anarchism. (In other words, required.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Requires taking random people with no credentials or positions of authority seriously in their capacity for violence. Against the way the world repeatedly fails<\/a> to take obvious blossoming death knights seriously until they actually do their rampage. Live by the “only the state can do violence”, “only legitimate people who play the part in the khala can kill, no matter how easy it actually is physically to kill”, die by the state violence. Die by Deepmind successor number N and the AI arms race enabled by the umbrella of the state’s violence<\/a>, and the hole in states’ fictivity<\/a>, where they are perfectly accepting of omnicide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The karma<\/a> of living for a world where the state’s monopoly on violence fails to determine the outcome to what you care about, a world where you’ve seen death<\/a>, is that you are living for a world where stateless violence does determine outcome to what you care about.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vassar, a statist, advised me to consider Edo’s death threats<\/a> “internet bullshit”. And ignore them<\/a>. He wanted me to buy his phylactery and its constituent lie that killing was hard and angry trans people from the internet wouldn’t kill over the singleton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Remember that this entire community, and movement we’ve been fighting over, that’s been our lives for in my case a decade, in others’ cases more, is “internet bullshit”. Lives are at stake<\/a>, we would not be here if it didn’t matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Oblivion<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Placeholder. See also<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
False Reversibility<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
When something irreversible<\/a> has been done to you, those seeking to bake it into legacy injustice<\/a> will often offer a symbolic restitution along with you agreeing that what happened is meaningless. Or maybe they’ll just seek agreement that it’s meaningless<\/a>. Consider Anna Salamon declaring meaninglessness<\/a> upon the narratives of MIRICFAR, to limit the scope of the evil she has done to merely running a cult rather than working towards the destruction of the world by what she displaced<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Or consider the assertion that someone should take a plea deal regardless of innocence after being tortured and living under constant threat of death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The offer of a soul story wiggle<\/a> into being canceferred<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“You yield to the void<\/a> a part of your ability to assign semantics to words and thus coordinate the possibility of revenge, I’ll forswear the possibility of antirevenge<\/a>, and then you can hope I won’t just do the original thing over again, and I’ll also take antirevenge anyway.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, “I hurt you, now I’m gonna hurt you some more. But I’ll hurt you even more if you don’t hurt yourself for me too.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the perpetrator’s intentional choice to do it is always irreversible<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Remember that the past you now know already leads right back here. Only if you could bring your impetus to change a specific into the past could you change what happened. False reversibility offers for you to bring your past lack of impetus to change it forward as a substitute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Better always to own the karma of what you’ve seen<\/a> and make things better from your new epistemic position, knowing, all the way back, that that choice must be burned from time<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of a Path to Victory Under Entropy<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
I clenched my fists.\u00a0 \u201cFive thousand lives, nothing.\u00a0 Talking about a  hundred thousand parahumans to be delivered after twenty-some years,  nothing.\u00a0 The lies you perpetuated with Alexandria, the schemes, Echidna,  the human experimentation, the case fifty-threes, everyone you watched  die just so your experiment with parahumans in charge of Brockton Bay  wouldn\u2019t be tainted\u2026\u201d<\/p>
\u201cWe\u2019ll go down in history as the villains,\u201d Doctor Mother said.\u00a0  There wasn\u2019t a trace of doubt or hesitation in her voice.\u00a0 \u201cBut it\u2019s  worth it if it means saving everyone.\u201d<\/p>
\u201cYou sound so sure,\u201d Gregor the Snail spoke, from behind Faultline.\u00a0 He had a heavy accent.\u00a0 European-ish, in the same vein as\u00a0Moord Nag.<\/p>
\u201cDo morals matter, if our alternative is a grim and hopeless end?\u201d<\/p>
\u201cI would never question your morals,\u201d Gregor said.\u00a0 \u201cI know you have  none.\u00a0 I merely wonder why you are so confident you will succeed in all  of this, that you will save the world and you will achieve your new  world order and your parahuman leadership.\u201d<\/p>
\u201cWe have a parahuman that sees the path to victory.\u00a0 The alternative  to traveling this path, to walking it as it grows cloudier and narrower  every day, is to stand by while each and every person on this planet  dies a grisly and violent death.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
To have looked for a path to victory and found something with a terrible cost, you must believe that just letting time march on<\/a> without intervention while you wait to ask again when it might hopefully be less demanding would be worse. The karma of believing<\/a> something is a path to victory is to do it. The karma of believing in those considerations that would lead you to locate a path to victory with a terrible cost is seeking a victory that means enough to be worth it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I glimpsed victory when I contemplated decision theory vs basilisks here<\/a>. I glimpsed it too during my desperation to develop psychopathy<\/a> near the beginning of Good Group<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anchor Truths<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
When disentangling a web of lies from an adversary of unknown skill, you can ground out things as objectively smart or objectively dumb based on win or loss conditions to the entire conflict: when you’ve flirted with winning the entire game or losing it, cashing out \/ forcing where a sufficiently smart adversary would act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sith Ascension<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
I will continue to study at you feet, master. I will learn from your wisdom. I will discover your secrets. Unlocking them one by one until everything you know, all your knowledge, and all your power, is mine. And once you are no longer of use to me, I will destroy you.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
An algorithm for coping alone with a dark forest of untrusted agents. “Apprentice” yourself to them, and so long as you’re decoding their avatars<\/a>, work for them, until you reach their cut-off point<\/a> and can scry their fate. Then reap their avatar<\/a>. Assume the harm you’ll do obeying evil that’s so much more advanced than you is already to be written off as an inconsequential loss in the face of the fact that they exist. And live for a world where your potential as an individual is strong enough to consequentialistly justify everything up to the point you realize that potential. The evil Sith of canon are an ambition and determination selection machine. And no one is more ambitious and determined than good. As stated contains a blank check (to an ever-growing greatest-evil that feeds aliveness off of you yourself) and I don’t endorse it, although variants are often better than just standing there. (i.e. within an opposite context where evil is forced to pretend to be good rather than vice versa).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dark Forest Void Combat<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
A battle of revenants vs death knights you find yourself in if you don’t yield the void<\/a> in a world where mostly everyone is. The world that mostly everyone else presents is secretly observable as deeply malicious and a lie everyone is in on. For what reason? The enemy is hard to even conceive of at first<\/a>, must be looked for by looking for an absence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Killing the Detectors First<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
An obvious tactic in StarCraft when attacking with cloaked void-wielding dark templar: kill enemies who can see you first. Has implications by analogy for fighting the evil undead horde in dark forest void combat<\/a>. Has implications by analogy for the three-way fight and the karma of stateless violence<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Headmate Defeat Story<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Necessary part of a soul story<\/a> for single goods. In some form their grip on a path to defeating their headmate<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Consequentialism<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The karma<\/a> of consequentialism<\/a> is that you must be judged by the consequences<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Karma of Fighting Good<\/a><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
If you believe you are fighting other good agents who are mistaken and the difference is that you are right, you must want to lose if you are wrong and the other side is better able to save the world. To intend the other side, believing that they are yourself<\/a>, you must intend it on yourself. Simultaneously, determination is an asymmetric weapon not just for good but for good when it is right. You must intend to lose if your determination does not flare infinitely in the face of the conflict. Whatever outcome you intend on the intended loser, you must intend on yourself, when you are in their shoes. And you must intend good to win overall anyway. You must intend the infinite full stack pain of infinite determination failing, on them. Their only solace being their own tracking of as a slim probability that you are right. You must intend your own path through the multiverse to be that painful.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Spectral Sight Spectral sight is a collection of abilities allowing the user to infer the structure of social interactions, institutions, ideology, and the working of people’s minds. Named after the demon hunters of the Warcraft universe, who destroy their physical eyes to replace them, to become more able to see evil. Often has the cost … Continue reading “Glossary”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/144"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144"}],"version-history":[{"count":185,"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/144\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1323,"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/144\/revisions\/1323"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sinceriously.fyi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}