Forgotten Party

If you go to a party, and the next morning you’ve forgotten the entire night, has anybody died?

Seems like a silly question, doesn’t it?

What if before the party, you take a drug that causes amnesia? This time, you know in advance that you’ll forget the party after it’s over. When you take the drug, do you feel like you’re killing yourself?

I’m betting your answer hasn’t changed, so let’s make things a little more interesting. This time, we first make a perfect copy of you (it doesn’t matter how; let’s say a magic spell). One copy takes a pill that causes a dreamless sleep, and the other takes the memory-loss pill and then goes to the party.

Both copies would wake up feeling exactly the same (let’s say the spell also makes them immune to hangovers), with no memory of the night before. If the pills both look the same and we moved you to different beds while you were asleep, you wouldn’t even know which copy you were upon waking; both sets of memories would be identical.

With me so far? All right, here’s the twist: one of the pills was fatal. One copy wakes up, the other never does.

Is that death?

The obvious answer, of course, is yes: before the party there are two beating hearts, the next morning there’s only one, and since 2 > 1 someone must have died. But the obvious answer isn’t always the correct one–a beating heart isn’t what we really value!

Human life is what we value. What if some incredible future technology allows people to survive without a heart? Or without any body at all? How will we decide what “death” is, when biology becomes unnecessary? Would that future method say that, in fact, no one has died in the final version of our thought experiment?

The obvious answer isn’t always wrong, either–it sure feels like something has been lost when your clone never wakes up. But what, exactly?

I’ll post a follow-up that proposes an answer to that question, but while you mull over your own answer here are a few other nuggets to chew on:

  • Imagine that after the copy has died, we make another copy of the survivor and switch that one out for the dead one. Now the end result is indistinguishable from a version where neither pill was fatal and both copies live–if nobody told you, you would never even know which version you’d experienced! Has there still been a death?
  • Would you be hesitant to take the pill, knowing there’s a 50/50 chance you’ll die? Would you still be hesitant in the variation where the survivor gets copied again?
  • What if someone offered to pay the surviving copy a million dollars if you both take the pill, but if either of you refuse you get nothing? Would taking the pill be worth it then?
  • What if they offered a billion dollars? How much would be enough?
  • If the clone’s death is bad because their existence was valuable in itself, would three clones be even better? If not, how can something valuable be lost without first being created? If yes, how many copies is too many? Should we clone everyone?
  • What if it isn’t clones–what if each new person is unique? Would it be good to create as many people as possible? How many is “as many as possible?” Is a trillion people leading lives barely worth living, better than a million leading lives of joy and fulfillment? If the latter is better, would just one person leading the best life possible be better still? If more people isn’t always good, what makes death bad?

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Why Am I Like This, pt. IV

Nobody:

Me: *joins casual conversation about shoe preferences on work chat*

Me: *sweats, heart rate increases*

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging

Funny?

It always feels so weird when I tag my own posts “funny.” I know it helps readers find your stuff and it’s standard practice or whatever, and I try not to let it bother me, but it seems really presumptuous, you know? Like, how do you know this is funny, dude? Did you take a survey??

Really, it should be “I think this is funny” or “attempt at being funny,” but I’m guessing that wouldn’t SEO so good.

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging

Me, Myself, and Why

It’s so frustrating when another person keeps popping up in your thoughts uninvited, just to upset you. It’s like, you want to be mad at them, but you can’t, because the only person actually inside your head is you??

Leave myself alone, jerk!

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging

Cutie

(content note: jumping spider)

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging

Correlation

Is it just me, or is the attractiveness of a motorcycle directly correlated with the attractiveness of its rider? Like, it seems like choppers and Harleys are always driven by leathery old dudes with scruffy beards and a gut, while sexy crotch rockets like these two are way more likely to be driven by–well, sexy crotch rockets like these two:

An attractive woman wearing black clothes and a white helmet, sitting on a rose gold Yamaha R6 motorcycle.
🚀

I suppose it could just be that the latter also seem more likely to be wearing protective gear. Intelligence is sexy, too!

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays, Microblogging

It Bears Repeating

Take care of yourself.

Because you–yes, you–are precious, and deserve to be taken care of.

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging

Remembering the Basics

A few weeks ago I was feeling pretty down. Now, there were definitely other reasons for my low mood, but after a little while I realized that part of the problem was I’d been neglecting things like eating food, drinking water, and sleeping.

Remembering to do those things didn’t make my problems disappear. But it definitely made it easier to handle them!

Here’s the thing: food, water, and sleep are the fundamentals of self-care. They’re the very first things you should try when there’s a problem, like making sure an appliance that’s not working is plugged in, or checking to see if caps lock is on when your password isn’t working. So why did I neglect them for so long when I needed them so badly?

Unfortunately, it wasn’t a coincidence.

There’s a common type of advice in nearly every field that boils down to something like “don’t neglect the basics.” In sports, it’s “keep your eye on the ball;” in business, there’s “make something people want;” in art, “practice makes perfect;” science has “test your hypotheses;” and in the rationality community we have “read the sequences.”1

Why is it so common to hear advice that basically boils down to “Hey, remember the very first things you learned? Y’know, all the easiest stuff that you’ve practiced a million times? Be sure not to forget it!” It seems like telling a Math Olympian not to forget that 2+2=4.

There are two reasons for this. The first is straightforward: the simplest and earliest lessons are also the most important. This is easiest to see in sports: if both you and your opponent have mastered the basics, the victor is determined by your mastery of the more advanced techniques.2 But if you flub the basics, your opponent can generally crush you without breaking a sweat.

“What does you in is not failure to apply some high-level, intricate, complicated technique. It’s overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the ball.” -Jerry Cleaver (as quoted here)

The second reason is more subtle. When are you most likely to forget the basics? Probably not when you’re relaxed, well-rested, and focused–but if you’re under stress, pressed for time, tired, hungry, distracted? That’s when you’re most likely to make simple mistakes (like forgetting to drink water when you’re in a funk).

Of course, those are also the times when you’ll get the most benefit out of low-effort, high-impact fixes. Hence, the common advice.

So here’s my self-care tip of the day: don’t forget the basics. Stay hydrated, eat healthy, get rest, exercise as much as you’re able. Most importantly, when you know that forgetting the basics isn’t the main problem, take extra care to remember them anyway. It won’t make your problem go away, but it will make it easier to handle.

Joy and health to you all.


  1. You may be wondering why our “basics” is literally an entire alphabet of volumes. The answer should probably be its own essay, but the footnote version is that (a) rationality is such a young field that pretty much the whole thing is basics (there are no fancy high-level techniques, or at least very few), (b) the majority of those basics consist of un-learning habits and intuitions that are either inborn or cultural, and (c) the majority of what remains is stuff so basic that in other fields it’s learned in childhood–less “keep your eye on the ball” and more “a ‘ball’ is a spherical object, held in the hand and used for sport or play (though there are exceptions, notably…” ↩︎
  2. Actually, the dirty secret of televised sports is that the more exciting and high-level the game, the more likely it is that the outcome will be determined by sheer luck. Sufficiently advanced technique is indistinguishable from superstition. ↩︎

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Why Am I Like This, pt. III

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging

Wedge Antilles

I’m no expert, but I suspect Wedge Antilles may be one of the most underrated characters in the entire Star Wars canon.

Wedge Antilles in the cockpit of his X-wing.
“Look at the size of that thing!”

The original three films were my favorite movies growing up. I must have watched the whole trilogy dozens of times over, but I didn’t even realize Wedge was a recurring character until I re-watched them with my own children. I’d thought “Wedge” was a call sign or something.

But no, the Wedge in A New Hope that makes the run on the Death Star with Luke (and saves his butt from a TIE fighter) is the same character who flies into the second Death Star with Lando Calrissian in Return of the Jedi (after saving a bunch of other pilots’ butts from TIE fighters)–not to mention his feats on Hoth. What a freaking badass!

Wedge destroying the power regulator on the north tower.
“Copy, gold leader. I’m already on my way out.”

Maybe the reason I didn’t notice sooner is because I didn’t pay as much attention to the characters in my stories back then. (It may have also had something to do with the fact that the spaceships were one of my favorite parts of those films–often irrespective of what they were actually doing, let alone who was flying them!) His characterization is understated enough that it would have been easy for me to miss. But he really is an actual character! He doesn’t have a ton of dialogue, but we have enough to tell he’s brave, modest, calm under pressure, supportive of his squadmates, and has excellent tactical sense, in addition to being an ace pilot.

…That’s it, that’s the whole post. Sorry, I just wanted to gush about my new geek crush for a bit. See you tomorrow!

Leave a comment

Filed under Microblogging, Reviews