3 ms·

well, you always had those two problems, it's just more apparent this way.

mistermann 4y ago
There is more than one way to have a problem though: with awareness of it, or not. And then within that binary there is...what? A spectrum? So goes the saying. But what if that much better representation is just starting to climb the curve of competence/complexity? Is it highly unlikely that humanity might some time in the next couple hundred years look back at us and shake their heads about how simplistic and naive we are, and I include the so-called "experts" in that. Is it impossible that there's something that no one sees? Or maybe even more complex than that? Well, it's possible a species would not find such a thing, because it never thought to look for it. Perhaps too busy looking for other things, of questionable utility.
- clairity 4y ago
  for sure there will be a subset of humanity looking back and shaking their heads, and some of them will even have legitimate reasons for doing so. for instance, our brazenness around (bio-)chemistry, given that we are at the very beginning of that vast learning curve. that includes drugs, synthetic materials, fuels, combustion byproducts, you name it. but yes, it's highly unlikely that they could shake their heads at every instance of today's ignorance and hubris in totality.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > for sure there will be a subset of humanity looking back and shaking their heads Maybe that subset could be us! > but yes, it's highly unlikely that they could shake their heads at every instance of today's ignorance and hubris in totality. Why not? Can you not do this?
    - clairity 4y ago
      i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively impossible. but they could perhaps hit a hundred. in any case, the hard part is not finding candidates but culling them down, analogous to the halting problem (or the bullshit asymmetry problem). is it an infinite calculation? probably. and this thread has dropped pretty far into the archives, so i think it might be time to retire it. perhaps we can continue in a future thread.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively impossible. but they could perhaps hit a hundred. My motto is: aim for adequacy, not perfection. > in any case, the hard part is not finding candidates but culling them down, analogous to the halting problem (or the bullshit asymmetry problem). is it an infinite calculation? probably. Maybe. But also: maybe not! > and this thread has dropped pretty far into the archives, so i think it might be time to retire it. perhaps we can continue in a future thread. Haha, not a bad idea...I enjoyed the conversation, a breath of fresh air for HN.

There is more than one way to have a problem though: with awareness of it, or not. And then within that binary there is...what? A spectrum? So goes the saying. But what if that much better representation is just starting to climb the curve of competence/complexity? Is it highly unlikely that humanity might some time in the next couple hundred years look back at us and shake their heads about how simplistic and naive we are, and I include the so-called "experts" in that. Is it impossible that there's something that no one sees? Or maybe even more complex than that? Well, it's possible a species would not find such a thing, because it never thought to look for it. Perhaps too busy looking for other things, of questionable utility.

clairity 4y ago
for sure there will be a subset of humanity looking back and shaking their heads, and some of them will even have legitimate reasons for doing so. for instance, our brazenness around (bio-)chemistry, given that we are at the very beginning of that vast learning curve. that includes drugs, synthetic materials, fuels, combustion byproducts, you name it. but yes, it's highly unlikely that they could shake their heads at every instance of today's ignorance and hubris in totality.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > for sure there will be a subset of humanity looking back and shaking their heads Maybe that subset could be us! > but yes, it's highly unlikely that they could shake their heads at every instance of today's ignorance and hubris in totality. Why not? Can you not do this?
  - clairity 4y ago
    i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively impossible. but they could perhaps hit a hundred. in any case, the hard part is not finding candidates but culling them down, analogous to the halting problem (or the bullshit asymmetry problem). is it an infinite calculation? probably. and this thread has dropped pretty far into the archives, so i think it might be time to retire it. perhaps we can continue in a future thread.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > i just meant that no future population will see each and every foible we exhibit perfectly, because that's like hitting a trillion heads in a row. effectively impossible. but they could perhaps hit a hundred. My motto is: aim for adequacy, not perfection. > in any case, the hard part is not finding candidates but culling them down, analogous to the halting problem (or the bullshit asymmetry problem). is it an infinite calculation? probably. Maybe. But also: maybe not! > and this thread has dropped pretty far into the archives, so i think it might be time to retire it. perhaps we can continue in a future thread. Haha, not a bad idea...I enjoyed the conversation, a breath of fresh air for HN.