Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: roland 20 November 2017 12:40:21PM *  0 points [-]
Comment author: kimberchoi 19 November 2017 02:02:56PM 0 points [-]

Interesting discussion. Does knowledge drive action? Perhaps, but what type of knowledge and how much certainty is sufficient to overcome akrasia? I am reminded of Hamlet's "To be or not to be.." Act 3 scene 1 of "Hamlet." When does knowledge itself become the justification of akrasia?

Comment author: pmw7070 13 November 2017 06:16:37PM 1 point [-]

That's really broadening the term 'irrational.' Irrational is not synonym for 'not good' or 'not preferred,' it just means not rational or not logical. There may be lots of rational choices, some of which may be better or worse than others - but all rational. Irrational MIGHT BE (loosely) short for 'that doesn't make sense,' or better, 'that's not logical.'

The bucket analog as illustrated seems to me more pointing at a faulty basis than irrational thinking. The budding author clearly linked spelling with being allowed to pursue writing that ends up in a successful career, and he has a point. An author cannot be successful without an audience; a piece where one continually has to stop and interpret badly spelled words is likely not going to have a good audience. There is a clear rationale. The faulty basis is more related to the student having a picture of being a successful author (1) at this stage in life, and (2) without discipline and development. The false basis in the picture is linking 'am I allowed to pursue writing ambition' with misspelling a word.

Comment author: Caspar42 11 November 2017 08:56:34AM *  0 points [-]

Great post, obviously.

You argue that signaling often leads to distribution of intellectual positions following this pattern: in favor of X with simple arguments / in favor of Y with complex arguments / in favor of something like X with simple arguments

I think it’s worth noting that the pattern of position often looks different. For example, there is: in favor of X with simple arguments / in favor of Y with complex arguments / in favor of something like X with surprising and even more sophisticated and hard-to-understand arguments

In fact, I think many of your examples follow the latter pattern. For example, the market efficiency arguments in favor of libertarianism seem harder-to-understand and more sophisticated than most arguments for liberalism. Maybe it fits your pattern better if libertarianism is justified purely on the basis of expert opinion.

Similarly, the justification for the “meta-contrarian” position in "don't care about Africa / give aid to Africa / don't give aid to Africa" is more sophisticated than the reasons for the contrarian or naive positions.

But as has been pointed out, along with the gigantic cost, death does have a few small benefits. It lowers overpopulation, it allows the new generation to develop free from interference by their elders, it provides motivation to get things done quickly.

I’m not sure whether the overpopulation is a good example. I think in many circles that point would signal naivety and people would respond by something deep-sounding about how life is sacred. (The same is true for “it’s good if old people die because that saves money and allows the government to build more schools”.) Here, too, I would argue that your pattern doesn’t quite describe the set of commonly held positions, as it omits the naive pro-death position.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 10 November 2017 02:05:13PM 0 points [-]

Exactly. "The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist." Let's reword that. "The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING 'undecatillion swarms of quarks' not having any beliefs, with a belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist that only exists in the undecatillion swarms of quarks's mind."

There seems to be a logic problem there.

In response to comment by rkyeun on Reductionism
Comment author: TheAncientGeek 10 November 2017 10:31:22AM 2 points [-]

That observation runs headlong into the problem, rather than solving it.

Comment author: AndyC 09 November 2017 10:53:18AM *  0 points [-]

If it requires a round-trip of human speech through a professor (and thus the requisition of the attention of the entire class) then you can hardly say they are given as many opportunities to test as they'd like. A person of functioning social intelligence certainly has no more than 20 such round-trips available consecutively, and less conservatively even 4 might be pushing it for many.

Give them a computer program to interact with and <i>then</i> you can say they have as many opportunities to test as they'd like.

Comment author: Ixiel 09 November 2017 10:22:51AM 0 points [-]

It seems to not be sending me the reset e-mail. I requested twice last night, separated by five minutes. I'll PM Hab, just in case the system forgot my e-mail address, but still a problem if so that there is no message to that effect..

Comment author: DragonGod 08 November 2017 06:47:22PM 0 points [-]

I think he was talking to pdf23ds.

Comment author: DragonGod 08 November 2017 04:23:46PM 0 points [-]

There is no machine in the ghost.

Comment author: DragonGod 08 November 2017 04:21:20PM 0 points [-]

Completely misses the point.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 05 November 2017 11:13:59PM 0 points [-]

I think that someone who merely believed they were happy, and then experienced real happiness, would not want to go back.

Comment author: Habryka 31 October 2017 11:56:41PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that's a bug. I am planning to remove the whole website field soon anyways.

Comment author: korin43 31 October 2017 10:03:35PM 0 points [-]

Woo!

Also if anyone else gets a "schema validation error" when changing this setting, remove the "Website" from your profile: https://github.com/Discordius/Lesswrong2/issues/225

Comment author: Multipartite 27 October 2017 02:05:06AM *  0 points [-]

Running through this to check that my wetware handles it consistently.

Paying -100 if asked:

When the coin is flipped, one's probability branch splits into a 0.5 of oneself in the 'simulation' branch, 0.5 in the 'real' branch. For the 0.5 in the real branch, upon awaking a subjective 50% probability that on either of the two possible days, both of which will be woken on. So, 0.5 of the time waking in simulation, 0.25 waking in real 1, 0.25 waking in real 2.

0.5 x (260) + 0.25 x (-100) + 0.25 x (-100) = 80. However, this is the expected cash-balance change over the course of a single choice, and doesn't take into account that Omega is waking you multiple times for the worse choice.

An equation for relating choice made to expected gain/loss at the end of the experiment doesn't ask 'What is my expected loss according to which day in reality I might be waking up in?', but rather only 'What is my expected loss according to which branch of the coin toss I'm in?' 0.5 x (260) + 0.5 x (-100-100) = 30.

Another way of putting it: 0.5 x (260) + 0.25 x (-100(-100)) + 0.25 x (-100(-100)) = 30 (Given that making one choice in a 0.25 branch guarantees the same choice made, separated by a memory-partition; either you've already made the choice and don't remember it, or you're going to make the choice and won't remember this one, for a given choice that the expected gain/loss is being calculated for. The '-100' is the immediate choice that you will remember (or won't remember), the '(-100)' is the partition-separated choice that you don't remember (or will remember).)

--Trying to see what this looks like for an indefinite number of reality wakings: 0.5 * (260) + n x (1/n) x (1/2) x (-100 x n) = 130 - (50 x n), which of the form that might be expected.

(Edit: As with reddit, frustrating that line breaks behave differently in the commenting field and the posted comment.)

Comment author: trickster 22 October 2017 05:08:18PM *  0 points [-]

No, you don't need update you assumption. If clever arguer choose to argue about what box is contained a diamond - and not bet his own money on that..... It is sure sign that he have absolutely no idea about this, so all his speeches also just can't contain a usefull information, only total bullshit. It is like updating your beliefs about future fliping a coin. Coin just don't contain information about future- therefore useless for predicting. Also with clever arguer.

I try put it in other words. Arguer is clever. He doesn't sure what box is containing a diamond- i.e. he believe in 50/50. Else- he just bouth box, that he think contain diamond. He has a more information about box, then you. So, how you can think that you have more certain data, that one box contain a diamond -than arguer, if you have less information than he?

Also, I wonder - if somebody hired two clever arguers, one of them will persuaded one person, that diamond in the left box, and the other will argue to second person that diamond in the right box. And clever arguers is so good, that they victims almost sure in that... Isn't it almost as creating new diamond out of air ?

Comment author: adjuant 22 October 2017 10:32:58AM *  1 point [-]

I think that the core of religion—that is to say, Christianity—consists of all the things that human beings ought to do.

Our purpose, both in the particular and universal sense, and our ultimate destination.

Comment author: Habryka 19 October 2017 04:22:00AM 2 points [-]

You can now also deactivate Intercom on your profile. I really wish Intercom wouldn't do the horrible thing with the tab-title.

In response to comment by Ray on Applause Lights
Comment author: Kevin92 18 October 2017 08:35:07PM 1 point [-]

I voted for Justin Trudeau but DAMN! Listen to his speeches! They're terrible!

Comment author: Fulmenius 18 October 2017 07:58:28PM 1 point [-]

Im sorry for being slowpoke, but this text contains phrase "But humanity uses gamete selection," said the Lady Sensory. "We aren't evolving any slower. If anything, choosing among millions of sperm and hundreds of eggs gives us much stronger selection pressures" Maybe I dont understand something, but in my view this phrase is biologically incorrect. Phenotype of a spermatozoon is usually determined by father's diploid DNA (if we dont examine such things as meyotic drive genes etc), so any competition between one's spermatozoons is a competition between the same genes, wich cant create any selection pressure. Also even if such pressure existed, it could only lead to spermatozoons' structure evolution and could not help to adapt to external enviroment. I also apologize for my English.

View more: Next