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

Comment author: Caspar42 02 February 2018 04:03:03PM 0 points [-]

I tried to run this with racket and #lang scheme (as well as #lang racket) but didn't get it to work (though I didn't try for very long), perhaps because of backward compatibility issues. This is a bit unfortunate because it makes it harder for people interested in this topic to profit from the results and submitted programs of this tournament. Maybe you or Alex could write a brief description of how one could get the program tournament to run?

Comment author: MathieuRoy 27 January 2018 09:48:24AM 0 points [-]

the link is broken

Comment author: cousin_it 27 January 2018 09:36:08AM *  1 point [-]

What a beautiful comment!

Every once in a while I wonder if something like Eliezer's Lawful Creativity is true - that creativity can be reduced to following rules. And then I come across something like your comment, where a non-obvious "jump" leads to a clearly true conclusion. For humans trying to create new stuff, practicing such "jumps" is at least as important as learning the rules.

Comment author: cousin_it 23 January 2018 10:33:15AM *  0 points [-]

How come we never see anything physical that behaves like any of of the non-standard models of first order PA?

Qiaochu's answer: because PA isn't unique. There are other (stronger/weaker) axiomatizations of natural numbers that would lead to other nonstandard models. I don't think that answer works, because we don't see nonstandard models of these other theories either.

wedrifid's answer: because PA was designed to talk about natural numbers, not other things in reality that humans can tell apart from natural numbers.

My answer: because PA was designed to talk about natural numbers, and we provably did a good job. PA has many models, but only one computable model. Since reality seems to be computable, we don't expect to see nonstandard models of PA in reality. (Though that leaves the mystery of whether/why reality is computable.)

Comment author: pjeby 22 January 2018 09:46:37PM 1 point [-]

I think that using the word "valuing" adds back in confusion that this trichotomy is trying to remove. Wanting is the axis of urgency to act or not act, liking is the axis of feeling enjoyment or suffering, and approving is the axis of feeling morally elevated or disgusted. These are independent axes that can exist simultaneously regardless of time, and which are only made more vague by lumping them together as "valuing".

(Notably, one's experience can be placed simultaneously on all three axes: it is not necessary for these experiences to be separated in time. You can approve or disapprove beforehand and during, not just after. You can want while doing, as well as beforehand.)

Comment author: trickster 21 January 2018 05:58:27PM 0 points [-]

''Assign a dollar value to punitive damages''' - does this corelated with the ammount of money, that peoples, who responded to this earn? It look plausible that people who earn more can assign a highely money punishement for body harm

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 17 January 2018 01:38:50PM 0 points [-]

Would buying him the first round count? ;-)

Comment author: cousin_it 17 January 2018 01:19:15PM *  2 points [-]

It seems like the trichotomy is complete: wanting/liking/approving is valuing something before/while/after it happens.

Comment author: 333kenshin 09 January 2018 09:33:57AM *  0 points [-]

OK only 7 years late to this thread, but feel I've got a much more apt analogous exercise for a woman, which would be for her to take an assertive role (eg articulate strategy, awarding credit for work done, and delegating tasks) at a workplace meeting in which she is neither the organizer nor the highest ranked attendee. Bonus points if male attendees leave without the feeling she was being "bossy"

In response to Modularity and Buzzy
Comment author: Gharveyn 09 January 2018 07:32:06AM 0 points [-]


Libet says that in ”the traditional view of conscious will”, conscious will would appear at the onset or before brain activity. But "before" is impossible. The module that's making the decision to move the wrist is a part of the brain, and it has to have some physical existence. There's just no way that the conscious decision could come before the brain activity.

What if the accepted intuition regarding the relationships of our minds and bodies is wrong? What if our minds act through our brains to control our bodies, but are really independent of any particular physical body?

If it is true that there are many alternate reality universes, then perhaps we have multiple iterations of instances of our specific, personal dna sequences; the physical organisms encoded by our dna sequences in different universes may be collectivized by groups of minds sharing similar senses of identity including similar physical traits distributed across a spectrum of alternate realities.

To our own ways of seeing things, we each have many bodies sharing many minds distributed across many universes. It appears (to ourselves) as if our minds resemble energetic fields 'attuned' to our specific physical organisms, but capable of read/write/command operations across a spectrum of other organisms, such that those organisms most resembling 'our own' organisms are the easiest for us to operate.

Then, as we see it, it may be possible to have the will to do something before we can locate a brain/body able to act in response to our will.


Comment author: Gharveyn 09 January 2018 06:00:23AM *  0 points [-]

Hi Toonalfrink, Status seeking appears to have its origins in infancy, consequently it is a fundamental form of cognitive behavior that can only be changed with sincere diligence and perseverance. Status confirmation rewards begin with early parental approval, and because it is a rewarding behavior, status seeking can resemble an addictive behavior.

Perhaps, in extreme cases there are people who may become addicted to their own hormones produced in response to the social and material privileges awarded to their status.

Like many behaviors, status seeking may become habituated, unconscious behavior.

Fortunately, many members of most societies often recognize inappropriate bids for approval or reward and may respond by chiding or punishing; however, the flip side is that punishment can become a form of status seeking gratification.

Even if a person feels as if status of any sort is deplorable or undesirable, they will most likely, at times, revert to status seeking behaviors, particularly when stressed.

Oddly enough, declaring status seeking to be deplorable can be a form of seeking status.

And yes, please, lets try to treat and regard all other people as equals, not only with regard to status, but in all other dimensions of existence, such as intelligence, security, justice, health care, finance, employment, and other resources.

Gung ho! We're all in this fix together, for better or worse.


In response to comment by rkyeun on Reductionism
Comment author: entirelyuseless 06 January 2018 01:26:22AM 1 point [-]

Nope. There is no composition fallacy where there is no composition. I am replying to your position, not to mine.

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 January 2018 07:37:47PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think so - I think Eliezer's just being sloppy here. "God did a miracle" is supposed to be an example of something that sounds simple in plain English but is actually complex:

One observes that the length of an English sentence is not a good way to measure "complexity". [...] An enormous bolt of electricity comes out of the sky and hits something, and the Norse tribesfolk say, "Maybe a really powerful agent was angry and threw a lightning bolt." The human brain is the most complex artifact in the known universe. [...] The complexity of anger, and indeed the complexity of intelligence, was glossed over by the humans who hypothesized Thor the thunder-agent.

To a human, Maxwell's Equations take much longer to explain than Thor.

In response to Timeless Identity
Comment author: SafeAtLast 05 January 2018 03:48:22PM *  0 points [-]

I cannot experience what future me will experience, not even what past me experienced. I cannot experience what my hypothetical copy experiences. The configuration that leads to my identity is not important. The only thing I can value and preserve is what I experience now.

Why should I care about a copy of me? Invest on a resurrected version of myself?

Comment author: EllaDeker 05 January 2018 12:46:26PM *  0 points [-]

I think it's interesting topics for research papers, I've read something like that here: https://essays-service.com/blog/540-argumentative-essay-topics. It's great that students conduct similar studies. There are currently no qualitative content that is interesting to learn.

In response to comment by Unknown3 on Circular Altruism
Comment author: RST 29 December 2017 05:06:01PM *  0 points [-]

Suppose that the qualitative difference is between bearable and unbearable, in other words things that are over o below the pain tolerance. A pain just below pain tolerance when experienced for a small quantity of time will remain bearable; however, if it is prolonged for lots of time it will become unbearable because human patience is limited. So, even if we give importance to qualitative differences, we can still choose to avoid torture and your scenario, without going against our intuitions, or be incoherent. Now, let's assume that the time will be quite short (5 second for example), in this case I think it is really better to let billions of people suffer 5 second of bearable pain than to let one person suffer 5 second of unbearable pain. After all, people can stand a bearable pain by definition. However, pain tolerance is subjective and in real life we don't know exactly where the threshold is in every person, so we can prefer, as heuristic rule, the option with less people involved when the pains are similar to each other (maybe we have evolved some system to make such approximations, a sort of threshold insensitivity).

Comment author: Kevin 28 December 2017 10:28:24AM 0 points [-]

The idea that Bayes Camp could have been the most awesome thing at Burning Man is funny to me, looking back on this.

In response to comment by rkyeun on Magical Categories
Comment author: g_pepper 26 December 2017 11:08:26PM *  0 points [-]

I would be very surprised to find that a universe whose particles are arranged to maximize objective good would also contain unpaired sadists and masochists.

The problem is that neither you nor BrianPansky has proposed a viable objective standard for goodness. BrianPansky said that good is that which satisfies desires, but proposed no objective method for mediating conflicting desires. And here you said “Do remember that your thoughts and preference on ethics are themselves an arrangement of particles to be solved” but proposed no way for resolving conflicts between different people’s ethical preferences. Even if satisfying desires were an otherwise reasonable standard for goodness, it is not an objective standard, since different people may have different desires. Similarly, different people may have different ethical preferences, so an individual’s ethical preference would not be an objective standard either, even if it were otherwise a reasonable standard.

You seem to be asking a question of the form, "But if we take all the evil out of the universe, what about evil?"

No, I am not asking that. I am pointing out that neither your standard nor BrianPansky’s standard is objective. Therefore neither can be used to determine what would constitute an objectively maximally good universe nor could either be used to take all evil out of the universe, nor even to objectively identify evil.

In response to How to Be Happy
Comment author: ArthurRainbow 26 December 2017 02:01:35PM 0 points [-]

The link "http://www.bradp.com/brads-fashion-bible is broken. While it seems to be a self help link, it's not fashion related at all. It seems to be just pick up artist trick

Comment author: rkyeun 26 December 2017 10:28:03AM *  0 points [-]

I would be very surprised to find that a universe whose particles are arranged to maximize objective good would also contain unpaired sadists and masochists. You seem to be asking a question of the form, "But if we take all the evil out of the universe, what about evil?" And the answer is "Good riddance." Pun intentional.

View more: Prev | Next