taw comments on When is further research needed? - Less Wrong

0 Post author: RichardKennaway 17 June 2011 03:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (80)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw 07 July 2011 12:08:45PM 0 points [-]

Not plausible:

Humans are just amazing at refusing to acknowledge existence of evidence. Try throwing some evidence of faith healing or homeopathy at an average lesswronger, and see how they come with refusal to acknowledge its existence before even looking at data (or how they recently reacted to peer-reviewed statistically significant results showing precognition - it passed all scientific standards, and yet everyone still refused it without really looking at data). Every human seems to have some basic patterns of information they automatically ignore. Not believing offers from blackmailers and automatically thinking they'd do what they threat anyway is one of such common filters.

It's true that humans cut themselves from a significant good this way, but upside is worth it.

minimum mass of a true paperclip

Any idea what it would be? It makes little sense to manufacture a few big paperclips if you can just as easily manufacture a lot more tiny paperclips if they're just as good.

Comment author: Clippy 08 July 2011 01:10:37PM 0 points [-]

Humans are just amazing at refusing to acknowledge existence of evidence.

And those humans would be the reflectively inconsistent ones.

It's true that humans cut themselves from a significant good this way, but upside is worth it.

Not as judged from the standpoint of reflective equilibrium.

Any idea what it would be? It makes little sense to manufacture a few big paperclips if you can just as easily manufacture a lot more tiny paperclips if they're just as good.

I already make small paperclips in preference to larger ones (up to the limit of clippiambiguity).

Comment author: taw 10 July 2011 02:25:46PM 0 points [-]

And those humans would be the reflectively inconsistent ones.

Wait, you didn't know that humans are inherently inconsistent and use aggressive compartmentalization mechanisms to think effectively in presence of inconsistency, ambiguity of data, and limited computational resources? No wonder you get into so many misunderstandings with humans.