You can call me Witzvo. My determination of whether I'm a "rationalist" is waiting on data to be supplied by your responses. I found HPMOR hilarious and insightful (I was hooked from the first chapter which so beautifully juxtaposed a rationalist child with all-too-realistic adults), and lurked some for a while. I have one previous post which I doubt ever got read. To be critical, my general impression of the discussions here is that they are self-congratulatory, smarter than they are wise, and sometimes obsessed with philosophically meaningful but not terribly urgent debates. However, I do value the criteria by which karma is obtained. And I saw some evidence of responses being actually based on the merits of an argument presented, which is commendable. Also, Eliezer should be commended for sticking his neck out so far and so often.

I was born into a sect of Christianity that is heretical in various ways, but notably in that they believe that God is operating all for the (eventual) good of mankind, and that we will all be saved (e.g. no eternal Hell). I remain agnostic. Talk about non-falsifiability and Occam's razor all you like, but a Bayesian doesn't abandon the possibilities to which he assigns prior mass without evidence, and even then the posterior mass generally just drops towards 0, not all the way. Still, my life is basically secular; I don't think there's an important observable difference in how I live my life from how an atheist lives, and that's pretty much the end of the matter for me. Oh, perhaps I have times of weakness, but who doesn't?

I have formal training in statistics. I am very sympathetic to the Savage / de Finetti schools of subjective Bayesianism, but if I had to name my philosophy of science I'd call it Boxian, after George Box (c.f. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2982063; I highly recommend this paper AND the discussion. Sorry about the pay walls).

I find the Solomonoff/Kolmogorov/AIXI ideas fascinating and inspiring. I aspire to compute for example, (a computationally bounded approximation to) the normal forms of (a finite subsequence of) a countable sequence of de Bruijn lambda terms and go from there. I do not see any lurking existential crisis in doing so.

In fact, maybe I've missed something, but I have not yet identified an actionable issue regarding one of the much-discussed existential crises. I do not participate much in the political system of my country or even see how that would help particularly except and unless through actual rational discussion and other action.

I find far more profit in exploring ideas, such as say, Inventing on Principle (http://vimeo.com/36579366), or Incremental Learning in Inductive Programming (http://www.cogsys.wiai.uni-bamberg.de/aaip09/aaip09_submissions/incremental.pdf), either of which I would be happy to discuss.

I am also intellectually lonely.

That's probably more than enough. Go on and tell me something less wrong.