You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Gurkenglas comments on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: jaime2000 25 August 2014 11:14AM

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

Comments (227)

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

Comment author: KnaveOfAllTrades 26 August 2014 02:25:58PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think you're taking the thought experiment seriously enough and are prematurely considering it (dis)solved by giving a Clever solution. E.g.

If it's not the urge, what is it?

Obvious alternative that occurred to me in <5 seconds: It's not the urge, it's the actual act of smoking or knowing one has smoked. Even if these turn out not to not quite work, you don't show any sign of having even thought of them, which I would not expect if you were seriously engaging with the problem looking for a reduction that does not leave us feeling confused.

Edit: In fact, James already effectively said 'the act of smoking' in the comment to which you were replying!

becomes interesting if even after accounting for the urge to smoke, whether you actually smoke provides information on whether you are likely to get lung cancer.

Comment author: Gurkenglas 27 August 2014 02:20:42PM *  0 points [-]

it's the actual act of smoking or knowing one has smoked [that causes lung cancer]

Both of these are invalidated by the assumption:

She knows that smoking is strongly correlated with lung cancer, but only because there is a common cause – a condition that tends to cause both smoking and cancer.