You took the analogy too far.
Dear Normal_Anomaly, I thank you for the kindness and tone of your answer. Could I upvote it I would. I'm aware of the existence of the sequences but it's still not quite what I mean. The sheer size of them detracts a lot from their usefulness and there seems to be no organization.
What I mean was some kind of page where one could self or externally assess and then based on his shortcomings be directed to adequate pages.
So something like: To Win you must:
-Add mindware -Fix corrupted mindware -Fix cognitive miserliness
Then adequate assessment of the state of these elements and links based on this organization (so, adding mindware would link to probability theory, logic, the virtue of scholarship; fixing corrupted mindware would link to debiasing, dissolving the question; and so forth) [based on lukeprog's "A cognitive Science of Rationality"].
This is just a model of how it could be, just a way of organizing it. Which is what appears to be missing, organization.
Cheers
I recognize the title could be more informative. At the same time I believe it says what is important.
I believe in a deity, I believe in mathematical entities in the same way.
The community of LessWrong (from whenceforth: LessWrong) is deeply interesting to me, appearing as a semi-organized atheist, reductionist community.
LessWrong seems very interested in promoting rationality, which I applaud. The effort does seem scattered, though, and this is the reason I post.
One has Eliezer's website with some interesting posts. The same of this community. The community links to some posts when you are coming for the first time into it, and you also have a filter for top posts. One has the... (read more)
I'm a master's candidate to Logic at UvA. Rationality is one of my interests, altough I seem to come from the opposite side of the specter of everyone at LessWrong (from metaphysics and philosophy to rationality).
I am very interested in observing the reductionist approach, even more so after learning Eliezer values GEB so highly.
Dear Mr. RolfAndreassen.
Maybe I should have said that I believe in a deity in the same way I believe in mathematical entities. Natural language is tricky.
I question the assumption that something needs to do something else in order to exist. Take, for example, mathematical facts. They just "are" if you want. Some of them (but not all) are accessible trough our formal systems of mathematics. Some are not (certainly you are familiar with Godel's proof).
You may assert that the number two has its uses and thus assert the existence of number two. But what uses can you assert for mathematical truths that are not accessible? Do they stop existing because they are not accessible, or do they "pop into" existence, if I may, once they are?
The mere fact that the mathematical truths are before they are accessible (Again, godel's incompleteness theorem) says that mathematical truths exist, and therefore so do the parts that they are comprised of.