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

Comment author: timujin 21 December 2014 05:01:24PM 1 point [-]

But English language's "Jesus" is still far off.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 December 2014 06:16:10PM 0 points [-]

Sure, but I fail to see how that's relevant to the point in question.

Comment author: timujin 21 December 2014 02:23:37PM 1 point [-]

The claim that people can't pronounce Jesus' name might apply to former Soviet Union countries, but I doubt it applies anywhere else in Europe.

Do you know that Jesus's actual name is Yeshua?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 December 2014 04:04:01PM 4 points [-]

We don't know that. It was likely some variant of the name commonly translated as "Joshua" in English. It could have been Yeshua or Yehoshua or a variety of slightly Aramacized variants of that.

Comment author: advancedatheist 20 December 2014 03:11:24PM 4 points [-]

The Superintelligent Robot in My Garage, in other words. These conjectures for why ET's have to exist, but we haven't observed them yet, sound increasingly desperate and crazy. People hold on to this belief any way because the advanced ET has become a place-filler for the gods and demons we've recently believed in.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 21 December 2014 04:00:07PM *  2 points [-]

The absence of apparent intelligent life is a serious issue. It has nothing to do with believing in gods or demons, but is a real problem that we need to figure out the cause for. If the Great Filter is behind us, there's no serious issue. If the Great Filter is in front of us, then we need to be very concerned. These are deep questions that also have practical implications. The fact that the particular explanation from the article isn't a very good one is incidental.

Comment author: wadavis 19 December 2014 06:40:18PM 3 points [-]

Do we have a catalog of Not Less Wrong rationality guides?

I know we have the list of rationality blogs, but I'm asking about a collection of material that educates at an entry level of formalized rationality but sits at lower inferential distances that the sequences.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 19 December 2014 07:15:28PM 1 point [-]

I'm not aware of such a catalog but there are definitely resources that fit into this category. One good one is You Are Not So Smart.

Comment author: James_Miller 17 December 2014 04:06:47PM 2 points [-]

Because of the limits of nutritional science where they can't run long randomized experiments on people. The theoretical case for paleo is excellent.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 December 2014 02:34:59PM 0 points [-]

It might be true if the so-called paleo diets resembled actual old diets. But they don't. Even in paleolithic times human diets varied by region. And many of the crops included in paleo diets didn't exist in the cultivars and forms they exist in now. See for example this talk.

Comment author: L29Ah 18 December 2014 03:59:44AM 0 points [-]

Please explain how say a trolley problem fits into your framework.

The correct choice is to check out who do you want to be killed and saved more, and what are, for instance, the social consequences of your actions. I don't understand your question, it seems.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 December 2014 04:14:02AM 0 points [-]

Suppose you don't have any time to figure out which people would be better. And suppose no one else will know that you were able to pull a switch.

Honestly, it seems like your notion of ethics is borderline psychopathic.

Comment author: L29Ah 17 December 2014 08:38:31PM 0 points [-]

How does this contradicts my notion of ethics? You will surely use what you know about the ethical properties of manslaughter to reach the goal and save yourself from the troubles, like manipulating the public opinion in your favor via, for instance, imitation the target people attacking you. Or even consider if the goal is worthy at all.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 December 2014 01:51:26AM *  0 points [-]

Please explain how say a trolley problem fits into your framework.

Comment author: L29Ah 17 December 2014 07:44:46PM 0 points [-]

This seems like a very non-standard notion of what constitutes ethics. Can you expand on this captures the usual intuitions about what the concerns of ethics are?

The concerns of ethics for a given agent is to facilitate one to interact with others effectively, no?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 December 2014 08:10:47PM *  1 point [-]

Not at all. If I do something that doesn't accomplish my goals that's generally labeled as something like "stupid." If I decide that I want to kill lots of people, the problem with that is ethical even if my goals are fulfilled by it. Most intuitions don't see these as the same thing.

Comment author: L29Ah 17 December 2014 02:18:48PM 0 points [-]

That's not obvious. What if one entity is parseable in such a way and another one isn't?

Every human produces lots of different kinds of behaviour, so it can be modeled as a pack of specialized agents.

Why?

Because ethics is essentially simplified applied modeling of other beings.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 December 2014 06:19:01PM 1 point [-]

Because ethics is essentially simplified applied modeling of other beings.

This seems like a very non-standard notion of what constitutes ethics. Can you expand on this captures the usual intuitions about what the concerns of ethics are?

Comment author: L29Ah 17 December 2014 08:35:56AM 0 points [-]

It does not as the other person is parseable as multiple ones as well.

Uploading is not a thing atm, and once it is viable, the corresponding ethics will be constructed from special cases of the entity's behaviour, like it was done before.

I still don't get how the anthropic principle cares about the labels we assign to stuff.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 December 2014 01:45:58PM 0 points [-]

It does not as the other person is parseable as multiple ones as well

That's not obvious. What if one entity is parseable in such a way and another one isn't?

the corresponding ethics will be constructed from special cases of the entity's behaviour, like it was done before.

Why?

I still don't get how the anthropic principle cares about the labels we assign to stuff.

Right. They shouldn't. So situations like this one may be useful intuition pumps.

View more: Next