Comment author: LizzardWizzard 10 March 2015 09:12:59AM 0 points [-]

But when it comes to messy gene expression networks, we've already found the hidden beauty - the stable level of underlying physics. Because we've already found the master order, we can guess that we won't find any additional secret patterns that will make biology as easy as a sequence of cubes. Knowing the rules of the game, we know that the game is hard. We don't have enough computing power to do protein chemistry from physics (the second source of uncertainty) and evolutionary pathways may have gone different ways on different planets (the third source of uncertainty). New discoveries in basic physics won't help us here

Doesn't the third source of uncertainty violate Fermi Paradox and The Rare Earth hypothesis?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 19 February 2015 09:03:31AM *  8 points [-]

I think Quirrell wants to teach Harry to give up.

First he does it explicitly, during the lesson. Okay, that is not really giving up; it's rather "pretending to lose, so you survive and have your revenge later". But even that is difficult for Harry. So maybe learning this lesson is just a first approximation towards really giving up?

"The boy cannot be allowed to continue in this state of mind. He will become dangerous. ... It is my professional judgment ... that the boy could join the ranks of those whose rituals are inscribed upon the tombstones of countries."

And recently it seems like Quirrell is taking his time to break Harry psychologically, demonstrating his advantage by overpowered attacks, reminding him about all the hostages he can kill.

The sadness and horror that Harry had pushed down flared up again, and his dark side had no stored patterns for handling the emotions. Why, Professor Quirrell, why are you like this...

Professor Quirrell smiled. "That reminds me. Have you betrayed me yet?"

It seems as if Quirrell wants Harry to betray him. And then he would kill the hostages. And then he would tell Harry: "It's all your fault."

Which would be the opposite of what Hermione told Harry. But we already know that Quirrell is trying to push Harry in the opposite direction than Hermione would.

What is he trying to achieve by this? Maybe if Harry gives up, he will lose his ability to cast Patronus 2.0. Why is that important? Because it is the only spell that Harry knows and Quirrell does not; therefore the greatest danger to Quirrell?

Or maybe Quirrell wants Harry to snap and become an efficient ruthless killing machine just like him.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 19 February 2015 02:21:23PM 0 points [-]

But quirell knows that Harry possesses the power which kills dementors, so it can't be related to prophecy from his perspective

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 16 January 2015 09:43:35AM *  1 point [-]

Thank you for reminder, I'm done with procrastinating for today

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 15 January 2015 02:32:48PM 1 point [-]

It seems that it not so easy to purchase bitcoins in Russia. If you have any reccomendations please contact me

Comment author: Lumifer 13 January 2015 03:49:11PM 5 points [-]

2 rationalists must come to agreement if they are truly rational

No, they must not. The "common priors" requirement is not viable practically.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 14 January 2015 12:51:34PM 0 points [-]

My choice of words was incorrect. i meant "more likely" to agree and to succeed at surviving

Comment author: robot-dreams 09 January 2015 04:44:36PM 0 points [-]

I sometimes wish I could drag various rationalists to my job at the ICU for a while, make them see the kind of teamwork and cooperation that happens in a place where cooperation is a default and a necessity.

Sci-fi plot brewing.

I'd be very interested in a story that goes into detail about the Cyprus experiment (fill an island with all "alphas", instead of the usual "alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon" distribution, and see what happens) from Brave New World.

Better yet, fill an island with all "rationalists" and see what happens.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 13 January 2015 02:15:53PM *  0 points [-]

I'd be very interested in a story that goes into detail about the Cyprus experiment (fill an island with all "alphas", instead of the usual "alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon" distribution, and see what happens) from Brave New World. Better yet, fill an island with all "rationalists" and see what happens.

2 rationalists must come to agreement if they are truly rational, so they have great chances of survival, whereas "all alphas" will never succeed at dividing their responsibilities and all will end up doing the same thing and die, because they were just born this way, and there are no lower class people to do low-class kind of work, it's to difficult for them to reprogram

Comment author: maxikov 24 December 2014 03:29:23AM *  22 points [-]

When you think about it, the brain is really nothing more than a collection of electrical signals.

Statements like this make me want to bang my head against a wall. No, it is not. Brain is a collection of neural and glial cells, the role of which we only partially understand. Most of the neurons are connected through various types of chemical synapses, and ignoring their chemical nature would fail to explain the effects of most psychoactive drugs and even hormones. Some of the neurons are linked directly. Some of them are myelinated, while others are not, and this is kinda big deal, since there's no clocking in the nervous system, and the entire outcome of the processing depends on how long it takes for the action potential to propagate through the axon. And how long it takes for the synapse to react. And how long the depolarization persists in the receiving neuron. And all of that is regulated by the chemistry of regulating gene expression patterns. And we're not even talking about learning and forming long-term memories, which are due to neuroplasticity, entirely controlled by gene expression patterns. It's enough to suppress RNA synthesis to cause anterograde amnesia - although it will also cause some retrograde amnesia too., since apparently merely using neurons causes them to change.

Also, C. elegans doesn't even have a brain; it has ganglia.

Look, I understand that this is some interesting research, but calling it "brain uploading" is like comparing the launch of a firework to interstellar travel: essentially, they're the same, but there are couple of nuances.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 24 December 2014 08:56:21AM 1 point [-]

I doubt that the experimenters themselves wrote the article. Someone has to popularize science to mere humans

Comment author: closeness 23 December 2014 11:44:00AM 7 points [-]

Not a book but: http://sqapo.com/

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 23 December 2014 01:08:19PM 0 points [-]

Thank you, this is awesome!

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 December 2014 12:49:10AM 3 points [-]

Predictionbook has been linked to and discussed here before. I'm one of the (few) active users, and I'm curious why more people who are regulars here don't use it or don't use it frequently. People who don't use Predictionbook, why don't you? Part of why I am curious is that if there are interface or similar issues then now might be a good time to speak up since Jayson Virissimo is working on a similar service here.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 15 December 2014 02:17:45PM *  1 point [-]

I don't like design and usability of the site. I think topics should be somehow divided, because not everyone is interested in soccer or currencies which are the most trivial things to predict

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 12 December 2014 10:58:23PM 0 points [-]

A quote from my son (just turned eleven years):

Me: "What is the meaning of life?"

He: "To live it."

This sounds trite but I think it is actually the correct (or most sensible) answer. I was kind of impressed. Maybe we should ask children more of these grande questions and gain factual answers instead of taking them as deeper as they are.

Comment author: LizzardWizzard 13 December 2014 09:31:34AM 0 points [-]

Maybe we should ask children more of these grande questions and gain factual answers instead of taking them as deeper as they are.

Indeed, I suppose their worldview are much clearer and in some ways unbiased than ours. When child is born he sees the world as it is, not through many prisms including our subjective value judgements

View more: Prev | Next