= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
So far the plan is to keep this weekly, yes. Mondays at 18:30 local time, at the Broadway Cheesecake Factory (address above) on the second floor, for now. It's very recent, so it's normal you wouldn't have heard of it.
It's weekly, but on Mondays, not Tuesdays. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Oops. Sorry about that.
It should actually be December 3rd.
Meetup : Montreal LessWrong Meetup - More Biases and Biased Board Gaming
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal LessWrong Meetup - More Biases and Biased Board Gaming
We discussed lots of biases last week, so this week we're going to actually whip out the board games! We have a copy or two of Pandemic, and one of Shadowrift to play with.
We'll be upstairs. See you then!
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal LessWrong Meetup - More Biases and Biased Board Gaming
In response to
Meetup : Montreal Meetup - Biases and Biased Boardgaming
Serious issue - I made a typo. This should be December 3rd. Do not show up today, we meet weekly on Mondays.
Is this supposed to be Dec 4th 2012?
Yes.
Oops. Sorry about that.
Meetup : Montreal Meetup - Biases and Biased Boardgaming
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal Meetup - Biases and Biased Boardgaming
Another weekly meeting of the Montreal group! We're going to be discussing different cognitive biases, and then if we have time, trying out biased boardgaming! Games of choice will probably be Pandemic and/or Shadowrift. We'll be upstairs, with some sort of sign that says "LessWrong". Also, we'll have board games. Hopefully. See you there.
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal Meetup - Biases and Biased Boardgaming
In response to
The Fabric of Real Things
"Does your rule there forbid epiphenomenalist theories of consciousness - that consciousness is caused by neurons, but doesn't affect those neurons in turn? The classic argument for epiphenomenal consciousness has always been that we can imagine a universe in which all the atoms are in the same place and people behave exactly the same way, but there's nobody home - no awareness, no consciousness, inside the brain. The usual effect of the brain generating consciousness is missing, but consciousness doesn't cause anything else in turn - it's just a passive awareness - and so from the outside the universe looks the same. Now, I'm not so much interested in whether you think epiphenomenal theories of consciousness are true or false - rather, I want to know if you think they're impossible or meaningless a priori based on your rules."
How would you reply?
"We can imagine any number of universes, that does not always lead to a good argument. In this case, the main issue with the argument is that while we can imagine that universe, it doesn't look like ours. There's no talk of consciousness, there's no self-reflection. Those are things in reality clearly caused by a link between our thoughts and our brains, one that goes in both directions.
Imagining a world in which people act exactly like people do now, but without a consciousness, strays so clearly outside the bounds of Occam's Razor that there doesn't seem to be any point in thinking about it. Adding in a mysterious 'zombie master' to make the zombies act as though they had consciousness... Well at this point, we're not talking about anything remotely resembling reality. This entire thought experiment in no way gives us any truths about reality whatsoever. It is completely meaningless."
In response to
The Fabric of Real Things
"You say that a universe is a connected fabric of causes and effects. Well, that's a very Western viewpoint - that it's all about mechanistic, deterministic stuff. I agree that anything else is outside the realm of science, but it can still be real, you know. My cousin is psychic - if you draw a card from his deck of cards, he can tell you the name of your card before he looks at it. There's no mechanism for it - it's not a causal thing that scientists could study - he just does it. Same thing when I commune on a deep level with the entire universe in order to realize that my partner truly loves me. I agree that purely spiritual phenomena are outside the realm of causal processes, which can be scientifically understood, but I don't agree that they can't be real."
How would you reply?
As someone with some experience dealing with this, having learned how difficult it is to fix I would reply something like "You are wrong. If you want to learn WHY you're wrong, tell me and we can work on this together. Otherwise, I'm going to go now."
Playing the game a bit: "Okay, bear with me a moment, this is going to sound a little odd.
I'm not sure what you mean by "outside the realm of causal processes". Does that mean it happens on its own, with no outside influence at all? Nothing causes it, it just... Happens? Even if it's a 'magic' skill, shouldn't he be the one to activate it? I mean, worst case scenario, it's caused by someone drawing a card from a deck. It doesn't happen completely independently of reality, it's CAUSED by something. If your cousin is the only one with this power, I'm sure he could be studied by the scientists and they could figure out what lights up in his brain as he does it.
A minor note, I was once a card magician, and there are very specific ways to either force people to choose the card you want, or to figure out what card they've chosen. I can show you a few, if you want.
Next, 'communing with the entire universe' is a pretty arrogant thing to say, isn't it? I never got any communication, anyway. Question for you - how would it feel to look deeply inwards, ask 'the universe' questions, and receive answers from your own mind? Would it feel much different from what you feel now? Usually it's better to assume that confusing or 'unexplained' things are happening in your mind, not in reality. You FEEL like the universe has told you that he loves you, but that would look exactly the same as if it was just your unconscious mind telling you. How often have people said that they were deeply, permanently in love, but then it didn't work out? Do you really think you're that much better than everyone else?"
Meetup : LessWrong Montreal - Advanced Epistemology 101
Discussion article for the meetup : LessWrong Montreal - Advanced Epistemology 101
Weekly Montreal meetup.
We'll be at the Broadway Cheesecake, hopefully upstairs (if it's finally opened up). We're going to be discussing the new sequence, Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners, as many of us are relative newbies to Bayesian rationality.
Our focus will be the first post. Contact me if you're interested!
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Why do LWers believe in global warming? The community's belief has changed my posterior odds significantly, but it's the only argument I have for global warming at the moment. I saw the CO2 vs temperature graphs, and that seemed to sell it for me... Then I heard that the temperature increases preceded the CO2 emissions by about 800 years...
So why does the community at large believe in it?
Thanks!