"If you invest your money now, you might be able to make something like 10% annually with some risk."
Speaking of this, does anyone know of any LW posts or other articles about how to make the most of idle capital with some risk? Ideally with the risk analyzed by a competent Bayesian.
Please list as many examples of these questions as you can muster. (I mean questions, seriously discussed by philosophers, which you claim can be resolved in this way.)
I once met a philosophy professor who was at the time thinking about the problem "Are electrons real?" I asked her what her findings had shown thus far, and she said she thinks they're not real. I then asked her to give me examples of things that are real. She said she doesn't know any examples of such things.
LessWrongers maybe? Instead of LessWrongians?
I don't mean to nitpick, but "ahteism" looks very weird when spelled that way.
Downvoting for poor explanation, unnecessary use of allcaps, and strong assertions made with little evidence or reasoning to back them up.
Seconded. Terrible exposition; it trivializes something that is non-trivial. Also, it would be nice if the writer used paragraphs and did not use CAPS (unless really shouting).
You're a rationalist if there's a portrait of you in an attic somewhere getting increasingly irrational everyday.
Rationalist pickup line: "If I asked you out, would your answer be the same as the answer to this question?"
Say Omega appears to you in the middle of the street one day, and shows you a black box. Omega says there is a ball inside which is colored with a single color. You trust Omega.
He now asks you to guess the color of the ball. What should your probability distribution over colors be? He also asks for probability distributions over other things, like the weight of the ball, the size, etc. How does a Bayesian answer these questions?
Is this question easier to answer if it was your good friend X instead of Omega?
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Your last example is actually weaker than it could be. Even though it's completely equivalent, a better way to phrase this is the following:
The train is currently rushing to kill the child, and you're not part of this situation. You, sitting in your car far away, see this happening. You now have the choice to drive up to the tracks and leave your car on the tracks. This will save the child but destroy your car.
Now it's clear that you weren't part of the situation to begin with; you're just a distant observer who may choose to intervene.