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

Comment author: Rune 20 June 2013 12:45:34AM *  3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Rune 06 May 2013 02:53:39AM 7 points [-]

"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.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 29 November 2012 09:01:39PM *  10 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: Rune 30 November 2012 12:52:25AM 9 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Rune 23 July 2012 04:51:16PM 2 points [-]

LessWrongers maybe? Instead of LessWrongians?

Comment author: Rune 16 January 2011 06:43:21PM 0 points [-]

I don't mean to nitpick, but "ahteism" looks very weird when spelled that way.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 15 June 2010 04:04:57AM 2 points [-]

Downvoting for poor explanation, unnecessary use of allcaps, and strong assertions made with little evidence or reasoning to back them up.

Comment author: Rune 15 June 2010 04:26:44AM 0 points [-]

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).

Comment author: Rune 04 April 2010 04:03:29AM 16 points [-]

You're a rationalist if there's a portrait of you in an attic somewhere getting increasingly irrational everyday.

Comment author: Rune 04 April 2010 03:31:26AM 8 points [-]

Rationalist pickup line: "If I asked you out, would your answer be the same as the answer to this question?"

Comment author: wedrifid 02 March 2010 05:07:54AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Rune 02 March 2010 08:02:14PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: Rune 02 March 2010 05:03:08AM 1 point [-]

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