How is he going to describe to me what these uncomputable amounts of lifespan are, and how will he convince me that they're big enough to justify reducing the probability of getting them?

By using non-constructive notation, like BusyBeaver(10^n). Surely you can be convinced that the smallest program it takes to output a number as big as BusyBeaver(10^n) is of size 10^n, and therefore accept a 10-fold reduction in probability to increase n by 1?

Also, if you can't be convinced, then your utility function is effectively bounded.

What if we're wrong about the size of the universe?

Saw something like this just recently on how reading small bites on the Internet trains our "drive" (keep pushing button) rather than "satiation" (actually feel good) circuits. Can't seem to find it just now - anyone got the link?

Even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point.

—Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from the Underground

(Self-promotion: this is the epigraph to the novella I'm working on, which is not really about rationality but is about what we're pleased to call "human nature", and which you may read the beginning of here if so inclined.)

Feedback phenomena and human intuition are uncomfortable bedfellows. When people dislike where an equilibrium argument takes them, it is therefore unsurprising that they invent simpler arguments that lead to more palatable conclusions. However, the first principle of rational thought is never to allow your preferences to influence your beliefs.

Ken Binmore

XKCD comes to mind.

The world doesn't actually make sense. Science doesn't work. No one told you because you're so cute when you get into something.

And the jobseeker replies, "But all those transgressions are in the past. Sunk costs can't play into my decision theory—it would hardly be helping for me to go sulk in a gutter somewhere. I can only seek to maximize expected utility now, and right now that means working ever so hard for you, O dearest future boss! Tsuyoku naritai!"

I am failing to understand how two felonies in my past are sunk costs. How are events costs? Am I missing a layer of abstraction?

Definitely I'm one of them. Or just me. I've been posting a lot in ineffective directions and my ideas don't seem aligned well with the group. Sorry, Eliezer. I enjoyed my LW experience -- it is a fun community. Best.

(Written later:) Reading through MrHen's comment, it is interesting to me that we are both new to the group (I'm 2 weeks older) and both feel like posers. (We have karma scores around 55). I think it is interesting that in response to a general reprimand from Eliezer, we both had similar thoughts in our heads (I claim this) but responded quite differently. I have heard before that a gender difference when it comes to grant resubmission in the sciences is that women take the first rejection personally and don't resubmit at the same rate. While MrHen requested more feedback, I wanted to make an apology and exit before I further offended, even though I wasn't certain to what extent it was me.

Was my guess that the "fool is me" an overly sensitive response to criticism? I was worried that my harping on religion might be factious, and so I already felt guilty.

How does a person know if they don't fit, or if their ideas align well enough?

Gung znxrf frafr, npghnyyl. Fubhyq V or unccl gung gur npghny yvr jnf gur bar gung V gubhtug jnf gur frpbaq zbfg yvxryl gb or gur yvr?

There has been some calling for applications of rationality; how can this help me win? This combined with the popularity and discussion surrounding "Stuck in the middle with Bruce" gave me an idea for a potential series of posts relating to LWers pastimes of choice. I have a feeling most people here have a pastime, and if rationalists should win there should be some way to map the game to rational choices.

Perhaps articles discussing "how rational play can help you win at x" and "how x can help you think more rationally" would be worthwhile. I'm sure there are games or hobbies that multiple people share (as was discovered relating to Magic) and even if no one has played a certain game the knowledge gained from it should be generalizable and used elsewhere (as was the concept of a Bruce).

I might be able to do a piece on Counter-Strike (perhaps generalized to FPS style games) although I haven't played in several years.

I know I would be interested in more discussion of how Magic and rationality work together. In fact I almost went out an picked up a deck to try it out again (haven't played since Ice Age when I was but a child) but remembered I don't know anyone I could play with right now anyway, which is probably why I don't.