To call a LW meet-up, all you need to do is: 1. Announce it on here, with a time (a week or so in advance) and a location (somewhere where a group can gather and still hear one another; e.g. a quieter-end pizza place), 2. Show up yourself, with a sign that says "less wrong meet-up".
Any chance you might try? There seem to be a number of cool LW-ers from Moscow.
I'd add step 0: have Singulairty Institute members come for a long visit near you, thus serving as the impetus of the meetup :-)
I'm so jealous of all those meetups happening. Never met anyone from LW in person.
You can move to Israel :-)
If you represent likelyhoods in the form of log odds, it is clear that this makes no sense. Probabilities of 0 or infinitesimal both are equivalent to having infinite evidence against a proposition. Infinitesimal is really the same as 0 in this context.
I accept this correction as well. Let me rephrase: the probability, while being positive, is so small as to be on the magnitude of being able to reverse time flow and to sample the world state at arbitrary points.
This doesn't actually change the gist of my argument, but does remind me to double-check myself for nitpicking possibilities...
Expressing certainty ("0% chance of being revived after dieing in any other way").
You are strictly correct, but after brain disintegration, probability of revival is infinitesimal. You should have challenged me on the taxes bit instead :-)
Cryonics aside, we should talk in probabilities, not certainties, and this is true of pretty much everything, including god, heliocentrism, etc. Second, cryonics may have a small chance of succeeding - say, 1% (number pulled out of thin air) - but that's still enormously better than the alternative 0% chance of being revived after dieing in any other way.
Did these two sentences' adjacency stick out to anybody else?
Pardon me, now I'm the one feeling perplexed: where did I screw up?
I'm curious, what's the flaw in my logic that the downvoters are seeing? Or is there some other reason for the downvotes?
First, the only certainties in life are death and taxes. Cryonics aside, we should talk in probabilities, not certainties, and this is true of pretty much everything, including god, heliocentrism, etc.
Second, cryonics may have a small chance of succeeding - say, 1% (number pulled out of thin air) - but that's still enormously better than the alternative 0% chance of being revived after dieing in any other way. Dieing in the line of duty or after great accomplishment is similar to leaving a huge estate behind - it'll help somebody, just not you.
Third, re senile dementia, there is the possibility of committing suicide and undergoing cryonics. (Terry Pratchett spoke of a possible assisted suicide, although I see no indication he considered cryonics.)
If cryonics feels like a wash, that's a problem with our emotions. The math is pretty solid.
It may be enough if we find common cause in wanting to be rational in some shared topic areas. As long as we can clearly demarcate off-limit topics, we might productively work on our rationality on other topics. We've heard that politics is the mind killer, and that we will do better working on rationality if we stay away from politics. You might argue similarly about religion. That all said, I can also see a need for a place for people to gather who want to be rational about all topics. So, the question for this community to decide is, what if any topics should be off-limits here?
Agreed.
One caveat: it's great to want to be rationalist about all things, but let him without sin cast the first stone. So much of the community's energies have gone into analyzing akrasia - understanding that behavior X is rational and proper yet not doing it - that it appears hypocritical and counter-productive to reject members because they haven't yet reached all the right conclusions. After all, MrHen did mark religion for later contemplation.
Boris Strugatsky is probably chuckling to himself right now.
Many folks keep pointing out how published research is itself biased towards positive results, and how replication (and failed replication!) trumps mere "first!!!11" publication.
Clarity check: "trumps" = "is (normatively) more important than"?
Also,
("he can't implant engineered tissue in a rat heart and he calls himself a scientist?!")
will be really confusing if/when that entry drops off the front page.
Clarity check: "trumps" = "is (normatively) more important than"?
Yes.
will be really confusing if/when that entry drops off the front page.
Hehe :-) if you propose a less confusing quip, I'll edit it in.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Another Vladimir!
What is it with this site and that name?
(No offence meant! Please take it sportingly!) ;)
Actually, I was wondering that myself! I differentiate myself by the fact that I'm among the very first Vladimirs around here. (I've been an OB reader for three years now, I think.)