Let's say you think a property, like 'purpose', is a two parameter function and someone else tells you it's a three parameter function. An interesting thing to do is to accept that it is a three parameter function and then ask yourself which of the following holds:
1) The third parameter is useless and however it varies, the output doesn't change.
2) There is a special input you've been assuming is the 'correct' input, which allowed you to treat the function as if it were a two parameter function.

So? Use said oracles to upgrade our brains.

Can anyone say a bit more about why physical references would need to be described 'effectively'/computably?

I think because if they are described by an uncomputable procedure, one for example involving oracles or infinite resources, then they (with very high probability) would not be able to be computed by our brains.

where both physical references and logical references are to be described 'effectively' or 'formally', in computable or logical form.

Can anyone say a bit more about why physical references would need to be described 'effectively'/computably? Is this based on the assumption that the physical universe must be computable?

After having read all of the Sequences, I suppose its time I actually registered. I did the survey. Here are the cogno-stats:

Big Five O80 C83 E79 A83 N9 IQ 122 Myers-Briggs E33 N88 T1 J33 Autism 15

I'm doing my PhD in the genetics of epilepsy (so a neurogenetics background is implied). Is anyone familiar with data on the reliability of the various cogno-metrics that are out there?

(Aside: political metrics L/R:-2.25 A/L:-3.54, pretty centrist on most issues, just make them based on actual data and I'll change my view in a femtosecond)

This may be the single most useful thing I've ever read on LessWrong. Thank you very, very much for posting it.

Here's one I use all the time: When a problem seems overwhelming, break it up into manageable subproblems.

Often, when I am procrastinating, I find that the source of my procrastination is a feeling of being overwhelmed. In particular, I don't know where to begin on a task, or I do but the task feels like a huge obstacle towering over me. So when I think about the task, I feel a crushing sense of being overwhelmed; the way I escape this feeling is by procrastination (i.e. avoiding the source of the feeling altogether).

When I notice myself doing this, I try to break the problem down into a sequence of high-level subtaks, usually in the form of a to-do list. Emotionally/metaphorically, instead of having to cross the obstacle in one giant leap, I can climb a ladder over it, one step at a time. (If the subtasks continue to be intimidating, I just apply this solution recursively, making lists of subsubtasks.)

I picked this strategy up after realizing that the way I approached large programming projects (write the main function, then write each of the subroutines that it calls, etc.) could be applied to life in general. Now I'm about to apply it to the task of writing an NSF fellowship application. =)

A Survey of Mathematical Ethics which covers work in multiple disciplines. I'd love to know what parts of ethics have been formalized enough to be written mathematically and, for example, any impossibility results that have been shown.

I would be happy to be able to read Procrastination and the five-factor model: a facet level analysis ScienceDirect IngentaConnect (I'm not sure if adding these links helps you guys, but here they are anyways)

If it were me, I'd split your list after reductionism into a separate ebook. Everything that's controversial or hackles-raising is in the later sequences. A (shorter) book consisting solely of the sequences on cognitive biases, rationalism, and reductionism could be much more a piece of content somebody without previous rationalist intentions can pick up and take something valuable away from. The later sequences have their merits, but they are absolutely counterproductive to raising the sanity waterline in this case. They'll label your book as kooky and weird, and they don't, in themselves, improve their readers enough to justify the expense. People interested in the other stuff can get the companion volume.

You could label the pared down volume something self helpey like 'Thinking Better: The Righter, Smarter You." For goodness sake, don't have the word 'sequences' in the title. That doesn't mean anything to anyone not already from LW, and it won't help people figure out what it's about.

EDIT: Other title suggestions - really just throwing stuff at the wall here

• Rationality: Art and Practice

• The Rational You

• The Art of Human Rationality

• ~~Black Belt Bayesian: Building a Better Brain~~

• The Science of Winning: Human Rationality and You

• Science of Winning: The Art and Practice of Human Rationality (I quite like this one)