I don't really see how the argument for feasibility of H+ has much to do with the size of the design space for life (and AI, and nanotech,...) as long as its non-empty. After all, there's a huge design space for impossibilities as well. Or am I misunderstanding the argument?
There are some rather mundane improvements (at least compared to the design space) that would be enough (if realized) to show the feasibility -- say, intelligence augmentation, brain-computer hybrids.
Non-Fiction Books Thread
Dave Grossman - On Killing
After reading quite a few books relating to military matters (including some which glorify the whole business a bit -- say, "No easy day" or "American sniper"), it seemed good to look a bit deeper into the minds of soldiers -- "On Killing" is all about what goes through the heads of men whose job it is to kill.
An interesting fact seems to be that at most 20% or so of American WW2 soldiers fired at the enemy; and this number seems to be consistent with other armies / history (there is no hard evidence, but some indications). Reason for this seems to be a mental barrier most people have against killing. Another interesting observation is that Skinnerian operant conditioning has raised that number to ~ 90% in the Vietnam war. Useful for the war effort, but, as the book suggests, killing comes back to haunt the killer after the war (and esp. in the Vietnam conflict it was made worse by the way the troops returned -- this explains many of the psychological problems veterans face).
Interesting read -- the last part about violent movies / video games seemed a bit redundant, and it'd be interesting to see an update on this '95 book.
Non-Fiction Books Thread
Read Frans de Waal's Our inner ape
Frans de Waal looks at primates (primarily, chimpanzees and bonobos) at some of human nature -- in particular, sex, violence and morality.
The stories about ape behavior are really fascinating, and may tell us a bit about our own behavior. De Waal suggests that some of our behavior has counterparts in chimpanzees and bonobos, the latter being more aggressive (even violent, cruel) and competitive, and the second being more social.
I didn't like De Waal's extrapolations into human politics and society, or his snide remarks towards Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, apparently mostly because he did not like the title. And the circular reasoning, "Morality needs emotions, because Mr. Spocks's pure-logic morality doesn't feel right".
So, in summary -- Overall, an enjoyable read, and De Waal is best when he discusses apes.
(Note: primates such as bonobos, chimpanzees and gorilla's are apes, they get annoyed when you call them monkeys)
I have never been into classical music (my impression having been that it all sounds same-y, with the exception of Wagner, who is totally BOSS). But today I stumbled upon Shostakovich's 8th Symphony (1943) and a commentary to it by a French scholar of music. So sublime and stirring! Look at some videos or pictures of the Battle of Stalingrad while listening.
Recommended related reading: Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor, and A Writer at War by Vasily Grossman, with Beevor's excellent translation. I've read both - damn good, with an uncommon understanding of Russia and what the War meant and still means for us. As a Russian patriot (well... of a sort), I must say that Beevor deserves a medal from our government, not its slander.
Ah, thanks to your recommendation I picked up Beevor's Stalingrad, and I really liked the book. The writer tries hard to be balanced and correct (with a lot of sources from different sides); yet the story never ceases to captivate the reader, and never loses the overall view of the horrors of the battle.
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author's ideas all mixed up.
To me, that amounts to "not worth reading".
I actually think the book /has/ a point, and I some of the 'findings' make sense; but perhaps a magazine article would enough for this?
Every book of this sort has a point, and some of its findings will always "make sense". That's just part of the same marketing template, as is the "Catchy Title: Subtitle From Which You Can Extrapolate The Entire Contents Before Opening The Book" title.
It's the title that's the giveaway. It will put off people who don't like the message from picking the book up at all, thus planting a positive bias into the reviews and word of mouth. It also primes every favourably disposed reader with the message, making its arguments to that end "make sense".
Indeed these books seem to be engineered for effect (Gladwell is an absolute master at that). Slightly 'unexpected' conclusions that go well with the readers' cherished beliefs, and optimized for short attention spans.
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author's ideas all mixed up.
I agree that's an unfortunate tendancy; I'm currently reading Nassim Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness" and it has a bit of the same problem.
I wouldn't say Taleb is part of the MGSoW though. Taleb has some good points, the biggest obstacle I have with enjoying his books is the author's pretentiousness.
Non Fiction Books Thread
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking - Susan Cain
A book on introverts in a world where extroversion is the norm, how introverts can better deal with that world, and how extroverts should make better use of the special qualities that introverts possess.
Sadly, the book is typical example of the Malcolm Gladwell school of writing, with a mix of some research, wide extrapolations and the author's ideas all mixed up. And descriptions of how the researchers look -- really?!
I actually think the book /has/ a point, and I think some of the 'findings' make sense; but perhaps a magazine article would be enough for this?
When I ask this question I am usually referred to Gary Taubes. Also see Wikipedia. I don't have time to evaluate the evidence, but I'm pretty skeptical of nutrition science in general.
Edit: Eliezer has spent a few years doing the only thing you can do: try a bunch of diets on yourself and measure the results.
Good calories, bad calories is a good read and it makes a rather compelling argument for limiting carb consumption; however, mainstream nutrition science does not unanimously agree with this view. Hard to say who's right.
Indeed, it's sad (from my armchair-observer perspective...) that something as important as nutrition science seems unable to say something conclusive about low-carb vs high-carb diets.
I have no weight problems, but low-carb seemed to correlate somewhat with loosing weight; I can't say I'm convinced though. I just make sure to excercise so much that I don't have to worry too much about dietary details. After all, physical excercise is as much a 'paleo' thing as the diet.
Maybe you should try it with a few students first? Of course, I don't know your students, but I could imagine that some students would find using a text involving spells, magic etc. a bit hard to take serious.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
What do people think about Jaynes' (the other one) The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind ?
I just read it, and while I enjoyed the book, I'm rather sceptical about the book's main point -- that consciousness (in the way the book describes) only arrived ~ 1000 BCE. The evidence provided by the Jaynes Society doesn't really convince me either.
Jaynes is not a crackpot in the Von Däniken/Hancock school, but I found his evidence lacking for his extraordinary claim. What do you think?