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

Meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 3

1 dyokomizo 13 June 2012 07:44PM

Discussion article for the meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 3

WHEN: 15 June 2012 02:00:00PM (-0300)

WHERE: Sala 08 do Prédio de Filosofia e Ciências Sociais, USP - Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 315 (Cidade Universitária) São Paulo, SP

There's going to be an event at USP titled 1ª Jornada Transhumanista (http://comunicacao.fflch.usp.br/node/1772). After the talks we're planning to have at least one hour of discussions related to rationality and transhumanism.

Most of previous meetups' attendees are going to be there, two of them presenting at the event. See you there.

Discussion article for the meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 3

Comment author: dyokomizo 18 April 2012 12:48:11AM 0 points [-]

I'm going again, it was too fun/interesting to miss.

Comment author: dyokomizo 28 February 2012 01:29:24PM 0 points [-]

Count me in.

In response to comment by Gust on Where are we?
Comment author: dyokomizo 02 January 2012 01:00:06AM 0 points [-]

Around São Paulo, yes. Around LW, not much anymore, I mostly read it via feed reader.

Comment author: dyokomizo 04 October 2010 12:46:01AM -2 points [-]

This model seems to be reducible to "people will eat what they prefer".

A good model would be able to reduce the number of bits to describe a behavior, if the model requires to keep a log (e.g. what particular humans prefer to eat) to predict something, it's not much less complex (i.e. bit encoding) than the behavior.

Comment author: dyokomizo 04 October 2010 12:41:50AM 1 point [-]

I agree vague is not a good word choice. Irrelevant (using relevancy as it's used to describe search results) is a better word.

In response to comment by [deleted] on The Irrationality Game
Comment author: dyokomizo 03 October 2010 07:47:20PM 3 points [-]

I would classify such kinds of predictions as vague, after all they match equally well for every human being in almost any condition.

Comment author: dyokomizo 03 October 2010 01:44:46PM 41 points [-]

There's no way to create a non-vague, predictive, model of human behavior, because most human behavior is (mostly) random reaction to stimuli.

Corollary 1: most models explain after the fact and require both the subject to be aware of the model's predictions and the predictions to be vague and underspecified enough to make astrology seems like spacecraft engineering.

Corollary 2: we'll spend most of our time in drama trying to understand the real reasons or the truth about our/other's behavior even when presented with evidence pointing to the randomness of our actions. After the fact we'll fabricate an elaborate theory to explain everything, including the evidence, but this theory will have no predictive power.

In response to comment by taw on Open Thread: June 2010
Comment author: dyokomizo 11 June 2010 10:39:37AM 3 points [-]

It doesn't seem to me that you have an accurate description of what a super-smart person would do/say other than match your beliefs and providing insightful thought. For example, do you expect super-smart people to be proficient in most areas of knowledge or even able to quickly grasp the foundations of different areas through super-abstraction? Would you expect them to be mostly unbiased? Your definition needs to be more objective and predictive, instead of descriptive.

In response to comment by taw on Open Thread: June 2010
Comment author: dyokomizo 07 June 2010 12:59:33AM 2 points [-]

How would you describe the writing patterns of super-smart people? Similarly, how would meeting/talking/debating them would feel like?

View more: Next