= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I'm going again, it was too fun/interesting to miss.
[Link] arguman.org, an argument analysis platform
I recently found out about arguman. It's an online tool to dissect arguments and structure agreement and refutation.
It seems like something that's been discussed about in LW some times in the past.
Meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 3
Discussion article for the meetup : São Paulo Meet Up 3
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
Same! Are you still around?
Around São Paulo, yes. Around LW, not much anymore, I mostly read it via feed reader.
How about a prediction that a particular human will eat bacon instead of jalapeno peppers? (I'm particularly thinking of myself, for whom that's true, and a vegetarian friend, for whom the opposite is true.)
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.
I think "vague" is a poor word choice for that concept. "(not) informative" is a technical term with this meaning. There are probably words which are clearer to the layman.
I agree vague is not a good word choice. Irrelevant (using relevancy as it's used to describe search results) is a better word.
How detailed of a model are you thinking of? It seems like there are at least easy and somewhat trivial predictions we could make e.g. that a human will eat chocolate instead of motor oil.
I would classify such kinds of predictions as vague, after all they match equally well for every human being in almost any condition.
In response to
The Irrationality Game
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.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm going.