= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
If I knew some that could talk in generalities I would. What I would like to find is people that can say that due to this experiment it shows the human brain isn't X type of formal system which leaves Z, Y and A as possibilities.
It sounds like you're expecting them to do all the work, rather than being prepared to meet them half-way. It would probably be more interesting and productive all round if you're prepared to explain the formal models (or at least their consequences) to the neuroscientists.
In response to
Lesswrong UK planning thread
I'm unlikely to make it to anywhere in the South East, but don't let that put you off. Regarding plan (2), perhaps you could invite some neuroscientists?
On a related note, would anyone be interested in a meetup in Scotland? Or, failing that, the North of England?
A LW meetup is one of those things I'd kind of like to go to in the abstract, but in reality I think it would be much too terrifying.
Honestly, where do people get these ideas?
In response to
Lesswrong UK planning thread
I'm unlikely to make it to anywhere in the South East, but don't let that put you off. Regarding plan (2), perhaps you could invite some neuroscientists?
If you're willing to pay some extra for having it handmade, there are plenty of people who would be ready to make you one.
(And now that you brought it up, you made me semi-seriously consider actually getting one made. I have a bunch of friends and friends of friends who have cosplay as a hobby, so I might be able to get it cheaper than by going through a professional. Hmm... then I'd only need to decide on the equations I wanted on it.)
I have a half-face mask along those lines made for me by an ex-girlfriend. Sadly, she was not a mathematician, so the specific formulae aren't of much interest. Nice to have for the occasional costumed ball, though.
I met a bloke once who had Euclid's proof of Pythagoras' theorem tattooed on his arm, and got into a drunken argument with him about whether or not he should have chosen a more elegant proof.
In response to
The Sin of Underconfidence
Cultivate a habit of confronting challenges - not the ones that can kill you outright, perhaps, but perhaps ones that can potentially humiliate you.
You may be interested to learn that high-end mountaineers apply exactly the strategy you describe to challenges that might kill them outright. Mick Fowler even states it explicitly in his autobiography - "success every time implies that one's objectives are not challenging enough".
A large part of mountaineering appears to be about identifying the precise point where your situation will become unrecoverable, and then backing off just before you reach it. On the other hand, sometimes you just get unlucky.
In response to
The Contrarian Status Catch-22
I think that, while there's some truth in what you say, you're twisting yourself into intellectual knots to avoid having to reify (and thus admit to) arrogance. As far as atheism goes, I think you were much more on the money with your post about untheism and antitheism: in a secular society, untheism is rarely an issue, but antitheism (like all proselytising belief-systems) is very annoying to the recipients.
I wrote a note to myself to re-read it in 6 months.
That's actually not a bad idea. I think I'll adopt it. Easy enough to do with iCal or Google Calendar.
There's software (such as the open-source Mnemosyne) which works by exactly this kind of staged review, in a more sophisticated form.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm prepared to meet them halfway, but trying to do it at a meetup is probably the wrong place to do it.
Yes, you're probably right.