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

Comment author: Eitan_Zohar 28 November 2014 07:30:57PM *  1 point [-]

Well, I can't evaluate that. But if I do have Asperger's, than it is so weak as to be irrelevant. My behavior as a child is diametrically different from today and think it's safe to conclude that it was environmental.

Comment author: sanddbox 28 November 2014 09:55:59PM 1 point [-]

Honestly, whether you have aspergers or not a lot of alarm bells are ringing in my head right now.

You're not just set on joining the IDF, but rather any random army. Why?

And if you think aspergers is defined by "fluency" then you don't really understand what aspergers/autism is, honestly.

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 June 2013 10:14:21AM 1 point [-]

Exactly. When has a belief in god payed rent?

I spoke didn't use the God word but spoke more generally about spiritual experiences, which you believe don't happen.

This is very wishy-washy language. If there were enough evidence of a 'greater force' to make it worth believing, I would believe it.

The question is: How much evidence would you need?

If I understand your map of the world right, spiritual experiences like recalling past lifes shouldn't exist? The people who make those reports didn't really made those experiences.

If someone would guide you through recalling a memory of a pastlife that feels as real as the memories that you recall from your present life how much would that cause you to update?

Comment author: sanddbox 06 June 2013 05:05:10PM 0 points [-]

If someone would guide you through recalling a memory of a pastlife that feels as real as the memories that you recall from your present life how much would that cause you to update?

Knowing how easily manipulable the human mind is, I wouldn't weight that as very strong evidence, especially when it comes to subjective feelings. As an example, humans modify their memories all the time without really realizing it, as in the case of people who point fingers at the wrong crime suspect and decades later are proven wrong.

Comment author: ChristianKl 04 June 2013 11:52:24AM 1 point [-]

It seems a little silly to say "I believe these experiences exist"; it almost sounds like you're trying to imply that some greater force exists.

Beliefs have to pay rent.

Would you start believing in some greater force if someone demostrates to you that those experiences exist by guiding you through the experience?

How much different kind of spiritual experiences would you need to experience to drop your belief in materialism?

Comment author: sanddbox 05 June 2013 02:25:51AM -1 points [-]

Beliefs have to pay rent.

Exactly. When has a belief in god payed rent?

Would you start believing in some greater force if someone demostrates to you that those experiences exist by guiding you through the experience?

This is very wishy-washy language. If there were enough evidence of a 'greater force' to make it worth believing, I would believe it. Naturally, that would have to be a lot of evidence.

How much different kind of spiritual experiences would you need to experience to drop your belief in materialism?

For future reference, you'd use "many" instead of "much" in your first sentence. Anyway, by materialism do you mean physicalism? As above, I would need an enormous amount of evidence to change my views in this case.

Comment author: Thomas 03 June 2013 07:31:03AM *  2 points [-]

Good point. To avoid being wrong, one may restrict himself to write about common accepted things, like 2+2=4. What is boring.

But I will say something very controversial. Like "faster rotating planets are warmer than slowly rotating, everything else equal". Most people "know" it is the other way around. Then I will try to decompose this statement to some well known and thus boring facts.

Risky strategy I know.

Comment author: sanddbox 03 June 2013 10:04:30PM 0 points [-]

Oh, don't get me wrong (no pun intended) - I don't think it's a bad thing to be frequently wrong. It's only bad to a) refuse to change your opinion and b) not realize you're wrong.

Comment author: Thomas 02 June 2013 09:37:55PM 0 points [-]

Math, physics, coding, strategy games, conflicts, the (near) future as I see it, promoting some contrarian views.

I don't approve many common views, I think I can see through several established misconceptions. Still, I could be wrong now and then.

Comment author: sanddbox 02 June 2013 11:36:06PM 2 points [-]

Still, I could be wrong now and then.

If you think you're only wrong "every now and then", then you haven't really learned much from LW.

Comment author: [deleted] 02 June 2013 06:55:02AM 1 point [-]

this might resemble the kind of list you were looking for:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2un/references_resources_for_lesswrong/

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread, June 2-15, 2013
Comment author: sanddbox 02 June 2013 10:29:37PM 0 points [-]

Wow, that's a lot of information. Thanks!

Comment author: wedrifid 02 June 2013 06:21:57AM 10 points [-]

The most linear way to read Eliezer's Sequences is in chronological order by date of original posting, although it might not be the best way.

Mind you it will be a good approximation of the best way. His posting order was dominated by needing to explain requisite knowledge before explaining later concepts. Perhaps the most obvious optimisation when it comes to reading is just skipping the parts that aren't interesting.

Comment author: sanddbox 02 June 2013 10:29:15PM 1 point [-]

Definitely - there's a lot of concepts that seem rather obvious to me, while others take me a lot longer to wrap my head around, so I've been skipping the ones that are really obvious to me.

Comment author: sanddbox 02 June 2013 05:27:27AM -1 points [-]

Obviously the actual number itself is completely arbitrary, although I think you did a pretty good job estimating and giving a relatively realistic range. The full impact of Google, of course, can't really be quantified; it's impacted the world culturally, technically, socially, economically, etc. When you think about it, things that we understand qualitatively but not quantitatively are usually massively complex.

Comment author: sanddbox 02 June 2013 04:26:00AM 3 points [-]

Has anyone on LW compiled a list of books/subjects to read/learn that basically gives brings you through all the ideas discussed on LW?

The sequences are the obvious answer, but it's nice to go into subjects a little more in-depth, plus the sequences are somewhat frustrating to navigate (every article in the sequences has links to plenty of other articles, so it's hard to attack the sequences in linear fashion).

Comment author: Pentashagon 31 May 2013 09:07:05PM 1 point [-]

There's sufficient evidence that people experience what they call "ghosts" and "god" for me to believe that such experiences exist. I don't think "ghosts" or "gods" are the cause of those experiences, however.

Comment author: sanddbox 01 June 2013 12:39:45AM 1 point [-]

Well, yeah. The ability of humans to self-delude themselves is well-known, and of course mental illness exists as well.

It seems a little silly to say "I believe these experiences exist"; it almost sounds like you're trying to imply that some greater force exists. It's reminiscent of those people that say "well, I don't believe in God, but there has to be something" as if they'd just uttered a profound statement.

It'd be silly to doubt that at least a small portion of the people reporting experiences believe they experienced whatever they said.

View more: Next