Comment author: MathieuRoy 02 March 2014 01:44:51AM *  3 points [-]

I am doing a Youtube playlist of transhumanist songs (with a particular quote from each song). Since there's not a lot of these, I also put songs that are only somewhat transhumanist (frankly I'm shocked at the ratio of transhumanist songs to love songs). So do you have suggestions for songs that are somewhat related to transhumanism (and/or rationality) (not necessarily in English) please?

For example, here are the ones that I have put in the playlist so far:

Turn It Around by Tim McMorris

Have you ever looked outside and didn’t like what you see

Or am I the only one who sees the things we could be

If we made more effort, then I think you’d agree

That we could make the world a better place, a place that is free

Another one is Hiro by Soprano: a song about someone who's saying what he would do if he could travel back in time. (it’s in French but with English subtitles) (it's inspired from the TV show Heroes which I also recommend).

Tellement de choses que j’aurais voulu changer ou voulu vivre (So many things that I would change or live)

Tellement de choses que j’aurais voulu effacer ou revivre (So many things that I would erase or live again)

The classic Imagine by John Lennon

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace…

The Future Soon by Jonathan Coulton

Well it's gonna be the future soon

And I won't always be this way

One that I saw recommended on LW: The Singularity by Dr. Steel (it's my favorite!)

Nanotechnology transcending biology

This is how the race is won

Another that I saw on LW: Singularity by The Lisps

You'd keep all the memories and feelings that you ever want,

And now you can commence your life as an uploaded extropian.

Singularity by Steve Aoki & Angger Dimas ft. My Name is Kay

We’re gonna live, we’ll never die

I am the very model of a singularitarian

I am a Transhuman, Immortalist, Extropian

I am the very model of a Singularitarian

Another World by Doug Bard

Sensing a freedom you've never known,

no limitation, only you can decide

Transhuman by Neurotech

The mutation is in our nature

Transhuman by Amaranthe

My adrenaline feeds my desire

To become an immortal machine

E.T. by Katy Perry ft. Kanye West

You're from a whole other world

A different dimension

You open my eyes

And I'm ready to go

Lead me into the light

Space Girl by Charmax

She told me never venture out among the asteroids, yet I did.

Comment author: ygert 03 March 2014 08:12:07AM 3 points [-]

In this writup of the 2013 Boston winter solstice celebration, there is a list of songs sung there. I would suggest this as a primary resource for populating your list.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 25 February 2014 02:24:27AM *  3 points [-]

Agreed that making up the story only tells so much about the narrator. But so far we're only considering the narrator.

Believing the story is what will change you. Until the day the kid knows any better, he will seriously believe that the universe has a punishment system that kills people for staying up late. If he's upset at his little brother, he may try to trick him into not sleeping, hoping for him to be eaten. This may or may not poison their future relationship.

In a world where the kid grows up without being told the monster wasn't real, he will tell the same story to his own kids. The first scenario will repeat itself, but this time the adult will mean it.

Edit: I just noticed this scenario contradicts my previous argument, where I suggested the narrator was more to blame than his gullible listeners. I feel more inclined to think otherwise now.

Comment author: ygert 25 February 2014 08:55:03AM *  1 point [-]

Upvoted for explicitly noticing and noting your confusion. One of the best things about Less Wrong is that noticing the flaws in one's own argument is respected and rewarded. (As it should be, in a community of truth-seekers.)

Good for you!

Comment author: MathieuRoy 10 February 2014 04:58:14AM *  2 points [-]

What transhumanist and/or rationalist podcast/audiobook do you prefer beside hpmor which I just finished and really liked!!

Comment author: ygert 10 February 2014 12:41:42PM *  1 point [-]

As I mentioned to you when you asked on PredictionBook, look to the media threads. These are threads specifically intended for the purpose you want: to find/share media, including podcasts/audiobooks.

I also would like to reiterate what I said on PredictionBook: I don't think PredictionBook is really meant for this kind of question. Asking it here is fine, even good. It gives us a chance to direct you to the correct place without clogging up PredictionBook with nonpredictions.

Comment author: blacktrance 07 February 2014 06:43:44PM *  4 points [-]

It would be convenient if, when talking about utilitarianism, people would be more explicit about what they mean by it. For example, when saying "I am a utilitarian", does the writer mean "I follow a utility function", "My utility function includes the well-being of other beings", "I believe that moral agents should value the well-being of other beings", or "I believe that moral agents should value all utility equally, regardless of the source or who experiences it"? Traditionally, only the last of these is considered utilitarianism, but on LW I've seen the word used differently.

Comment author: ygert 09 February 2014 05:43:43PM *  9 points [-]

Right. Many people use the word "utilitarianism" to refer to what is properly named "consequentialism". This annoys me to no end, because I strongly feel that true utilitarianism is a decoherent idea (it doesn't really work mathematically, if anyone wants me to explain further, I'll write a post on it.)

But when these terms are used interchangeably, it gives the impression that consequentialism is tightly bound to utilitarianism, which is strictly false. Consequentialism is a very useful and elegant moral meta-system. It should not be shouldered out by utilitarianism.

Comment author: hyporational 09 February 2014 05:15:57PM 0 points [-]

I try to use language economically, there's a precision trade-off. On a spectrum from centralized to decentralized, do you think it's more centralized now than it was in the middle ages?

Comment author: ygert 09 February 2014 05:31:23PM *  9 points [-]

In a sense, most certainly yes! In the middle ages, each fiefdom was a small city-state, controlling in its own right not all that much territory. There certainly wasn't the concept of nationalism as we know it today. And even if some duke was technically subservient to a king, that king wasn't issuing laws that directly impacted the duke's land on a day to day basis.

This is unlike what we have today: We have countries that span vast areas of land, with all authority reporting back to a central government. Think of how large the US is, and think of the fact that the government in Washington DC has power over it all. That is a centralized government.

It is true that there are state governments, but they are weak. Too weak, in fact. In the US today, the federal government is the final source of authority. The president of the US has far more power over what happens in a given state than a king in the middle ages had over what happened in any feudal dukedom.

Comment author: Emile 06 February 2014 08:59:46AM 0 points [-]

Presidential candidate interview setup that would have more of an impact:

Candidates present their program to a panel of experts (mostly economists, some foreign policy experts). The experts are then asked to give a probability of various future events (unemployment goes up/down, enter a new war, etc.) in 1, 2, 4, 10 years after the election, conditional on either candidate being elected. Some of the question are "standard", but some come from a poll of the public (or more exactly of people watching the show). Then after the election, the same experts are brought back and their past predictions are evaluated. The worst performers aren't invited back for the next pre-election show.

Comment author: ygert 06 February 2014 10:17:09AM *  1 point [-]

Or, prediction markets.

Same thing really, just cleaner and more elegant.

Comment author: adamzerner 28 January 2014 04:32:48PM 0 points [-]

I'm like 60% sure that its not that article I had in mind, but the idea is the same (incremental increases in rationality don't necessarily lead to incremental increases in winning), so I feel pretty satisfied regardless. Thanks!

Comment author: ygert 28 January 2014 10:34:22PM *  0 points [-]

Could the article you had in mind be this?

In any case, Eliezer has touched on this point multiple times in the sequences, often as a side note in posts on other topics. (See for example in Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate.) It's an important point, regardless.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 January 2014 10:08:30PM 2 points [-]

The concept of an index fund is a tiny little piece of each and every thing that's on the market.

This is not true. An index fund holds a particular index which generally does not represent "every thing that's on the market".

For a simple example, consider the most common index -- the S&P 500. This index holds 500 largest-capitalization stocks in the US. If you invest in the S&P500 index you can be fairly described as investing into US large-cap stocks. The point is that you are NOT investing into small-cap stocks and neither you are investing in a large variety of other financial assets (e.g. bonds).

Comment author: ygert 28 January 2014 11:40:32AM 0 points [-]

Yes. What I wrote was a summery, and not as perfectly detailed as one may wish. One can quibble about details: "the market"/"a market", and those quibbles may be perfectly legitimate. Yes, one who buys S&P 500 indices is only buying shares in the large-cap market, not in all the many other things in the US (or world) economy. It would be silly to try to define a index fund as something that invests in every single thing on the face of the planet, and some indices are more diversified than others.

That said, the archetypal ideal of an index fund is that imaginary one piece of everything in the world. A fund is more "indexy" the more diversified it is. In other words, when one buys index funds, what one is buying is diversity. To a greater or lesser extent, of course, and one should buy not only the broadest index funds available, but of course also many different (non-overlapping?) index funds, if one wants to reap the full benifit of diversification.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 January 2014 09:51:54PM 0 points [-]

ordinary investors should use low fee index funds

Two questions:

  • Doesn't this ignore the very important question of "which indices?"

  • Is this advice different from the "hold a sufficiently diversified portfolio" one?

Comment author: ygert 22 January 2014 10:04:18PM *  1 point [-]

Not an economist or otherwise particularly qualified, but these are easy questions.

I'll answer the second one first: This advice is exactly the same as advice to hold a diversified portfolio. The concept of an index fund is a tiny little piece of each and every thing that's on the market. The reasoning behind buying index funds is exactly the reasoning behind holding a diversified portfolio.

For the second question, remember the idea is to buy a little bit of everything, to diversify. So go meta, and buy little bits of many different index funds. But actually, as this is considered a good idea, people have made such meta-index funds, that are indices of indices, that you can buy in order to get a little bit of each index fund.

But as an index is defined as "a little bit of everything", the question of which one fades a lot in importance. There are indices of different markets, so one might ask which market to invest in, but even there you want to go meta and diversify. (Say, with one of those meta-indices.) And yes, you want to find one with low fees, which invests as widely as possible, etc. All the standard stuff. But while fiddling with the minueta may matter, it does pale when compared to the difference between buying indices and stupidly trying to pick stocks yourself.

In response to comment by Locaha on 2013 Survey Results
Comment author: [deleted] 22 January 2014 07:30:44AM *  6 points [-]

"I have been to several yoga classes. The last one I attended consisted of about thirty women, plus me (this was in Ireland; I don’t know if American yoga has a different gender balance).

We propose two different explanations for this obviously significant result.

First, these yoga classes are somehow driving men away. Maybe they say mean things about men (maybe without intending it! we’re not saying they’re intentionally misandrist!) or they talk about issues in a way exclusionary to male viewpoints. The yoga class should invite some men’s rights activists in to lecture the participants on what they can do to make men feel comfortable, and maybe spend some of every class discussing issues that matter deeply to men, like Truckasaurus.

Second, men just don’t like yoga as much as women. One could propose a probably hilarious evolutionary genetic explanation for this (how about women being gatherers in the ancestral environment, so they needed lots of flexibility so they could bend down and pick small plants?) but much more likely is just that men and women are socialized differently in a bunch of subtle ways and the interests and values they end up with are more pro-yoga in women and more anti-yoga in men. In this case a yoga class might still benefit by making it super-clear that men are welcome and removing a couple of things that might make men uncomfortable, but short of completely re-ordering society there’s not much they can do to get equal gender balance and it shouldn’t be held against them that they don’t.

The second explanation seems much more plausible for my yoga class, and honestly it seems much more plausible for the rationalist community as well."

A RESPONSE TO APOPHEMI ON TRIGGERS. Part IV.

In response to comment by [deleted] on 2013 Survey Results
Comment author: ygert 22 January 2014 07:48:35AM *  1 point [-]

This is a very appropriate quote, and I upvoted. However, I would suggest formatting the quote in markdown as a quote, using ">".

Something like this

In my opinion, this quote format is better: it makes it easier to distinguish it as a quote.

In any case, I'm sorry for nitpicking about formatting, and no offence is intended. Perhaps there is some reason I missed that explains why you put it the way you did?

View more: Prev | Next