All of hyporational's Comments + Replies

Not recognizing what the rules are or not understanding why they exist could be more easily confused with non-conformity, while recognizing the rules but failing to apply them is more apparently incompetent. Volitional non-conformity requires understanding of the rules and the ability to apply them, and it's not entirely obvious what constitutes understanding in this highly subjective matter. The aspect of opting in/out of acquiring the skills needed for conformity complicates things further.

Lots of late night computer screen time? That blue light is messing with sleep cycles. I used to think I'm a night owl myself but can adjust my sleep schedule at will if I just mind the lighting. These days I wake up at 2-4am.

Curiously all males in my family used to be late sleepers when young but effortlessly switched to rising early when their careers kicked off. They didn't have computers back then so maybe it was their social lives keeping them up late.

the question under discussion here is what actually is the placebo effect and how much of it can you attribute to psychosomatic factors and how much to just regression to the mean (aka natural healing).

In that case your opener is slightly polemical :)

But that doesn't mean that we couldn't or shouldn't ask questions about the placebo effect itself.

Agreed. The problem with nonintervention arms for studying the placebo effect is that there aren't clear incentives for adding them and they cost statistical power.

The placebo group is called such because it receives the placebo treatment, not because medical researchers think all improvement in it is attributable to the placebo effect. Results are reported as improvement in the treatment arm vs. the placebo arm, and never have I seen these differences explicitly reported as treatment effect vs. placebo effect, and I've read hundreds of medical papers. The real magnitude of the placebo effect is almost never of interest in these papers. Some professionals in the medical community could have such a misconception becau... (read more)

1Lumifer
Sure. But the question under discussion here is what actually is the placebo effect and how much of it can you attribute to psychosomatic factors and how much to just regression to the mean (aka natural healing). You are correct in that most intervention studies don't care about the magnitude of the placebo effect, they just take the placebo arm of the trial as a baseline. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't or shouldn't ask questions about the placebo effect itself.

Whatever the terminology, they should make the connection between the process of decision making and the science of decision making, which they don't seem to do. Medicine is like this isolated bubble where every insight must come from the medical community itself.

I found overcoming bias and became a rationalist during med school. Finding the blog was purely accidental, although I recognized the need for understanding my thinking, so I'm not sure what form this need would have taken given a slightly different circumstance.

We were taught bayes in the form of predictive values, but this was pretty cursory. Challenging the medical professors' competence publicly isn't a smart move careerwise, unless they happen to be exceptionally rational and principled, unfortunately. There's a time to shut up and multiply, and a time to bend to the will of the elders :)

2BiasedBayes
Yep :) You are definetely right career wise. Problem for me was the 200 other people who will absorb completely wrong idea of how the mind works if I wont say anything. Primum non nocere. But yeah, this was 4 years ago anyway...just wanted to mention it as an anecdote of bad general reasoning and biases :)
7Lumifer
Reminds me of:

Huh. My experience is somewhat similar to yours in the sense that I never was a big fan of memorization, and I'm glad that I could outsource some parts of the process to Anki. I also seem to outperform my peers in complex situations where ready made decision algorithms are not available, and outperformed them in the few courses in medschool that were not heavy on memorization. The complex situations obviously don't benefit from bayes too much, but they benefit from understanding the relevant cognitive biases.

The medical degree is a financial jackpot here i... (read more)

2Lumifer
Is it just a matter of terminology? I would guess that all med students will agree that they should be able to make a correct diagnosis (where correct = corresponding to the underlying reality) and then prescribe appropriate treatment (where appropriate = effective in achieving goals set for this patient).

Welcome! I'm an MD and haven't yet figured out why there are so few of us here, given the importance of rationality for medical decision making. It's interesting that at least in my country there is zero training in cognitive biases in the curriculum.

8Anders_H
I have the Irish equivalent of an MD; "Medical Bachelor, Bachelor of Surgery, Bachelor of the Art of Obstetrics". This unwieldy degree puts me in fairly decent company on Less Wrong. I may be generalizing from a sample of one, but my impression is that medicine selects out rationalists for the following reasons: (1) The human body is an incompletely understood highly complex system; the consequences of manipulating any of the components can generally not be predicted from an understanding of the overall system. Medicine therefore necessarily has to rely heavily on memorization (at least until we get algorithms that take care of the memorization) (2) A large component of successful practice of medicine is the ability to play the socially expected part of a doctor. (3) From a financial perspective, medical school is a junk investment after you consider the opportunity costs. Consider the years in training, the number of hours worked, the high stakes and high pressure, the possibility of being sued etc. For mainstream society, this idea sounds almost contrarian, so rationalists may be more likely to recognize it. -- My story may be relevant here: I was a middling medical student; I did well in those of the pre-clinical courses that did not rely too heavily on memorization, but barely scraped by in many of the clinical rotations. I never had any real passion for medicine, and this was certainly reflected in my performance. When I worked as an intern physician, I realized that my map of the human body was insufficiently detailed to confidently make clinical decisions; I still wonder whether my classmates were better at absorbing knowledge that I had missed out on, or if they are just better at exuding confidence under uncertainty. I now work in a very subspecialized area of medical research that is better aligned with rational thinking; I essentially try to apply modern ideas about causal inference to comparative effectiveness research and medical decision making

You know what's sad? It seems the support was discontinued a year ago. I never noticed because it still works just fine, syncs the annotated pdf files to dropbox and all that, and still seems to be the best pdf reader there is.

Found and apk that seems legit, I'll pm the link to you, try at your own risk.

More apps for Android (5.0.2):

Alarm clock plus - probably the most feature rich alarm bell app. It allows for multiple alarms on different days with different tones, alarm labels, gently rising alarm, quick to set one time alarms and alarms that won't stop unless you solve a math problem which is useful for deep sleepers.

Clockwork Tomato - a fully customizable pomodoro timer.

Darker - pretty much the same as Night Mode, except that it also allows for color adjustment. Unfortunately Android doesn't seem to support dimming certain wavelengths and the color is... (read more)

2Elo
Can I get a link to repligo? Can't seem to find it in a quick search... Also I downloaded the RittR labs stuff and alarm clock plus to try it out.

Did they work? Did you try any other solutions?

1Elo
Mindfulness bell seems to have bothered people around me. They are getting used to it. It's not really doing its job of keeping me mindful (I currently have it set on 30mins). I would like any suggestion you have for "thought process to go through with the intention of being mindful". I tend to still think, "is this the highest value thing I could be doing right now?" and have occasionally closed things I was messing around on and moved on; but being a smart-guy I can rationalise that "yes this is" far more often than it probably is. At least it gets me to stop and wonder "what am I doing" frequently. which is a good thing. I expect a month from now I will have a naturally trained "mindful clock" and won't need the chime. Also mindfullness bell conflicts with "narritive app" when the chime goes off it crashes the other app. Which is probably because of bad coding; but I have the bad coding to thank for letting me keep all my other notifications on silent while keeping that one on loud. Thank you! P.S. any other apps you would suggest?

I wasn't sure if we were metaphorically talking about the foetus brain in question or a hypothetical human that's fully grown in an isolation tank. If we were talking about the former, we seem to have a fundamentally different set of ethics. With your clarification I assume we're talking about the latter, in which case I agree with you.

Saying that an undeveloped foetus brain isn't thinking because it hasn't received sensory stimuli is a different argument than saying that a fully grown brain can't think because it hasn't received sensory stimuli.

9Luke_A_Somers
We don't know enough about brain operation to conclude that sensory stimuli are necessary for ethically sensitive processes to start.

Caynax hourly chime and Mindfulness bell on Android

0Elo
thanks. will install and try them.

Actually when I first responded to you I was thinking about biology, psychology and such as the higher level. In this case the claim seems to make sense. However, if I understood EHeller correctly, this doesn't hold water inside the realm of modern physics. Besides, we can in principle never know if we're at the lowest level.

I think I'm the one communicating poorly since it seems I understood your first explanation, thanks for making it sure anyways and thanks for the link!

When I was wondering about successful predictions in particle physics, I was in particular thinking about Higgs boson. We needed to build a massive "microscope" to detect it, yet could predict its existence four decades ago with much lower energy scale equipment, right?

5EHeller
The existence of the Higg's is one of the rare bits of physics that doesn't average out under renormalization. The reason is that the Higgs is deeply related to the overall symmetry of the whole standard model- you start with a symmetry group SU(2)xU(1) and then the Higgs messes with the symmetry so you end up with just U(1) symmetry. What the theory predicts is relationships between the Higgs, the W and Z boson, but not the absolute scale. The general rule is RG flow respects symmetries, but other stuff gets washed out. This is why the prediction was actually "at least 1 scalar particle that interacts with W and Z bosons". But there are lots of models consistent with this- it could have been a composite particle made of new quark-like-things (technicolor models), there could be multiple Higgs (2 in SUSY, dozens in some grand unified models),etc. So it's sort of an existence proof with no details.

Thanks, my reality got just a bit weirder. It's almost as if someone set up a convenient playground for us, but that must be my apophenia speaking. If there are infinite possibilities of lower level theories, are successful predictions in particle physics just a matter of parsimony? Is there profuse survival bias when it comes to hyping successful predictions?

3EHeller
I think I'm communicating a little poorly. So start with atomic level physics- it's characterized by energy scales of 13.6 eV or so. Making measurements at that scale will tell you a lot about atomic level physics, but it won't tell you anything about lower level physics- there is an infinite number of of lower level physics theories that will be compatible with your atomic theory (which is why you don't need the mass of the top quark to calculate the hydrogen energy levels- conversely you can't find the mass of the top quark by measuring those levels). So you build a more powerful microscope, now you can get to 200*10^6 eV. Now you'll start creating all sorts of subatomic particles and you can build QCD up as a theory (which is one of the infinitely many theories compatible with atomic theory). But you can't infer anything about the physics that might live at even lower levels. So you build a yet more powerful microscope, now you can get 10^14 eV, and you start to see the second generation of quarks,etc. At every new level you get to, there might be yet more physics below that length scale. The fundamental length scale is maybe the planck scale, and we are still 13 orders of magnitude above that. Edit: this author is sort of a dick overall, but this was a good piece on the renormalization group- http://su3su2u1.tumblr.com/post/123586152663/renormalization-group-and-deep-learning-part-1

The whole point of the renormalization group is that lower level models aren't more accurate, the lower level effects average out.

I tried to read about RG but it went way over my head. Is the universe in principle inexplicable by lower level theories alone according to modern physics? Doesn't "averaging out" lose information? Are different levels of abstraction considered equally real by RG? Does this question even matter or is it in the realm of unobservables in the vein of Copenhagen vs MW interpretation?

5EHeller
The point of RG is that "higher level" physics is independent of most "lower level" physics. There are infinitely many low level theories that could lead to a plane flying. There are infinitely many lower level theories that could lead to quarks behaving as they do,etc. So 1. you can't deduce low level physics from high level physics (i.e. you could never figure out quarks by making careful measurements of tennis balls), and you can never know if you have truly found the lowest level theory (there might be a totally different theory if you only had the ability to probe higher energies). This is super convenient for us- we don't need to know the mass of the top quark to figure out the hydrogen atom,etc. Also, it's a nice explanation for why the laws of physics look so simple- the laws of physics are the fixed points of renormalization group flow.

EDIT: this is now pretty much retracted, see the following thread.

If the reductionist thesis is "we use multi-level models for computational reasons, but physical reality has only a single level", then what kind of evidence could support it against the thesis "we use multi-level models for computational reasons AND physical reality has multiple levels?"

Lower level models are more accurate than abstract models, and you can observe the consequences of this on multiple levels of abstraction. Therefore if physical reality has multiple l... (read more)

1Black_Lemon
Even if the argument "Occam's Razor says that since reality having only one level is simpler than reality having multiple levels, then the first option is more likely to be true." was valid, there is a problem. Contrarily to other contexts where Occam's Razor is actually useful, none of these options lead us to anticipate differently under any circumstance, so the rational thing to do here is not to apply Occam's Razor, but to reject the question "Does physical reality have one level or multiple levels?" Edit: Note that I did not mean to say that you should not apply Occam's Razor at all in this scenario. Perhaps, given the hypothesis that reality has multiple levels, Occam's Razor makes certain phenomena more likely, and observations regarding these phenomena could be used to argue for or against the reductionist thesis. The point is that I cannot find examples of such phenomena, specially if the kind of multiple levels that we are talking about are purely physical.
1EHeller
The whole point of the renormalization group is that lower level models aren't more accurate, the lower level effects average out. The multiple levels of reality are "parallel in a peculiar way" governed by RG. It might be "more complex" but it's also the backbone of modern physics.

True. Since people are so irrational, not to mention inconsistent and slow, it might be one of the most difficult problems of FAI. The whole concept of consent in the presence of a much more powerful mind seems pretty shaky.

Our stated preferences are predictably limited and often untrue accounts what actually constitutes our well-being and our utility to those around us. I'm not sure I want to wake up to a god psychologically incompetent enough to revive people based on weighing wishes greatly. If there are resource constraints which I highly doubt it's especially important to make decisions based on reliable data.

When I say something like "if it were free and you knew it would work would you sign up?" some people have said "no", or even "of course

... (read more)
2ChristianKl
Consent seems to be an important ethical principle for many people and an FAI might well end up implementing it in some form.

Thanks for informing about the typo. LW doesn't understand brackets in links, had to put a backlash in the closing bracket and embed the link in the text to get a working link.

Words can be very tricky. If you want to learn a more general lesson of where that mistake might have come from, you might find this series of posts interesting.

2Elo
yes, its explained in the formatting help that a / is needed to symbolise where that symbol is not used as a formatting symbol. Thanks for the link, my confusion (and mistake) sits in my memory which connected the word meanings to simpler concepts to make them easier to know and store. In fact - I was so sure that the confusion was with the situation and not with me; that I automatically asked before challenging my existing knowledge. I mean - its just framing right? :P

If there are mistakes made or the environment requires adaptation, a sufficiently flexible intelligence can mediate the selection pressure.

0Lumifer
The end result still has to be for the failures to die or be castrated. There is no problem with saying that values in future will "change" or "drift", but "evolve" is more specific and I'm not sure how will it work.

That's really not what is meant by framing) in this context.

2Elo
Thanks! I must have got confused with the words. The link has a typo but I worked out my mistake.

My training is in engineering/programming, and my genetics knowledge doesn't much exceed anything taught at the high school level. I am, however, prepared to read college-level textbooks on the subject.

We read this in med school, a bit too wordy for my taste but easy to understand.

I am very interested in how evolution started [...] How did evolution work in the beginning?

Nobody knows for sure. The primordial soup is just an educated guess based on the fact that complex molecules had to arise from simpler ones. This paper focuses on the evolution of ... (read more)

A god smart enough to know what's good for us is smart enough not to need a prayer to be summoned.

1James_Miller
The god might give great weight to individual preferences. I have tried to convince lots of people to sign up for cryonics. When I say something like "if it were free and you knew it would work would you sign up?" some people have said "no", or even "of course not." Plus, the god might have resource constrains and at the margin it could be a close call whether to bring me back, and my stating a desire to be brought back could tip the god to do so with probability high enough to justify the time I spent making the original comment.
0eternal_neophyte
I can easily imagine that if I ran a simulation of mankind's evolutionary history, I'd adopt a principle of responding to the requests of simulants given that they are small enough and won't interfere with the goals of the simulation, just in case they have some awareness. If the purpose of the simulation isn't simply to satisfy all the simulants' needs for them (and would in fact be orthogonal to its actual purpose), they would have to make some kind of request for me to do something.

It's a mistake, it should say higher.

I assume that by evolution you mean biological evolution specifically, since the general mechanics of any evolution can be accurately described in a few sentences after reading The Selfish Gene. People here could probably write a program in a couple of lines of code that fits the bill.

If you want to simulate biological evolution, the simplest form of it would be in the realm of bacteria, and I'd search books about bacteriology and bacterial evolution. Any introductory text in cell biology will describe how genes are copied and expressed and how mutations work. I predict you'll be painfully surprised by the complexity of the specifics.

If you let money decide or do tests you lose the statistical benefits of randomization. I don't understand how you see no ethical problem in ignoring preferences or not matching best students with best schools, perhaps I misunderstand you.

-2ChristianKl
Yes of course, you need the randomization. If you want an equal society that it's impotant that poor students also get good teachers.

That deals with the costs but I doubt consent would be easy to obtain unless the schools are very uniform in quality/status and people don't have preferences about which languages to learn, hence the possible problem with ethics. Schools have preferences too, quality schools want quality students.

0ChristianKl
There are multiple ways you can solve the problem of who gets to go to the most desired school. You can do it via tuition fees and let money decide who goes to the best school. You can do tests to have the best students go to the best school. You can also do random assignments. Neither of those are "better" from an ethical perspective.

Quality observational research is probably very difficult to do since you can't properly control for indirect cognitive benefits you get from learning a second language and I'd take any results with a grain of salt. You also can't properly control for confounding factors e.g. reasons for learning a second language. I think you'd need experimental research with randomization to several languages and this would be very costly and possibly inethical to set up.

I have without a question gotten a huge boost from learning English since there aren't enough texts ... (read more)

2ChristianKl
You just need to have an area where different schools have different curriculums and there a lottery mechanism for deciding which student goes to which school.

So I just want to say it is sort of odd, estrogen does not represent cultural femininity nearly as well as testosterone represents cultural masculinity.

I think there's some form of the mind projection fallacy going on here. I think the oddness is a result of expectations based on the principles of culture, instead of the principles of biology.

Any good articles or books or personal opinions that shed some light on this?

Introductory texts on cell biology.

What are you trying to do when you "meditate"?

If by meditation you mean concentrating on the breath and observing whatever sensations arise, when boredom strikes you could try concentrating your attention on the sensations of boredom until it goes away, then returning to breath. Same trick works great with physical pain or itching.

How much of the research is done on children? Did you train children?

Much of the effect you attribute to training is likely just maturation of the brain. There's going to be a lot of natural improvement in cognitive functions until your son reaches his 20s. Can't see harm in the exercises though, and I think you can assume by default that training will improve at least the specific functions trained.

2James_Miller
Certainly possible.

That was a wonderfully clear introduction! I'd definitely want to see more posts on sleep since I think it's one of the most important, if not the most important aspect of optimizing cognitive performance.

I second Mirzhan_Irkegulov's disinterest in polyphasic sleep though, at least until several lower hanging fruits have been picked. Polyphasic sleep is likely to be excessively difficult to maintain by most people, even if it were a viable alternative. Since sleep is enormously important as you stated and likely interesting as it is to many people, your p... (read more)

4Memory_Slip
Another interesting topic would be the effect of body temperature on sleep latency and/or quality (or possibly temperature of selected body parts--there is some buzz about the so-called "cooling cap" for insomnia lately, for example). To me it seems a big breakthrough for being able to trim sleep time down substantially would be some technology that allowed a person to pass through the lighter stages of NREM sleep more quickly so that you could spend the majority of sleep time in slow wave.

Why is the experience of color not physical knowledge? Why is Mary's experience of learning the science physical? What would the science of color vision look like if nobody experienced color?

But I did not think cold/flu virus comes from the hand, I thought it only works with droplet infection from the air, such as people sneezing.

Nope.

You can use normal saline and oil sprays to get your nose clean so you don't have to pick it. Or pick it with a clean tissue.

I doubt drug allergies and environmental allergies correlate in a meaningful way.

Nobody runs clinical trials to show that the cup of salts has ideal properties.

Nasal irrigation seems to have been pretty successfully commercialized, so I suppose you could commercialize heated salt and run trials with some inventive marketing.

0ChristianKl
But then you would likely sell your heated salt at a higher price point and not for the price of ordinary salt.

The pre-packaged food in grocery stores has to be preserved somehow, perhaps most importantly with excess salt, which often makes it pretty unhealthy. Fresh made food also tastes better.

6drethelin
In higher end grocery stores you can get lots of made fresh that day foods, even sushi and cooked dishes.

Don't get it in the first place. Take care of good hand hygiene and don't pick your nose or rub your eyes and watch where you put your hands in public places. Don't get sleep deprived or stressed and don't exercise excessively so that you don't compromise your immune system. Avoid people who you know are sick, avoid shaking hands or wash your hands afterwards. If you get a cold very frequently or it is always prolonged despite of taking precautions check for asthma and allergic rhinitis and get those treated.

1[anonymous]
Hm, I thought people get it mostly from the air, via other people sneezing? I must admit I am guilty of picking my nose as I hate it when it is full, and doing that with not even having washed my hand after grabbing everywhere on the public transport. But I did not think cold/flu virus comes from the hand, I thought it only works with droplet infection from the air, such as people sneezing. I would rule asthma out - it would pretty much make exercise impossible, wouldn't it? My cardio is not too bad for my weight and with that kind of problem it should be. Allergy - good point, I actually told the doc that one of the medicine I took (probably silver-protein + ephedrin) resulted in allergic skin rash, and then the doc said if I am unlucky, the symptoms of medicine allergy and the cold can just as well add up, as they are similar.

When I'm in love, my thoughts are obsessed with the person and other thoughts are put aside. My thinking is distorted by baseless optimism. I fail to notice flaws in them I would notice with a sober mind, and when I do notice flaws I accept flaws I wouldn't normally accept. Since being in love feels so good, much of my thinking is dedicated to reinforcing my feelings through imagining situations with the person when they're not around and of course nothing in those situations ever goes wrong. This creates unrealistic expectations. I plan my life with them ... (read more)

0Capla
Comparing... I'm not sure about obsessed but when I'm [state possibly reference by the phrase "in love", and which I will represent by "X"] I do think about the person a lot, significantly more than anyone else in my life, despite not seeing this person with high frequency. I quibble with "baseless." When I'm X I certainly express great admiration for the person, bordering on a perception of perfection, but the individual in question has always been someone who is legitimately exceptional by objective measures. However, it does seem to a very strong halo effect. Check. I'm not sure what sort of imagining you're doing, but I can relate to imagined conversations during which the person in question is impressed to the point of astonishment of some virtue of mine (my restraint, or my altruism, or something). I don't think so, but then, I've never desired to have a romantic relationship with either of my objects of affection. I have desired to be close to them and spend time with them. I'm not really sure what "romantic" is. Nope. When I'm X, I'm not doing an planning. No again. I have distinct meta-cognitive thoughts. For instance, I feel like I will love this person forever, because that is entailed in the feeling, but I am also aware that I have no real way of predicting my future mental states and that people who are in love frequently wrongly predict the immortality of the feeling. I laugh at myself and at how ridiculous I am. My ability to maintain a clear outside-view does nothing to squash the subjective feelings. None of this has any extremely obvious effects on my decision making: I wouldn't run off and get married for instance, because of that voice of rational meta-cognition, for example. However, It probably biases me in all sorts of ways that I can't track as readily. I should also note that I might sometimes feel a twinge of jealousy, but release it almost immediately. So...Have I been "in love"? It sounds like I've had most (?) of the symptoms?
0Capla
I was just rereading the sequences, and I wonder, is being "in love" just an application of the halo effect?

I was thinking about removing the comment because it wasn't clear to me what you were referring to. I think having strong feelings for other people while ignoring how they feel about you is generally a waste of resources.

0Capla
In what sense is it a waste of resources? What value are you optimizing for, that you are being wasteful?

Why is it sometimes feelings of love instead of friendship.

Could be just context and interpretation, which do make the psychological reality of the situation different.

I don't know if being "in love" is a thing that actually exists

What do you mean? There's a word called love and there's a reality that people refer to with the word. Words are replaceable.

I'd like to know if it corresponds to an internal state that I have experienced.

The problem is the same hormonal process doesn't necessarily feel exactly the same in everyone's body. I think it would be more reliable to inspect your thoughts and your behavior towards the person and compare them to other people in love.

In particular, how does romantic lo

... (read more)
0Capla
Exactly. But I don't know what the thoughts of other people are and I have reason to think that my external behaviors will differ from others, even if we are both motivated by the same feelings.

When I am in such a state, the feelings of the other towards me are fairly irrelevant to my feelings towards her.

I think people learn to regulate themselves when they realize how self-defeating this is. I know I did. The key to self-regulation is stopping the process in it's infancy. This applies to other feelings too.

2Capla
What is "this"?

The standard quick-and-dirty method of predicting others seems to be "model them as slightly modified versions of you"

It certainly doesn't feel that way to me, but I might have inherited some autistic characteristics since there are a couple of autistic people in my extended family. Now that I've worked with people more, it's more like I have several basic models of people like "rational", "emotional", "aggressive", "submissive", "assertive", "polite", "stupid", "smart&... (read more)

0ilzolende
Thanks! Your personality archetypes/stereotypes sound like a quick-and-dirty modeling system that I can actually use, but one that I shouldn't explain to the people who know me by my true name. That probably explains why I hadn't heard about it already: if it were less offensive-sounding, then someone would have told me about it. Instead, we get the really-nice-sounding but not very practical suggestions about putting yourself in other peoples' shoes, which is better for basic* morality than it is for prediction. *By "basic", I mean "stuff all currently used ethical systems would agree on", like 'don't hit someone in order to acquire their toys.'

I'd be more interested in behavioral changes in the mice. For some reason not all people with tiny hippocampuses or generally atrophied brains have problems with memory (or mood), and we still can't reliably diagnose progressive memory disorders, or many other neurological disorders for that matter, via brain scans alone.

The hippocampus is a relatively tiny structure in the human brain, and I would guess it's even proportionally smaller in the mouse brain. I doubt the corresponding decrease in cerebrospinal fluid volume would make any difference in function. There's already much more variation in cerebrospinal fluid volume in healthy humans than a 20% increase in hippocampal volume could account for.

Do you compare only the responses of the same person at different times

Yes. There's too much variation between persons. I also think there's variation between types of pain and variation depending on whether there are other symptoms. There are no objective specific referents but people who are in actual serious pain usually look like it, are tachycardic, hypertensive, aggressive, sweating, writhing or very still depending on what type of pain were talking about. Real pain is also aggravated by relevant manual examinations.

Load More