"manage your working memory carefully" <--- This sounds like a potentially important skill that I wasn't aware of. Please could you elaborate?
I wrote some more about that here.
Science historian James Gleick thinks that part of what separates geniuses from ordinary people is their ability to concentrate deeply. If that's true, it seems plausible that this is a factor which can be modified without changing your genes. Remember, a lot of heuristics and biases exist so our brain can save on calories. But although being lazy might have saved precious calories in the ancestral environment, in the modern world we have plenty of calories and this is no longer an issue. (I do think I eat more fr...
It was also on the BBC TV main evening news today, and BBC News 24.
Edit: more from them here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30293863
How many things apparently impossible have nevertheless been performed by resolute men who had no alternative but death.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte.
Apparently that's old. The address currently on their website is https://blockchain.info/address/1BszW45pwXx7d7g4x9Xxbs9MGJEQcJsd3v although that hasn't received any coins yet.
Maybe the old one is fine too, but unless someone can shed light on why they changed from the old address, it's probably best not to send coins to it, although I'd hope if it had become unsafe they would have announced it loudly.
As it's been queried how many physicists, mathematicians, etc. currently believe what about QM, I thought this paper (no paywall, Yay!) might interest a few of you: A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics
For example, question 12: Copenhagen 42% Information 24% Everett 18%
...Here, we present the results of a poll carried out among 33 participants of a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The participants completed a questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions probing opinions on quantum-foundational is
That is the second most Ravenclaw thing I have ever heard.
For the overwhelmed, here's a summary snippet to encourage further investigation... (in rot13 for those who'd consider it spoilers, or just think Down With This Sort Of Thing).
From the Dual N-Back FAQ:
...Gb gubfr jubfr gvzr vf yvzvgrq: lbh znl jvfu gb fgbc ernqvat urer. Vs lbh frrx gb vzcebir lbhe yvsr, naq jnag gur terngrfg "onat sbe gur ohpx", lbh ner jryy-nqivfrq gb ybbx ryfrjurer.
Zrqvgngvba, sbe rknzcyr, vf rnfvre, snfgre, naq hygen-cbegnoyr. Glcvat genvavat jvyy qverpgyl vzcebir lbhe snpvyvgl jvgu n pbzchgre, n inyhnoyr fxvyy sbe guvf zbqrea
See also this post.
You learn most quickly immediately after ending a long fast. Your brain thinks you just learned something that saved it from starvation.
Ner lbh ernyyl mreb creprag fher gung'f pbeerpg? Pbhyq lbh fcraq rgreavgl tvivat nafjref jvgu gur fnzr zrgn-pbagenqvpgbel pbasvqrapr naq abg or evtug rira bapr?
For extra loopiness, (C) should say 33-and-1/3%.
You only need faith in two things: ...that some single large ordinal is well-ordered.
I'm confused. What do you mean by faith in... well, properties of abstract formal systems? That some single large ordinal must exist in at least one of your models for it to usefully model reality (or other models)?
What is Turbocharging Training?
What is the Planning Kata?
For the sake of humanity, cute kittens, whatever it takes to get past your qualms about this being advertising...
Please promote this immediately to the front page so it can get as much attention as possible.
WHEN: 11 February 2013 02:00:16PM (+0000)
This date is wrong. It's on Sunday the 10th (as shown in the post title).
Also, the time format is confusing. Couldn't we just say 2pm?
It's been used successfully before, if you're not making a separate thing that you need a separate term for.
p(hack akrasia|heard of hack and thought it was worth trying) What are the odds of you succumbing to "hack akrasia", never trying or not consistently applying a hack, given that you'd heard of it and thought it was worth trying?
I suggest we think twice about making the term "hack akrasia" a thing. Once it's in comments without definition, does a newcomer read it as having akrasia about hacking, or trying to hack akrasia?
It's fine to have terms people won't understand if they'll realize that and look it up, but this one invites oblivious misinterpretation.
I'd generally suggest saying why you rot13 something (if it's not obvious) before the text rather than after. I tend to ha-ebg guvatf nf V ernq gurz if I can't think of a reason not to, and suspect I'm not the only one.
Vote up for YES.
Vote up for NO.
Do you ever have feelings of irrational nostalgia for hopelessly obsolete technology?
Vote up for YES.
Red is a nice [pollid:18]
What is your favorite color? [pollid:17]
Most voters so far have probably voted False to this question: [pollid:16]
This doesn't look right: http://screencast.com/t/qpRGihBG
The raw data says there are 13 votes for "0" and 20 votes for "1".
Did you read the post I linked?
That later edit wasn't in the comment when I read it. Thanks for adding.
Which ones are not actual properties of the collapse interpretation?
I don't think Eliezer has suggested they were properties of all possible non-Everett interpretations.
I'm curious about the following...
Would John Cramer's transactional interpretation require more complexity (at the level of the fundamental laws, rather than the amount of stuff in the universe) than the many worlds interpretation?
Roughly what proportion of the physics community backs it?
Is it a non-differentiable (or even discontinuous) phenomenon?
Is it non-local in the configuration space?
Does it violate CPT symmetry?
Does it violate Liouville's Theorem (has a many-to-one mapping from initial conditions to outcomes)?
Is it acausal / non-deterministic / inh...
No sleep, or anything that would interrupt thinking about it, for a year, might lead to an interesting wish.
I have started to think that ev-psych is way overconfident.
As in about the likelihood of certain kinds of explanations?
I notice that I am meta-confused...
Supposing that all possible universes 'exist' with some weighting by simplicity or requirement of uniformity, does not make me feel less fundamentally confused about all this;
Shouldn't we strongly expect this weighting, by Solomonoff induction?
"She heard Harry sigh, and after that they walked in silence for a while, passing through an archway of some reddish metal like copper, into a corridor that was just like the one they'd left except that it was tiled in pentagons instead of squares."
"she was trying to count the number of things in the room for the third time and still not getting the same answer, even though her memory insisted that nothing had been added or removed"
I'm curious though, is there anything in there that would even count as this level of logically impossi...
we've managed to put together a databases listing all AI predictions that we could find...
Have you looked separately at the predictions made about milestones that have now happened (e.g. beat Grand Master/respectable amateur at Jeopardy!/chess/driving/backgammon/checkers/tic-tac-toe/WWII) for comparison with the future/AGI predictions?
I'm especially curious about the data for people who have made both kinds of prediction, what correlations are there, and how the predictions of things-still-to-come look when weighted by accuracy of predictions of things-that-happened-by-now.
I hereby nominate this for the 2012 Understatement Award.
How was it an understatement?
I acknowledge that it feels like one when you read it, but defining that way lies madness! Just ask the words "ironic" and "literally".
Could I suggest a more descriptive title? "Singularity Summit 2012" sounds like it's an announcement from the organizers, or for discussion about the summit in general.
Why did the internet stop working
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
suppose E.Y. were to post, for whatever reason (cat jumping on keyboard?)...
This happened once (F12 was mapped to that set of keystrokes at the time).
Should we add a point to these quote posts, that before posting a quote you should check there is a reference to it's original source or context? Not necessarily to add to the quote, but you should be able to find it if challenged.
wikiquote.org seems fairly diligent at sourcing quotes, but Google doesn't rank it highly in search results compared to all the misattributed, misquoted or just plain made up on the spot nuggets of disinformation that have gone viral and colonized Googlespace lying in wait to catch the unwary (such as apparently myself).
Hmm. There are hundreds of thousands of pages asserting that he said it but for some reason I can't find a single reference to it's context.
Thanks. Have edited the quote.
Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.
-- [Edit: Probably not] Albert Einstein
These posts finally made me get Something Important:
Akrasia is a security problem, and not just against external adversaries like advertising.
Is there anything good written yet about solving this domain of problems from a security mindset perspective?