All of 1point7point4's Comments + Replies

Answer by 1point7point410

Never mind, I don't plan on doing anything because charity is not about helping (and because it uses a lot of electricity). However, mlc@home seems promising, if someone really feels the need to help somehow.

I think this should be merged with feedback & criticism. Thoughts?

3Ruby
That seems right to me.

Thanks for responding so quickly!
I agree with you now (and I'm going to agree with your minimalist policy for now too, just since I think you're better-informed than me).

Minor clarification that you might have already been aware of: I was thinking that posts tagged 'zombie' should also be tagged 'consciousness', if they didn't merge. Now I'm fairly sure they should be merged.

It seems like a separate 'zombie' tag might be useful if people are specifically looking to read people's thoughts on p-zombies, as opposed to just reading about consciousness in general. (There's probably some inferential step I'm not catching on to, though).

5Rob Bensinger
The set of posts that are about 'p-zombies', 'the hard problem of consciousness', 'phenomenal consciousness', 'Mary's room thought experiments', 'the mysterious redness of red', 'the explanatory gap for qualia', 'arguments for and against epiphenomenalism', etc. are more or less talking about the same topic. I think it's more useful to lump those together than split them apart, since those aren't the kinds of conversations we want to fragment off from each other; someone who follows the latest debate about zombies should also be paying attention to the latest debates about Mary's room, and vice versa. I'm less confident about whether that hub page should be the 'consciousness' tag. Another option would be to make 'consciousness' a disambiguation page, and have a clearer name for the 'hard problem of consciousness' discussion. But this is a pretty disputed topic, so giving it a clearer name might be seen as biasing the conversation. (E.g., some people might object that the 'hard problem' isn't hard, or isn't a real problem.) I guess I also have a bit of a minimalist philosophy about tags, which I might be talked out of if I hear others' perspectives. Tags create more work by forcing future users to remember 'oh yeah, there's a tag for [X]', and by forcing users to upkeep the tag indefinitely (lest it get confusing which posts are where). If a tag is only mildly useful, I'd usually prefer replacing it with a static list of 'here are some useful places to start if you want to read about zombies on LessWrong'. The page could even remind people that 'zombies' is very text-search-friendly on LW.

I don't know measure theory myself, if someone who knew it could improve this page, that would be much appreciated.

Not sure how okay it is to use external sources - if anyone wants to write their own definition, please go ahead.

3Ruby
I reckon it's fine, especially if you provide the source.

It seems like this tag is a subset of the other one. I've added (very tentative) descriptions for both tags, but don't know they should be merged or not.

edit made two minutes later: not a subset i guess, since individuals can start projects

8Rob Bensinger
I propose merging them as 'Organization and Project Updates', for a few reasons: * The distinction between an org and a project isn't crucial, and may be fuzzy sometimes. (E.g., GovAI is sort of its own thing, but is also a 'project' of FHI.) * It's not clear to me what should qualify as an 'announcement', whereas I understand pretty well what an 'update' is. * All else being equal, having fewer tags tends to be more useful (you can find a larger number of posts immediately) and has less cognitive overhead (the site's users don't have to memorize as many categories in order to tag their own posts or efficiently navigate to others' posts).

I'm not sure if we should make this tag apply to all posts of historical interest, or only posts with historical information. Thoughts, anyone?

3Ruby
I think it’s posts with historical information. 

Since that's hindsight, we'd expect Archimedes to get something that was controversial thousands of years before but widely believed at the time.

Along with zendo, mao might be a good game for practicing - you and the other mao players are scientists, while the grandmaster is the universe’s laws - you can induce the laws either by observing the other “scientists”, or by testing things out (possibly on accident). Jeffreyssai might say this reeks of competition, though - a possible fix would be to have all the “scientists” working on the same team.

This is an absolutely amazing read - somehow it never occurred to me that so many singularities had already happened.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

I’ve heard of the term “History channel effect” to explain why that sort of topic doesn't get coverage in the news. The idea is that people would rather hear about topics that make them feel well-informed than topics that would actually make them more well-informed.

As a rule of thumb, you should prefer rates (“X commit Y crime 3x more often than normal”) and proportions (“1 in 10,000 X commit Y crime”). Be wary of quantities (“100 X have committed Y crime this year”) and examples (“look at all these stories of X doing Y”).

41point7point4
See also: https://www.gwern.net/Littlewood

1984 (like animal farm) is an analogue to the USSR - Goldstein may represent Leon Trotsky. I’m not entirely sure if Emmanuel Goldstein corresponds to anyone, though - we don’t know a lot about him except that propaganda considers him a traitor.

You might want to cite the "8 hours of TV a day" bit - if you look into houses' living room windows, you won't see TVs blaring through anywhere near a third of them. (note: this experiment is not endorsed by the author)

In response to your main question: being unproductive isn't a good reason to be more unproductive.

Manned spaceships have dozens of fallback plans to keep astronauts safe, even though they don't anticipate things going wrong.

Are you looking for an explanation or opinions?

In this article's sense, yes - Explain means "try to make something less mysterious". For example, Newton Explained when devising the laws of physics, and a student who learns them is also doing some Explaining. Worship, on the other hand, means (in here, not in general) "revel in something's mysteriousness" (e.g. Newton seeing an apple fall from a tree, and saying "I guess phlogiston did it".) Ignore is the boring but sometimes practical option, saying "Eh, an apple fell from a tree" and leaving it at that.

CO2 as a cause of climate change "pays rent in anticipation". Phlogiston as a cause of fire doesn't.

4habryka
Fixed, thanks!