All of Groudon466's Comments + Replies

I've long ascribed to (and felt) that people are existentially isolated

 

There's a pair of conjoined craniopagus twins in Canada, the Hogan twins, who are conjoined at the head and have fused brains connected by a thalamic bridge. They're separate individuals who still receive some sensory awareness of what the other is feeling, and they can even communicate in their thoughts. When one was crying as a child, you could put a pacifier in the other's mouth and they would both calm down. When you cover one's eyes and show an image to the other, the blindfo... (read more)

We know very little about the Hogan twins, and what has become public is almost exclusively in the form of hard-to-get & outdated documentaries.

Not that I have any current betting plans (we already talked previously), but what odds would you allow for someone willing to put their money in escrow? Just asking out of curiosity.

7MoreRatsWrongReUAP
Not that it matters, but I don't believe that we did. I'm a different user. 75:1

That’s understandable. Supposing I went with some form of verification, what odds would you be feeling right now?

1jehan
I'll DM and we can discuss

Hey, this might be a little bit "last minute" considering the stuff tomorrow, but are you willing to do transfers with regular money instead of crypto?

1jehan
I'm willing to send transfers with regular money. You don't have much post history though so the odds would need to be favorable or you'd need something like real name verification etc.

Regarding a drug-based solution, I recommend Silexan. Scott Alexander wrote about this not that long ago on ACX, and anecdotally, it's been shockingly effective for anxiety issues that arose for me a year ago.

Regarding an entirely psychological, but still clinical solution? Consider starting online therapy with a psychologist/psychiatrist. This has helped me as well- not to the same extent as the Silexan, I think, but it still helped just because it was a dedicated hour per week of thinking about it and voicing those thoughts to someone. Almost every break... (read more)

Do you believe that the world would be better if everyone shared this moral system, or is this more of a nihilistic "This is the best way for a individual agent to act for their own true gain, but I certainly wouldn't want every agent to act this way" sort of deal?

I ask because it really does seem devoid of any traditional "goodness", except for the part that encourages wisdomists to protect all wisdom, including the wisdom of others. It espouses wisdom and creativity as virtues, sure- but what part of wisdom and creativity, as defined in the paper, can't ... (read more)

1Peter lawless
well , about the first point , I believe in the principle of enlightened self-interest. my vision is that people are free to pursue their own individual interests and what is best for humanity. I understand your concerns, and I admit that wisdomism is not perfect, but no moral system is perfect. If you set common sense and/or conscience aside, ANY principle can be twisted into something vile without violating it. even utilitarianism , for example, is not immune, see for example: utility monster, benevolent world exploder, and experience machine. but the fact that there is no perfect moral system does not make morality disposable. but well i think probably for wisdomism to work it would need some kind of pragmatic rule system.

Could go a little more into what makes this moral system attractive to you, specifically?

0Peter lawless
for me ? Well is the moral system , more compatible with my philosophical views , I identify myself as an extreme individualist transhumanist

If the purpose of this betting is to reward those who bet on the truth, though, then allowing a spike in credulity to count for it works against that purpose, and turns it into more of a combined bet of “Odds that the true evidence available to the public and LW suggests >50% likelihood or that substantial false evidence comes out for a very short period within the longer time period”.

In his comment reply to me, OP mentioned he would be fine with a window of a month for things to settle and considered it a reasonable concern, which suggests that he is (... (read more)

That sounds reasonable enough.

Respectfully, that sounds like the "catch" here, though I doubt you have any actual ill intentions. If it applies at any point within the period, then it could apply for something as simple as a brief miscommunication from the White House that gets resolved within 24 hours. Some overworked and underpaid headline-writer makes a critical typo, aliens suddenly seem confirmed to LWers, and then... it's game?

I would strongly recommend that you amend that edge case interpretation to only consider the state of things at the end of the period. While there could st... (read more)

A proper Bayesian currently at less 0.5% credence for a proposition P should assign a less than 1 in 100 chance that their credence in P rises above 50% at any point in the future. This isn't a catch for someone who's well-calibrated.

In the example you give, the extent to which it seems likely that critical typos would happen and trigger this mechanism by accident is exactly the extent to which an observer of a strange headline should discount their trust in it! Evidence for unlikely events cannot be both strong and probable-to-appear, or the events would not be unlikely.

2RatsWrongAboutUAP
That's a reasonable concern. My concern is that without some principal to avoid it, that would just mean that everyone waits out the full 5 years even if its clear I'm the winner.  I wouldn't mind giving a window of a month for things to settle before there's a duty to settle. I would still demand that if anyones credence ever goes >50% that they still have to register that publicly (or at least to me) 


EDIT: You can safely disregard the second paragraph of this, I misread the post initially. Still, the first applies.

In the event that you decide you're being stiffed, how will you quantify community sentiment on the issue to try and prove that the majority of the community believes in one of your categories of anomalous claims? Will you conduct a poll of some kind? Will you just say that you beg to differ?

Also, in the event that you're actually someone who has assessed that they don't want to be on LessWrong greater than 5 years from now anyway in the timeline where no substantial UFO/UAP evidence has surfaced by then, what would compel you to pay up instead of ghosting?