Discussion article for the meetup : LessWrong Montreal - Social Resilience WHEN: 21 January 2013 06:30:00PM (-0500) WHERE: 655 Ave. Du President-Kennedy, Montreal, Quebec, Canada The next weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong group, we're going to be working on improving our Social Resilience. We will be upstairs at the Cheesecake Factory. See you then! Discussion article for the meetup : LessWrong Montreal - Social Resilience
Discussion article for the meetup : LessWrong Montreal Biweekly Meetup WHEN: 09 April 2013 06:30:00PM (-0400) WHERE: 655 Ave. Du President Kennedy Montreal Meetups are now Tuesday, and biweekly! See you there. Discussion article for the meetup : LessWrong Montreal Biweekly Meetup
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal Meetup - Bayes' Theorem WHEN: 25 March 2013 06:30:00PM (-0400) WHERE: 655 Ave. Du President-Kennedy, Montreal, Quebec, Canada The next weekly meetup is going to be another look at Bayes' theorem, given by our resident statistician. See you there! Discussion article for the...
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal Meetup - Biased Pandemic WHEN: 11 March 2013 05:30:00PM (-0500) WHERE: 655 Avenue du Président Kennedy, Montréal, QC H3A 3H9 Weekly meetup! We're going to be doing biased boardgaming, specifically with the game Pandemic. We have two copies, so we should have enough...
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal LessWrong Meetup - The Science of Winning at Life WHEN: 18 February 2013 06:30:00PM (-0500) WHERE: 655 Avenue du Président Kennedy, Montréal, QC H3A 3H9 Weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong Meetup group. We've decided to look into the Science of Winning at...
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal LessWrong Meetup - Emotions: Reading and Understanding WHEN: 04 February 2013 06:30:00PM (-0500) WHERE: 655 Avenue du Président Kennedy, Montréal, QC H3A 3H9 Weekly meetup, we'll be discussing emotions, largely based in Paul Ekman's book Emotions Revealed. We will also be looking at...
Discussion article for the meetup : Montreal LessWrong - The Future is Awesome WHEN: 28 January 2013 06:30:00PM (-0500) WHERE: 655 Avenue du Président Kennedy, Montréal, QC Bringing in articles and discussing the progress of technology that remains hidden from our normal lives. It's good to see what sort of...
Discussion article for the meetup : LessWrong Montreal - Social Resilience WHEN: 21 January 2013 06:30:00PM (-0500) WHERE: 655 Ave. Du President-Kennedy, Montreal, Quebec, Canada The next weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong group, we're going to be working on improving our Social Resilience. We will be upstairs at the...
Meetups are now Tuesday, and biweekly!
See you there.
The next weekly meetup is going to be another look at Bayes' theorem, given by our resident statistician.
See you there!
Weekly meetup!
We're going to be doing biased boardgaming, specifically with the game Pandemic. We have two copies, so we should have enough for all members.
See you then!
Weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong Meetup group.
We've decided to look into the Science of Winning at Life. You can read the sequence here (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Winning_at_Life) if you're interested.
See you there!
Weekly meetup, we'll be discussing emotions, largely based in Paul Ekman's book Emotions Revealed.
We will also be looking at the METT and the SETT to improve our ability to read facial expressions. The Repetition Game may also show up.
See you there!
Bringing in articles and discussing the progress of technology that remains hidden from our normal lives.
It's good to see what sort of progress is being made, and where the future will likely take us!
The next weekly meeting of the Montreal LessWrong group, we're going to be working on improving our Social Resilience.
We will be upstairs at the Cheesecake Factory.
See you then!
This is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you kindly, looking through it as soon as I find time.
Teacher in a geology class who is decidedly non-rationalist mentioned that 800 years thing, without a source. Something about thickness of a line.
This is the first topic I've found in which I have no idea how to dissect this and figure out what's going on. It appears that there are incredibly powerful arguments for both sides, and mountains of strong evidence both for and against human caused climate change... Which shouldn't be possible. A lot of the skeptics seem to have strong arguments countering many of the "alarmist" ideas...
I'm not a good enough rationalist for this, yet. If it weren't for this community's famous support of global warming, there is no way I'd believe in it, given the data I have. Strange.
I'm not sure it's worth posting sources and the like, counter-counter arguments become difficult to follow, and it could easily cause a kurfuffle that I would rather avoid.
Thank you all greatly!
Why do LWers believe in global warming? The community's belief has changed my posterior odds significantly, but it's the only argument I have for global warming at the moment. I saw the CO2 vs temperature graphs, and that seemed to sell it for me... Then I heard that the temperature increases preceded the CO2 emissions by about 800 years...
So why does the community at large believe in it?
Thanks!
It's weekly, but on Mondays, not Tuesdays. Apologies for any inconvenience.
It should actually be December 3rd.
We discussed lots of biases last week, so this week we're going to actually whip out the board games! We have a copy or two of Pandemic, and one of Shadowrift to play with.
We'll be upstairs. See you then!
Serious issue - I made a typo. This should be December 3rd. Do not show up today, we meet weekly on Mondays.
Oops. Sorry about that.
Another weekly meeting of the Montreal group! We're going to be discussing different cognitive biases, and then if we have time, trying out biased boardgaming! Games of choice will probably be Pandemic and/or Shadowrift. We'll be upstairs, with some sort of sign that says "LessWrong". Also, we'll have board games. Hopefully. See you there.
"We can imagine any number of universes, that does not always lead to a good argument. In this case, the main issue with the argument is that while we can imagine that universe, it doesn't look like ours. There's no talk of consciousness, there's no self-reflection. Those are things in reality clearly caused by a link between our thoughts and our brains, one that goes in both directions.
Imagining a world in which people act exactly like people do now, but without a consciousness, strays so clearly outside the bounds of Occam's Razor that there doesn't seem to be any point in thinking about it. Adding in a mysterious 'zombie master' to make the zombies act as though they had consciousness... Well at this point, we're not talking about anything remotely resembling reality. This entire thought experiment in no way gives us any truths about reality whatsoever. It is completely meaningless."
As someone with some experience dealing with this, having learned how difficult it is to fix I would reply something like "You are wrong. If you want to learn WHY you're wrong, tell me and we can work on this together. Otherwise, I'm going to go now."
Playing the game a bit: "Okay, bear with me a moment, this is going to sound a little odd.
I'm not sure what you mean by "outside the realm of causal processes". Does that mean it happens on its own, with no outside influence at all? Nothing causes it, it just... Happens? Even if it's a 'magic' skill, shouldn't he be the one to activate it? I... (read more)
Weekly Montreal meetup.
We'll be at the Broadway Cheesecake, hopefully upstairs (if it's finally opened up). We're going to be discussing the new sequence, Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners, as many of us are relative newbies to Bayesian rationality.
Our focus will be the first post. Contact me if you're interested!
I'm a university student trying to decide between the Torbjorn and an Aeron. Normally I'd just go with the cheaper option, but I'd like to know if there's enough of a difference to justify spending ten times more on the Aeron. I've worked in an Aeron before, and while they're very comfortable, I don't want to drop that kind of money on comfort without long term benefit.
Does anyone have any numbers or anecdotal evidence to help sway my decision in either direction? Thanks!