I don't know why this doesn't have link post: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html It's look like a brilliant explanation which science philosophy has to become.
When I first saw the new I dismissed the idea of actually putting effort into pre-ordering, as I suspect now, because it reminded some part of me about political calls to participate which account very badly in my previous experience. But now I have seen Twitter post of EY where...
I don't know why this doesn't have link post: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html It's look like a brilliant explanation which science philosophy has to become.
(The first version was written extremely poorly and received a lot of bad marks, so I hesitated to publish it for a long time, now this is the second version) I live in Russia, so I regularly encounter samples of Putin's propaganda, and apparently, due to the effect of familiarity,...
Are Kolmogorov's difficulty and Hanson's leverage penalty combined into one? Has the more important general problem of probabilities not converging been solved? (The lesswrong posts I looked at did not mention if there is a better solution than the "patch" of the time. Reading of concept also don't give more...
(My reading of physics books is progressing very slowly, so I'll be done in a year at best, so I'm asking this question here.) Does quantum mechanics describe the slowing down of time and the contraction of objects when approaching the speed of light, as well as other effects (special?)...
(When I first met, I didn’t have an account, so I didn’t publish this question for a long time, I didn’t decide, and then I got used to it, but I’ll write anyway.) I was VERY pleasantly surprised by the design of the original (this) site compared to the Russian...
I'm re-reading sequences now and I'm noticing eye-opening things like so many have SEQ RERUN, useless copies that clutter up the link space while having very few comments that they seem to be intended for. Can the moderators do something about this? Remove links to them, maybe even delete them...
I am surprised that nobody wrote about it - on lesswrong, but... Bayes theorem. I remember the story how it was lying in a drawer and found only after Bayes' death.
Per Grok:
Thomas Bayes developed the core idea in the 1740s (published posthumously in 1763), framing inverse probability to update beliefs given evidence. Pierre-Simon Laplace independently rediscovered and significantly extended it starting in 1774, giving it much of its modern form and broad applications—without apparently knowing of Bayes' work. This is a classic case of independent rediscovery, but with a key caveat: the gap was substantial (roughly 30+ years from Bayes' work to Laplace's publication).
When I first saw the new I dismissed the idea of actually putting effort into pre-ordering, as I suspect now, because it reminded some part of me about political calls to participate which account very badly in my previous experience.
But now I have seen Twitter post of EY where he says that pre-orders are really important, so I try to reconsider that.
Spend 30$ on that book is not a problem for me, even if I am not sure that it will actually give us any more time being alive.
But in all other senses it looks like a very complicated question to me. I can't pay because of sanctions (I checked on Google... (read 311 more words →)
Sort of question: I have read once about some drafts of "Not your usual Riddle fic" or something like that which iirc EY had written and was going to publish as well as epilogue. When I heard about it I became really interested about those, what it was exactly about, are they finished, can we see finished of those, can we see just drafts? I just hope to ever read them (as well as epilogues) before we all will die.
And also I am interested about other works, esp Well Bound Demons. What is with them? Is there some central page with info on such questions?
I am one of those people who are... (read 440 more words →)
I was in interesting in reading the first time to think and also haven't thought that all the chaos is only my own stupidity. But on further rereads it seems very strange that Quirrell says "My immortal existence must depend on discovering what trap you have set, and finding a way to escape from it, as soon as possible. But let us pointlessly delay to talk of other matters first." and Dumbledore just... goes along with that. Shouldn't it be incredibly suspicious? Pointing out that Voldemort is completely sure that it's safe for him.
As I guess, Voldemort is indeed just much smarter than Dumbledore. Just as Voldemort said. And Dumbledore himself said.... (read more)
I can remember that long ago when I have read Science vs Bayes I wasn't actually convinced. Because... Yudkowsky didn't prove that Bayesianism can actually do better. MWI already was mainstream QM in science. So I wasn't convinced that I actually should choose Bayes for the sake of my sanity.
I changed my mind after reading about P-values vs Bayesian-likelihoods, sure, I need to choose Bayes instead of Science for the sake of my sanity.
I think post about likelihoods will be really useful if linked to Science vs Bayes. And... It wasn't in my experience, but EDT vs CDT vs TDT probably also will be good example.
I am increasingly more concerned about how my current beliefs may be defined by the fact that I eg watched "Little Soldiers" and was impressed as a kid. And other examples of fictional evidence which probably formed my priors. I now interested how to know which is the degree of influence, and how to correct for that.
Sure, there are some things that don't change. But how to ensure that it isn't just survival bias? And if I will try for example to look into my traits which I considered important at a time, then it looks like most of them changed in my case.
It looks for me that preferences (even as they feel on emotional level, not just appear in behaviour) are vastly influenced my your capabilities. Eg I really hated reading and really liked computers when I was 9, and now it changed because I read better and easier and because I now can use my mind instead of computer. So I strongly suspect that if you... (read more)
(I am afraid that it will turn into people just saying what they have in mind instead of replying... Even more than now. But I can't write down all of inference, so...)
I more thought that "no self" should be about something literal like "your personality in years changes so much that you 5 years later are more like some other human than you 5 years ago". But if people on lw (not just some LLM) continue to point out only to Buddhism than... Maybe I forgot how often people like to say something in way of "shocking news! There is no time, time is just an illusion, Barbur proved it" while the... (read more)
I don't know what is communication problem, but it certainly doesn't go right. Or probably, multiple problems. Because... Complaining to Grok is like complaining to a parrot... And after not getting clear answer from it I guess that it's just too niche/original topic to be Grok being able to process it at all. And that are not complaints, it's a list of what I don't think could be plausible meanings of what I have seen on lesswrong. In a historical context. With explanation of why I don't consider those plausible for LW. And you didn't say initially that it's what you think, not what eg you have seen. And I not at all fond of the fact that you are commanding me what I "should" do.
I often see here, on LW, phrases like "personality isn't real" and yet it feels blatantly obvious that personality can't be explained away. So I am really interested to see an explanation what it at all means, because I only ever seen people claiming it, never explaining. I am also interested to know, should I prepare to have some afwul realization or not?
I often read things where I see start with "introduction" (and it's not some sort of meaningful introduction like in Thinking Physics) and end with "summary", and both look totally useless. Remarkably, I can't remember such thing anywhere on lesswrong. But I don't understand, is it just useless water, is it a question of general level of intelligence, or am I missing some useful piece of cognitive tech?
If there is indeed some useful piece, how to check do I already have it or don't?
I once thought what will be in my Median World, and one thing was central entering node of all best practices. Easy searchable node. Lots and lots of searches like "best tools" will lead to it, just in case if somebody somehow missed it, he could still find it just by inventing a Schelling point by his own mind.
And then an idea came to my mind: what if such a thing already exists in our world? I didn't yet try to search. Well, now I tried. Maybe I tried wrong requests, maybe google doesn't prioritize these requests, maybe there is no such thing yet. But I didn't find it.
And of course as... (read more)
I now understand my reading issues better. It weren't just lack of speed and imagination as I thought. There was a whole bunch of factors creating a stable equilibrium.
And probably it indeed was "from childhood". Concretely, from how I was taught reading at school. At the beginning of school, I already was able to read, but I read slow.
And I was checked on "technique of reading" ("техника чтения"), actually speed of reading. I needed to read out loud (so I couldn't avoid full-blown vocalization, without even sub) and with expression (so, just make up intonations which aren't exactly specified by text) and do it maximally fast (so I couldn't stop to think,... (read 696 more words →)
I now understand that all this time I used my memory and imagination wrongly, in a way I've never heard spoken about. I was trying to concentrate on my mental space and then make memory and imagination in it. While I should have been concentrating on memories or imaginations, themselves.
And similarly, when my mental space was becoming too busy, I was "flushing" it, removing all the objects from it, making them fade. While I should have just been concentrating on new mental space, shifting attention to it.
My recall ease and vividness just dramatically increased after that. I couldn't think that such short and easy advice as "don't make objects fade, shift attention to new" can immediately give such huge results.
Since I first saw Philosophical Majoritarism, my intuition was very strongly against it, though arguments looked valid. I think I finally understood what was the case. It wasn't that I thought arguments are wrong or conclusion is wrong. Problem that I thought that then opinions will not be Truly Part Of You. And you either will need to learn others opinions good enough that you will be able to agree or disagree purely on object level reasons, or you will not understand the position good enough to properly apply it.
(I can't come up with a good example from the top of my head, but I suspect that giving some example is necessary,... (read more)
(I don't have good propositions of what to do, but probably it's still better to just share my regrets, than to do nothing.)
When I've first read hpmor at 12 I've remembered Yudkowsky's advice "read sequences, hpmor is just their shadow" and tried to read some sequence. I've read "Fable of Science and Politics" and... Well, Yudkowsky was just wrong about hpmor being shadow of that, hpmor is much cooler. So I decided to read it sometime later. I encountered nowhere phrase "do you want to be as cool as hjpev and even more? There is textbook for that - Rationality AZ" (I've read russian translation and then tried sequence as .fb2).
When I... (read 1364 more words →)
(I don't know how to better organize my thoughts and discoveries, and also suspect that it's better to wait until I master speedreading, but I think it may worth to just share/ask about this one my big confusion right now as quick take)
When I was younger I considered obvious how human mind works, there were such components of it like imagination, memory etc. And of course, thoughts were words. How can it be at all possible to think not in words?
But some time ago I read "You are surely joking mister Feynman" for the third time, and it finally succeeded to make me go and just look into reality.... (read 952 more words →)
I don't know why this doesn't have link post: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html It's look like a brilliant explanation which science philosophy has to become.
(The first version was written extremely poorly and received a lot of bad marks, so I hesitated to publish it for a long time, now this is the second version)
I live in Russia, so I regularly encounter samples of Putin's propaganda, and apparently, due to the effect of familiarity, I overestimate it credibility.
One of the characteristic features is that she does not seek to convince you that she is telling the truth, she seeks to convince you that no one is telling the truth, because such a thing simply does not exist, there are only views that are beneficial to various sides of propaganda.
The propaganda of your Motherland and the propaganda... (read more)
Are Kolmogorov's difficulty and Hanson's leverage penalty combined into one? Has the more important general problem of probabilities not converging been solved? (The lesswrong posts I looked at did not mention if there is a better solution than the "patch" of the time. Reading of concept also don't give more understanding)
(My reading of physics books is progressing very slowly, so I'll be done in a year at best, so I'm asking this question here.) Does quantum mechanics describe the slowing down of time and the contraction of objects when approaching the speed of light, as well as other effects (special?) theory of relativity?
(When I first met, I didn’t have an account, so I didn’t publish this question for a long time, I didn’t decide, and then I got used to it, but I’ll write anyway.) I was VERY pleasantly surprised by the design of the original (this) site compared to the Russian version, which was below average in user-friendliness, while this site is not only well above average, but literally the most user-friendly site I have ever used. With one exception. In the Russian version, you could use the arrows to move both between messages in a sequence, being on one of the messages, and between sequences in chapters and chapters in... (read more)
I'm re-reading sequences now and I'm noticing eye-opening things like so many have SEQ RERUN, useless copies that clutter up the link space while having very few comments that they seem to be intended for. Can the moderators do something about this? Remove links to them, maybe even delete them by moving the comments to the original posts. (I don't know if there is functionality to do this, and also how morally acceptable it would be, and if anyone but me is worried about these problems, maybe no one else needs to "fix" this?) And also I notice, that in the old entries, the answers are not child comments, which creates a terrible confusion when reading by karma, when it is not clear what the question was and where to find it. (Same requests and questions here)
I write a lot of notes that i think can be interesting for some LWers. But these notes are in russian, my translate skills is very low and it is very difficult for me, so if i need to translate it myself i never publish it. English->Russian google translate is very good (i read lesswrong only by translator and usually can't understand it).
It seems to me very similar to some old lw post I have seen about being there some very easy, but very powerful technique (it had also said that it is equivalent of some iirc basketball technique/throw), which is "thinking before doing" or more precisely "visualizing what will likely happen before doing". Because you didn't mention it I suppose you didn't read - unfortunately I failed to find it even using Grok, maybe someone other have read it?
I generally agree that it is very useful. Though I personally try not to ask any questions, but just visualize. Also humans do have natural ability to do that, those automatic anticipations, for example when... (read more)