Chalybs_Levitas
21
6
Chalybs_Levitas has not written any posts yet.
Chalybs_Levitas has not written any posts yet.
The fish do not build heaps at all, and are therefore incapable of civilization or even meaningful disagreement on the correctness of heaps. So they should be excluded. (is what the PebbleSorter people might have thought)
I like that you specifically noted an exception in the case of foreign languages, as it was the one salient point I would have raised otherwise. Not that I think it might be the only point in contention to be raised, merely that it would be the only one I would have brought up, though. I wish you had emphasized it a little more heavily in your rhetoric, though that might just be my own biases in play.
Oh, I assumed that they were walking in a circle and the third bull was counting both ahead of him and behind him, even though those bulls are both the same, on the assumption that 'single file' =/= 'straight line'.
Hello, I am Alexander, and also a number of variations on Chalybs Levitas (depending on the screenname parameters of the site I'm signing up to).
I don't consider myself a rationalist, yet. I still have a lot to learn, but I've started working my way through the Sequences, and I've started my walk through the other articles, by opening a new tab at each new link.
I value language, and I am practicing my craft as a writer (I'm terrible) as well as studying Japanese (also terrible there).
I chose Japanese as the foreign language to study first in part because I want to move to Japan, and I've signed up to the site because... (read more)
What if GR is wrong, and it does not output GR because it spots the flaw that we do not?
"There are lawful forms of thought that still generate the best response, even when faced with an opponent who breaks those laws"
I've only just come to the Bayesian way of thought, so please direct me to the correct answer if I'm not thinking about this right:
If I and my opponent are of equal training, rationality, abilty, and intellect, except that my opponent has a 10% chance of doing something completely at odds with rationality as we both understand it due to some mental damage: how should I plan to face him?
If I have plan A to deal with his plan A, plan B to deal with his plan B, and so on... (read more)