gilch

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Working out just five minutes daily via a practice described as "strength training for your breathing muscles" lowers blood pressure and improves some measures of vascular health as well as, or even more than, aerobic exercise or medication, new CU Boulder research shows.

source

OK, that's the lift and the push. Is it still bent rows for the pull? That still seems like load on the spine, but I'm really not an expert here.

For the resistance training, I recall the minimal program was something like deadlifts, bent rows, and inclined bench press, although I can't recall timing, intensity, or progression for those.

Given your update on spinal injury risk, what would be the minimal program now? Add planking or Pilates to reduce the risk? Or a completely different program?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on inspiratory muscle training (like with a POWERbreathe) vs cardio.

I thought this was one of Eliezer's better interviews, at least if we're talking about the recent ones. But the reaction of the usual audience for this podcast was mixed at best. (See comments.)

I actually read The Sequences, so I can understand him, but it seems that a lot of the commenters didn't, and those that said they did didn't buy his specific arguments. Inferential gaps are hard, and hard to bridge in an hour.

We might need something like WIRED's "X explains Y in 5 levels of difficulty" series where X=Yudkowsky and Y=notkilleveryoneism before a general audience "gets it".

The core point I want to make here is: The Art of [Truth-seeking] Discourse lives in the territory, and we community members attempt to discover it and practice it.

This one feels wrong. Discourse has the map-nature.

First, I will admit the triviality that maps are also things that live in territories. Brains run on physics; software runs on hardware. The Venn diagram is {things in territories {things in maps}}. But though we use the same word, the meme of the mythical unicorn in our books and art and brains is distinct from one actually made directly from atoms, though books and brains are made of atoms too.

(Truth-seeking) Discourse is about improving maps by using other maps. If we were using the territory to improve the maps, we might call that an "experiment", or suchlike.

Innate and universal human psychology might have the territory-nature, because we can improve our understanding of them via experiment, but culture lives in the maps, and unlike innate human nature, is quite mutable. Norms are also mutable. Social rules and laws are mutable. Should we be mapping these, or engineering them instead?

Principles and abstractions and theories have the map-nature. They're lossy compression models (i.e., maps) that throw away the irrelevant details. This includes socially relevant mathematical models. E.g., Game Theory is made out of models, i.e., maps. Mathematics may be "discovered", but theorems are towers of meta-maps. The results depend very much upon the axioms.

Wikipedia has a list. Note that even the "informal" fallacies are often "so-called 'logical fallacies'".

Fallacies as weak Bayesian evidence had some good exposition on a few of them from a Bayesian perspective. There could be more under the fallacies tag.

There's also some discussion under Logical fallacy poster.

I think the unit should have been decibans, not decibels. The math works out the same, but I've seen some posts use one or the other unit, and I keep forgetting the names, which makes them hard to find. Other related units are the nat, ban, shannon, hartley, and dit.

  • It's not enough for a hypothesis to be consistent with the evidence; to count in favor, it must be more consistent with the hypothesis than its converse. How much more is how strong. (Likelihood ratios.)
  • Knowledge is probabilistic/uncertain (priors) and is updated based on the strength of the evidence. A lot of weak evidence can add up (or multiply, actually, unless you're using logarithms).
  • Your level of knowledge is usually not literally zero, even when uncertainty is very high, and you can start from there. (Upper/Lower bounds, Fermi estimates.) Don't say, "I don't know." You know a little.
  • A hypothesis can be made more ad-hoc to fit the evidence better, but this must lower its prior. (Occam's razor.)
    • The reverse of this also holds. Cutting out burdensome details makes the prior higher. Disjunctive claims get a higher prior, conjunctive claims lower.
    • Solomonoff's Lightsaber is the right way to think about this.
  • More direct evidence can "screen off" indirect evidence. If it's along the same causal chain, you're not allowed to count it twice.
  • Many so-called "logical fallacies" are correct Bayesian inferences.
Load More