All of James_Evans's Comments + Replies

Stupid Questions Open Thread Round 2

About Decision Theory, specifically DT relevant to LessWrong.

Since there is quite a lot of advanced material already on LW that seem to me as if they would be very helpful if one is one is perhaps near to finishing or beyond an intermediate stage:

Various articles: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/tag/decision_theory/ http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/tag/decision/

And the recent video (and great transcript): http://lesswrong.com/lw/az7/video_paul_christianos_impromptu_tutorial_on_aixi/

And there are a handful of books that seem relevant to overall decision ... (read more)

Is my name deceptive?

In my view it would cause an average USian to think you are female but that only matters if you care to be mistaken for female. I wouldn't call it deceptive and to me people can choose any nickname they want for whatever reason as long as it's not overly crass/offensive/inane.

Though I'm not sure this warranted its own post, rather than say a comment in an open thread.

4Pavitra10yThe distinction between open-thread comments and discussion posts is mostly a matter of taste; we get a lot of random stuff in discussion.
1provocateur10yThe embedded YouTube video seems to end rather abruptly. Did the iPhone battery run out?
3Vladimir_Nesov10yThanks, I've embedded it in the post.
1cousin_it10yThanks :-)
3^^^3 holes and <10^(3*10^31) pigeons (or vice versa)

Agreed.

But don't avoid opinions, you can form some and always preface them with caveats to get a sword out of that iron.

Bayesian RPG system?

I view more math games as definitely a good thing. I would think such a game would have to display its mechanics in such a way that the player can make judgments based on them, which would be so nice to have more of (being able to reason about what a game is doing without dropping to a debugger or something).

The more MoR-types of things that get out there makes it much easier for an average person to help raise the sanity waterline. People talking as much about the mechanics of various games versus talking about LW topics seems neat.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? - Richard Dawkins [link]

Almost like Supreme Court Justices only jurors. Only the would be numerous enough to be rather more likened to congressmen or senators, and the impartiality of those two groups is no clear matter.

Rational philosophies

Partially referenced elsewhere in the thread already, but I would caution one from necessarily starting with a philosophy then working backwards to see how it matches reality.

I would recommend one instead train themselves to read scientific research papers, especially in one's field of interest, then later compare those results to existing philosophies.

I would say it's a mistake to view a philosophy/philosophies as a periodic table with unfilled spaces, where one can infer what they should contain easily. I would liken it more to a bible where the anything-du-jour was used to fill up space.

-1Eugine_Nier10yThis strikes me as biasing your choice based on what one's field of interest is.
1see10yI'm currently trying to avoid having opinions on this whole subject. I kept thinking it all around in circles; I'm now letting my back-brain see if it can come up with any insights. But yours is one of the ideas that passed my mind. There's an interesting interaction of "identical copies don't mean anything" with one of the problem-of-identity solutions you see around this site, which is that you should treat copies and simulations of yourself as yourself, indeed in proportion to how closely they resemble you. If an identical- or near-copy of me has moral weight when I'm trying to decide whether to one-box, or defect in the Prisoner's Dilemma, or the like, it would seem to have to have the same weight in questions like this one, or vice-versa.
3^^^3 holes and <10^(3*10^31) pigeons (or vice versa)

The root of this might be in determining what is "identical".

If you have two identical copies and one is destroyed/hurt, then the copies are no longer identical.

Perhaps in this case, and maybe others, two identical copies of people can be worth one, until something changes them, eg getting destroyed.