The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter
Okay, I have to ask: what exactly is so great about GEB? I see it get highly praised, and Eliezer_Yudkowsky goes overboard with praise for it, but I don't understand what's so great. (Yes, the page warns the content may be obsolete, but I think he still stands by that part.)
I've read almost all of it, and while it was enjoyable reading, I don't understand how it's useful as rationalist reading, or for AI. It's just a bunch of neat observations strung together, and a long (but helpful) explanation of Goedel's Theorem. In talking about AI, all I found we...
Heuristics and Biases, collection edited by Daniel Kahneman, Thomas Gilovich and Dale Griffin
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, collection edited by Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky and Paul Slovic
Dont understand the "activity" part, the post implied sleeping was fine, so does breathing count?
Stop fussing over voting! Now!
It's an important part of the site, and it'll pay off if it's done well.
Requesting a short summary of the current plans for future changes the voting system, preferably from someone in a position to know.
It's probably not mentioned enough that cryonics can be justified even if it looks like it probably wont work, as long as it's past some threshold.
While we're talking about getting out of bed, try telling yourself to wiggle your toe rather than to get up completely, gets easier from there.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, the voluntary castration sounds so crazy, but the absurdity heuristic is there for a reason, maybe I gave too much credit for simply being on LW.
I see no reason for this comment other than as some sort of test to see if you get voted down no matter what you say, if that's the case then it's not a very good test. If you absolutely have to do that sort of thing, at least try a new account or something.
How is that good?
How is that good?
Well, it makes us feel better about ourselves? Pity about the whole FAI thing though...
Might be easier to manage comments and direct people to it if its a whole post rather than a comment in the may 09 open thread.
I must have misread, lifetime access to lesswrong isn't worth one cent, but you'll voluntarily spend hours of time on it?
I would like to see the results made public, as well as seeing more surveys in general.
Don't have a good indicator of how many people would worry about public data, but as the survey-taking group size increases (as I presume will happen over time on LW) it should become easier to remain unidentifiable.
Plenty of people voluntarily fill out surveys about themselves on social networking sites, and those of us concerned with anonymity probably wouldn't be filling them out either way.
Are you just scared of the idea of evil aliens, or do you actually think that it's a significant risk that cryonicists recklessly ignore?
Seems that anybody who talks about being downvoted gets upvoted.
By "extremely risk-averse" do you mean "working hard to maximise persistence odds" or "very scared of scary scenarios"?
You're right that death while signed up for cryonics is still a very bad thing, though. I don't think Eliezer would be fine with deaths if they were signed up, but sometimes he makes it seem that way.
Heres what I've gathered from you so far: You have not been more insightful since castration, but you have been calmer, and less influenced by some unspecific bias. You see testosterone as you see blood alcohol, and prefer its absence.
If you're interested in persuading us, stop promoting your brand with single sentences and go in to more detail.
Do you think you could summarise it for everybody in a post?
I'd be interested in reading (but not writing) a post about rationalist relationships, specifically the interplay of manipulation, honesty and respect.
Seems more like a group chat than a post, but let's see what you all think.
I would upvote this because it's important that you answered the question and I don't want to discourage that, but I don't want to imply that I like your honor system solution.
Current drugs will only give you a bit of pleasure before wrecking you in some way or another.
CronoDAS should be doing his best to stay alive, his current pain being a down payment on future real wireheading.
We talk a lot about bringing new people in to the community, well, here they are.
Not to imply that you're doing it wrong, but has any thought been put in to how to better handle these sorts of situations?
Don't assume the rationalists have super powerful technology.
Echoing this, but dont limit your reply to solely card-games, if you have anything else to add.
Mensa themselves say they aim to take the top 2% of the population. This strikes me as too many to be useful.
Useful for what?
If I thought my own comment was downvote-worthy, I probably wouldn't have posted it
When downvoted you can hope for an explanation, and you can hate it when people don't give one, but forcing one?
Since I would not be able to upvote my comment, upvoting someone else's comment would suggest that I think their comment is better than my own
Huh? If you have no ability to upvote yourself, why would upvoting someone else's comment indicate it's better than yours?
It's nice to see that some players cooperate
if our beloved Omega takes up a job as an oracle for humanity, and we can just ask him any question at any time and be confident in his answer, what should happen to our pursuit of rationality?
dunno, ask Omega
I agree until the last paragraph, I seem to remember thinking that there was a way it could have been done better, and that I could excuse his error because he wasn't overcoming an impossibility.
Unfortunately, I dont remember how I thought to fix it.
I've spent a lot of time scouring tvtropes.org for something similar, Code Geass was one of the better ones.
Any particular reason to single those two out? I might give The Dosadi Experiment higher priority.
As far as I know, there is no private-message function built in to lesswrong. I prefer to maintain some level of anonymity anyway, and it would hardly be worth creating an account specifically for this purpose. I don't care that much, though a general idea of which character does it or when would be appreciated.
All that aside, reading it made the whole thing move a lot faster, which probably contributed to the enjoyment, but I otherwise I think they are fairly similar.
I've heard that complaint a lot, and I agree in the case of Sherlock Holmes, but death note seemed somehow plausible.
If you can remember it at all, do you think you could tell me specifically which parts you thought were "lucky guesses"? I like to keep those sorts of things in mind when re-reading.
The manga/anime series "Death Note"
It's a long mental battle between two clever people, not much for rationality techniques, but characters think rationally, and the magical parts have well defined rules, similar to Lawrence Watt-Evans' fiction.
I would be terribly thankful to anybody who could reccomend me some more stories involving these sorts of fights. Trickery and betrayal is common enough, but a prolonged fued of this nature is rare.
Death Note is a brilliant anime, but not really a great of an example of rationality. Tvtropes calls it Xanatos Roulette.
First you start with a smart plan. That can be rational. Then you complicate the plan. It makes characters look even smarter, and still quite rational. At some point the plan is so overcomplicated, so many uncertainties are just assumed, that it's no longer rationality but plain omniscience and characters "knowing the script of future episodes". That's what Death Note is. Light and L overplot, and it's really fun to watch, and ...
I really liked the Death Note anime. However, I think it's much more Sherlock-Holmes-ish than what Eliezer is asking for here. It's been quite a long time since I saw it, but I remember at the time I was annoyed often when both the protagonist and the antagonist would make "very lucky guesses", deducing something which is possible given the evidence at hand, but far from being the only possibility from said evidence. I haven't read much Sherlock, but from what I've heard, Sherlock similarly makes amazingly lucky guesses. Certainly, EY's summary o...
If you want to stop someone from reading a book, there's generally better ways than telling them not to do it.
That aside, kids can be surprisingly dumb, I wouldn't rely on them reaching the right conclusions even with assistance.
It's beside the point, but your idea of torture might be a bit light if you would undergo five minutes out of curiosity.
I think he is implying that we think we agree when we dont really, in that case he would expect us to vote in agreement with you.
Actually, I'm worried he's having some kind of breakdown. The Eternally Recurring Personal Identity Wars had plenty of arguers on both sides. JKC was there. Him now talking like he's the only one who ever believed that deconstruction and reconstruction using "different atoms" preserves identity, may indicate that the Personal Identity Wars really literally did send him off the edge.
I have to say, this is a failure mode I've never encountered before:
"You won! It's over! Look, we all agree with you!"
"NO! IT IS NOT OVER! I AM THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS SIDE AND I AM STILL LOSING, DAMMIT!"
When the site crashes it says things like "looks like today isn't your day" or "it's okay to cry".
One of these phrases links you to the reddit blog, another links to the reddit store, leftovers I guess.
Curious, are you proud of how difficult you find lying?
I dont know much about charity, but I dont contest that this was made up in a day.
"Never fix the worst problem first, because thats the way skin heals"
You can't fix the worse problem first. You'll get nowhere if you look at this as a collection of individual problems. You won't find a country that has a high standard of living, high employment, and a good educational system, but can't get mosquito nets for their beds.
You can't even begin to think about the issue unless you understand some complex-system domain, preferably economics or ecology. As a crude analogy, an economy is like the framework of a large and complicated tent. If the tent has fallen, you can't pick up individual pieces and put them ...
Even better to address as many as possible, making them all feel like they are being specifically targeted
"Hey you with the dark hair"
I suspect that would be counterproductive - people would rather hang onto the idea that someone else is being targeted.
Not sure what exactly should count as appropriate, I had assumed that the votes would sort the good from the bad, but maybe people would be less inclined to downvote a book they liked, which could be a problem with a well-liked book.
Is it enough that these comments could serve as a warning, or do you suggest I delete/edit the post?