User Profile


Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

> This point will also need to explain why large civilizations (e.g. China) did NOT develop anything which looks like monotheism.

For the same reason large civilizations didn't develop anything which looks like science.

Original thread [here]( more)

How would you tell, what would this "new person" theory predict differently then the old person theory.

> The best evidence is that while firms frequently advertise to get people to buy their products, they almost never advertise to get people to buy their stock.

I've seen adds that I suspect were actually targeting potential investors. Granted this was followed by the company in question exploding s...(read more)

> For each existing religion, one can easily set out evidence of its wrongness that would (1) be very convincing to the majority of people who are not already positively disposed towards that religion and (2) be good reasoning in the abstract;

The same is true for atheism, and certainly for utilita...(read more)

The AI might eventually conclude that the "JFK" in it's prior didn't refer to President John F. Kennedy but to some other guy with the initials JFK.

More interestingly, if the prior was specified as "The president isn't assassinated on November 22, 1963" it might conclude that John F Kennedy wasn't...(read more)

I always interpreted the quote as a witty way to tell someone to shut up.