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
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Is Belief in Belief a Useful Concept?

2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Why I will Win my Bet with Eliezer Yudkowsky

3 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Justifying Induction

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

A Proof of Occam's Razor

Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

The main problem with this is that it says that human beings are extremely unlike all nearby alien races. But if you willing to admit that humanity is that unique you might as well say that intelligence only evolved on earth, which is a much simpler and more likely hypothesis.

If "being rational" means choosing the best option, you never have to choose between "being reasonable" and "being rational," because you should always choose the best option. And sometimes the best option is influenced by what other people think of what you are doing; sometimes it's not.

It actually is not very odd for there to be a difference like this. Given that there are only two sexes, there only needs to be one hormone which is sex determining in that way. Having two in fact could have strange effects of its own.

I think what you need to realize is that it is not a question of proving that all of those things are false, but rather that it makes no difference whether they are or not. For example when you go to sleep and wake up it feels just the same whether it is still you or a different person, so it doesn'...(read more)

Excellent post. Basically simpler hypotheses are on average more probable than more complex ones, no matter how complexity is defined, as long as there is a minimum complexity and no maximum complexity. But some measures of simplicity are more useful than others, and this is determined by the world ...(read more)

I agree that in reality it is often impossible to predict someone's actions, if you are going to tell them your prediction. That is why it is perfectly possible that the situation where you know the gene is impossible. But in any case this is all hypothetical because the situation posed assumes you ...(read more)

What if we take the original Newcomb, then Omega puts the million in the box, and then tells you "I have predicted with 100% certainty that you are only going to take one box, so I put the million there?"

Could you two-box in that situation, or would that take away your freedom?

If you say you cou...(read more)

"I don't believe in a gene that controls my decision" refers to reality, and of course I don't believe in the gene either. The disagreement is whether or not such a gene is possible in principle, not whether or not there is one in reality. We both agree there is no gene like this in real life.

As y...(read more)

In this case you are simply interpreting the original Newcomb to mean something absurd, because causality cannot "genuinely flow in reverse" in any circumstances whatsoever. Rather in the original Newcomb, Omega looks at your disposition, one that exists at the very beginning. If he sees that you ar...(read more)

Even in the original Newcomb you cannot change whether or not there is a million in the box. Your decision simply reveals whether or not it is already there.