adsenanim

Karma: −102

adsenanim 6 Sep 2010 6:38 UTC
4 points
on: Something’s Wrong
I add this only because it provides a greater context:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4758.html

I will vote up anyone who can say in what circumstance this was said.

adsenanim 29 Aug 2010 4:23 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Nisan’s comment on: Self-fulfilling correlations
The following link lends credence to this line of thought:

http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/grant/Grant_JAP2008b_TaskSignificance.pdf

A note:

There was a study done regarding the cause and effect of employee relationships and how it affected job performance that gave as a result that employees performed better simply because of the attention given them, rather than the validity of any of the techniques introduced.

If anyone can provide a resource for that study, I’ll vote you up because I am having trouble finding it.

If I remember correctly it is used in: O’Hair, Friedrich, Dixon 2008 Strategic Communication: In Business and the Professions, Pearson

adsenanim 18 Oct 2010 9:12 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Meni_Rosenfeld’s comment on: Mixed strategy Nash equilibrium
From what you are saying, with the mixed strategy NE, I get that possible moves increase in relation to the complexity of the equilibrium, so that it becomes increasingly likely that any possible action could have an added emphasis that would cause a specific outcome as the equilibrium increases in complexity.

e.g.

What you are describing with the pendulum motion, the pendulum does not require additional effort in both directions to increase, only one direction, and the effort need be only the smallest (or smaller in addition) in relation to the period, and direction. An action to large in the same direction, or against the direction will destabilize it.

Isn’t it true that the more precise the equilibrium, the less effort is required to destabilize it?

I think that the main difference between our arguments is that while you are talking of simultaneous action, I am talking of sequential action...

adsenanim 27 Aug 2010 5:01 UTC
1 point
on: Burning Man Meetup: Bayes Camp
http://breadandpuppet.org/

I guess the east-coast version.

Heinlein also had a thing for redheads....

adsenanim 19 Aug 2010 2:58 UTC
1 point
in reply to: DSimon’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
I agree,

I’m not sure if I should go with Treehouse or IceTowers...

If I buy IceTowers I could probably play Treehouse, but not the other way round...

:)

adsenanim 18 Aug 2010 20:04 UTC
1 point
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Kevin T. Kelly’s Ockham Efficiency Theorem
I think removing the parentheses can affect the overall pattern formation.

12 == (((1+1)^(1+1))*(1+1+1))

12 != +^+*++

Because we are changing the order of operations:

1+1^1+1*1+1+1

2^2*3

2^6

64

Also, I don’t think there is a way to use exponents and make 12 without using parentheses.

So if we simplify the method of notation, then some operations cannot be used for certain numbers. and this changes the pattern, and/or the availability of possible patterns.

This topic is discussed in D. Hofstadter’s book Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.

adsenanim 16 Aug 2010 17:58 UTC
1 point
in reply to: prase’s comment on: Problems in evolutionary psychology
Yes, there is a very large and very interesting variety found in this process.

If we take the all of the variables into consideration, all of the possible ways X and Y can work:

We have (n1)X and (n2)Y for a population of ((n1)X + (n2)Y), the ratio of (n1)X to (n2)Y, the population can increase or decrease, a gestation variable of (g)X that cooperates with breeding potential of (b)Y…

I could go on, but since this is not an attempt at a full research paper, I think my point in this respect is clear, that the potential for variation in reproductive method is huge.

The question I ask myself is just how important is this to humans?

Look at the basic survival methods of the sexes, X and Y; we eat the same foods, breath the same air, and our physiology is the same for these purposes. The only difference between X and Y is due to the nature of sexual reproduction.

I think that it is of such importance, and so basic, that when examining human culture and society it should be one of the main focal points, of any line of examination.

adsenanim 13 Aug 2010 4:39 UTC
1 point
on: Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
Hi All,

I’m here for the most part because of my interest in the idea of singularity and the mechanical relation of creating consciousness in a non-traditionally-organic form. I can’t list here all of the books I’ve read on the subject, though I might be able to add a few to the list before I’m done, such as Piers Anthony’s Macroscope (haven’t checked the list yet).

I would not call myself an atheist, but a sub-proselytized human with autodidactic qualities. I do not deny religion off hand, because of the correlation with the development of science, but, one of my main arguments is that humans are born without religion and science may be instinctual. (Again, haven’t read everything), I think that the idea of “God” is just taking abductive reasoning to an extreme.

I see Less Wrong as a form of Peckham Experiment of which I am a participant and an observer.

That said, I can tend to be short in my posts, but I will work on that.

I hope that if I say anything extraordinary, or, seem like I am delivering a failing interpretation of another work, that I will be checked out for it. (I can hear the Yoda voice now, “You Will Be”...)

adsenanim 18 Mar 2011 8:33 UTC
0 points
on: More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA
The major drawback of a PUA community is that it acts as an isolated system; or in harsh terms, like inbreeding.

What you are obfuscating is the idea of a very complex history that doesn’t relate to the argument you are presenting, much like using the two slit experiment to justify existentialism.

adsenanim 15 Mar 2011 7:40 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Emile’s comment on: Being a teacher
Don’t forget that event-related idioms can skew meaning as well...

adsenanim 18 Oct 2010 4:43 UTC
0 points
on: Mixed strategy Nash equilibrium
Nice Job!

Can you relate this to Parrondo’s Paradox?

adsenanim 1 Oct 2010 5:34 UTC
0 points
on: New Discussion section on LessWrong!
I assume this is being done because you can’t figure out how to separate important topics with low votes from being overcrowded by less important topics with higher votes?

Imagine, giving up solid scientific ideas to interpretation by those who are not able to, or don’t want to put an idea to the test.

Science doesn’t vote, it tests, and if the new idea doesn’t pass the test, then it is foot-noted and put aside.

Ah, so sad...

If it works, it works, if not it is just an idea of how things might work.

adsenanim 29 Sep 2010 8:46 UTC
0 points
in reply to: adsenanim’s comment on: (Virtual) Employment Open Thread
“”Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything? … Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?”″

“Where is this coming from? You seem to think everyone interested in alternative employment is a hikikomori. While I’d be hard pressed not to think there’s a substantial minority here with social problems (based on the AQ scores talked about some months ago, for example), nonetheless you go too far—this literally is the mistake of thinking that because all A are B, all B are A!”

The classical representation is that if A=B then B=A

Of course this is just a simple relation.

A can be made of many parts; B can be made of many parts.

forgive me, I havn’t got the whole making quotes thing....

adsenanim 9 Sep 2010 15:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Matt_Duing’s comment on: Humans are not automatically strategic
Thanks, nice link.

I must say though that my example is mainly to illustrate the point of Implicit learning (breaking the code) being harder than explicit learning (being given a key).

I prefer breaking the code most times.

I guess the double entendre about Carlin was a bit to implicit… maybe just not funny...

:)

adsenanim 6 Sep 2010 8:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: jacob_cannell’s comment on: Something’s Wrong
SarahC used it in her (?) argument.

I want to know where and why it was said.

Thomas Paine wrote about atheism during a revolution, Martin Luther nailed his argument to a door of a church.

I voted you up for finding the where, but I still want to know the why.

adsenanim 31 Aug 2010 4:59 UTC
0 points
in reply to: adsenanim’s comment on: Self-fulfilling correlations
R.U.R.)

adsenanim 31 Aug 2010 0:33 UTC
0 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Self-fulfilling correlations
Thanks NancyLebovitz, that’s the one.

| [...]no one considers the possibility that mere variation (less boredom) improves performance.

The reverse possibility may also be true, more boredom decreases performance and may also cause health problems.

adsenanim 27 Aug 2010 3:40 UTC
0 points
in reply to: adsenanim’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Samuel

adsenanim 27 Aug 2010 2:37 UTC
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
The idea is this:

Not only that people can learn as much about a game from losing it as they can from winning it, but that they need to loose in order to learn how to win. The flip-flop acts as a helper in the process of trial and error.

The feedback caused by the wiring of two NOR gates of the flip-flop allow this because the switches are controlled by the true and false sets exclusively; one switch is always associated with the true statements and the other with false.

When we start to learn, all possibilities are indeterminate, they can be either true or false; F == A+A+A is just as valid as F != A+H+C.

The flip-flop becomes sort of an ex post facto method of examining the data of the experience depending on win or loss. With a loss there can be mild sorting of possibilities, but the real sorting comes with comparing wins and losses.

Let me know if how I am representing this idea is to brief, it is still in its infancy, and as I have said elsewhere in my posts, I haven’t read everything.

adsenanim 26 Aug 2010 8:41 UTC
0 points
in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Rationality Lessons in the Game of Go
Sorry for the delay.

Let’s start a Fire.

The Fire requires 3 things: Air(A), Heat(H) and a Combustible(C) so that:

F == A+H+C.

We know that there are many true statements about F:

F == H+C+A

F == A+H+C

Etc.

Let’s say that these are also true:

F != A+A+A

F != B+A+A

Etc.

We also, because of trial and error, can enumerate the false statements, starting with:

F != A+H+C.

Etc.

Continuing with:

F == A+A+A

Etc.

Now this is where the flip-flop comes in:

The true and false of the basic circuit have an extraordinary amount of combinations for the purposes of making fire.

I came up with this idea not only because people learn games through both negative and positive reinforcement, but that many times we only have a partial picture of the possible combinations for a win.

This is redoubled when we think of thing in terms of arbitrary meanings such as air, heat and combustible.