ahh

• ahh 10 Jan 2013 21:37 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Open Thread, Jan­uary 1-15, 2013

  I agree that CBT is well-supported by the evidence, and in general should be rationalism-friendly but that isn’t always so. The therapist I mentioned in my OP was, in fact, calling himself a CBT practitioner. So I was hoping someone knew a CBT guy (or other equally well-supported method, honestly) he personally liked.

• ahh 10 Jan 2013 2:50 UTC

  11 points

  on: Open Thread, Jan­uary 1-15, 2013

  Can anyone recommend a good therapist in San Francisco (or nearby) who’s rationalism-friendly? I have some real problems with depression and anxiety, but the last time I tried to get help the guy told me I was paying too much attention to evidence and should think more spiritually and less rationally. Uh...huh. If you don’t want to post publicly here, PM or email is fine.

• ahh 1 Jan 2013 7:57 UTC

  6 points

  on: Cry­on­ics with­out freez­ers: re­s­ur­rec­tion pos­si­bil­ities in a Big World

  You know, Stross tacitly considered an interesting form of resurrection in Accelerando—a hypothetical post-singularity (non-Friendly) AI computes a minimum message length version of You based off any surviving records of what you’ve done or said (plus the baseline prior for how humans work) and instantiates the result.

  I’m having real trouble proving that’s not more-or-less me, and what’s more, that such a resurrection would feel any different from the inside looking back over its memories of my life.

• ahh 28 Dec 2012 7:54 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Against NHST

  I can’t find BEST (as a statistical test or similar...) on Google. What test do you refer to?

• ahh 20 Dec 2012 2:59 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: Raiden’s comment on: Open Thread, De­cem­ber 16-31, 2012

  I think this paper (while mathematically interesting!) is rather oversold. A positive result to their proposed experiment says one of the following is true:

  A) we’re simulated on a cubic grid B) we’re not simulated, but True Physics has cubic structure C) (other non-obvious cause of anisotropy)

  Not only is it very difficult in my mind to distinguish between A and B, think what a negative result means; one of:

  A) we’re simulated on a non-cubic grid B) we’re simulated with a more complex discretization that deals with anisotropy C) we’re not simulated, and True Physics doesn’t have a cubic structure

  I think the only thing a cubic anistropy can tell us about is the structure of True Physics, not whether or not that true physics is based on a simulation.