Arran_Stirton

Karma: 348

Arran_Stirton 20 Oct 2011 4:21 UTC
0 points
on: The Need for Universal Experience Classes
While I agree that education does needs some considerable improvements your claim that there’s a need for a universal-experience class doesn’t really hold water.

In school we learn wonderful things like how to find integrals, solve equations, and how to calculate valence electrons of elements based on their atomic numbers. Because, obviously, they will be very important in our futures—especially if we become artists, musicians, writers, actors, and business people.

Ironically despite being intended as sarcasm this statement (sarcasm aside) is fairly accurate. However you’re referring to the usefulness of being able to solve particular kinds of mathematical and scientific problems rather than the actual subjects in question. When you take all of the subjects into account rather than those cherry picked items you find that they are indeed useful for artists, musicians, writers, actors, and business people.

Just to start off with learning Physics is very different to learning (for example) the equation for calculating gravitational attraction. Physics is about being able to find the equation for gravitational attraction though observation and analysis without needing to be given it. That sort of analytical problem solving would actually be incredibly useful for someone going into business. Similarly the development of curiosity and imagination that should go hand in hand with learning physics is vital for the arts. The principles of resonance are actually useful to a musician for understanding why their instruments work the way they do. I’d go on but I’m sure you get the point.

Moreover the things you are suggesting should be taught in this universal experience class are things that would be already included in a proper education in the Arts, Sciences, Humanities and Mathematics. Leading me to suspect that the problem lies in that your education (like my own) has been found to be lacking these core skills. The problem leading to things being so badly taught is that they have very little bearing on the actual exams, you don’t need to be able to derive the general derivative of x^n to be able to take the derivative of x^2. So such things get left out in the race to make sure students pass their exams.

Creating a universal experience class that wouldn’t end up being reduced to memorization (somewhat like what has happened to philosophy these days) would require you to solve the problem outlined above; and if you can do that then it would render the universal experience class obsolete. Seeing as you could just apply that solution to all of the other classes and cover all the ground covered in the universal experience class and more to boot.

On a side note I’m curious as to what you mean by “everyday thinking”?

Arran_Stirton 5 Dec 2011 3:56 UTC
3 points
on: Larry King: I want to be frozen
(I’m glad someone’s posted something about cryonics; not having enough karma points I can’t make a post myself unfortunately. I apologise for the slight digression)

It seems that paying to be cryonic preserved is a rather bad investment given the current capabilities of preservation technology. The extent of damage brain and the lack of any evidence to show that it can indeed be repaired and rebooted (even if only in theory) rules it out as a valid method of self-preservation (as explained by these people → http://hdl.handle.net/1800/6115).

However donating money to research aimed at improving cryopreservation techniques and developing the science to also revive patients is worthwhile. It’s a simple matter of optimization. On the one hand you can have a large number of people pay a large amount of money toward the imperfect preservation of what amounts to an approximation of their brain structure as opposed to a large number of people contributing a large amount of money toward developing an adequate method for preserving/reviving a much more exact approximation of their brain. Moreover the added contributions will reduce the time it takes for technology to reach this level, increasing massively the number of people who will have access to a decent method of self-preservation prior to their death.

Though there is some point to only a few people going for cryonic preservation. Doubtlessly their brains will prove invaluable to generations in the distant future in understanding the psychology of our times and provide them with information about our times that you wouldn’t find in newspaper archives. However (ideally)these people would be persons of notable intellect, experience or creativity. (Chances are that brain preserved with current methods will able to be scanned and emulated far before it can be repaired/restarted. Hence it is less likely that they’ll be revived by our descendants.)

All in all I figure Larry King should be investing in cryonic preservation research, not in being cryonically preserved (yet).

Arran_Stirton 5 Dec 2011 4:29 UTC
0 points
in reply to: DanielLC’s comment on: Larry King: I want to be frozen
To do good in general, and possibly get cryopreserved depending on the outcome and time the research will take.

It’s true, my donations alone wouldn’t advance cryopreservation much. It’s also true that the two pounds a month I pay to the NSPCC doesn’t do much to prevent cruelty to children, but I’m not the only contributor. Providing enough people contribute to the cause cryopreservation would be advanced a good deal. It’s like game theory, it’s better for everyone to contribute to improving cryopreservation than cryopreserve themselves with current technology.

Your life wouldn’t be saved anyway. As I was saying, even if you take the possibility of regenerating brains preserved with the current method as a given, it’s unlikely it will happen before your brain is disposed of. Chances are we’ll have the technological capability to emulate a brain before we have the capability to regenerate one.

Arran_Stirton 5 Dec 2011 4:56 UTC
1 point
in reply to: MatthewBaker’s comment on: Larry King: I want to be frozen
I don’t. However I do argue that we’re far more likely to emulate a brain or end up discarding cryopreserved brains (it’s already happened once, a company went bust and the bodies in their care thawed) before we get to the point where we have the technological and theoretical capabilities to do as you suggested.

I suspect that if we have that capability all humans (that could afford it) would also become immortal.

Arran_Stirton 19 Dec 2011 9:58 UTC
3 points
in reply to: lsparrish’s comment on: Larry King: I want to be frozen
Thank you for taking the time to give me such a well thought out response. Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply in turn. I’d be interested in hearing your further response.

Actually my point was not a person who does not trust presently available cryonics should still invest in research, but that cryonic preservation itself is not trustworthy at the current time and therefore investing in research is a better alternative. Though if someone does have a high enough estimation of the likelihood of it working adequately I’d love to find out why so I can update my own estimation.

You’re right though, they may think the research has reached a point of diminishing returns untill the advent of mature nanotechnology but that begs the question why not invest in nanotechnology instead?

Or even better invest in research into the preservation of individual organs? Given the high need for organ transplants, the ability to put them “on ice” would provide invaluable in the saving of lives. Moreover in the increased number of transplants would lead to an increase in income for hospitals and pharmaceutical companies selling anti-rejection drugs. Given that the most likely scenario is that we’ll be able to successfully preserve and revive kidneys before we can do the same for (as an example) lungs that money would end up being re-invested in organ preservation research.

This would have a higher expected return as a thriving market in organ-transplant surgery and immunosuppressant’s is much more likely than developing a thriving market in whole body cryopreservation. There are already more people added to the national waiting list for organ donations each month (about 4,100) , four times that of Alcor’s membership over four decades (ref: http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/membershipstats.html).

And while the money of those buying cryopreservation may be going into a trust fund, the money will only be useful for regenerative research in the long term. Meanwhile the average cost of immunosuppressant’s is about $1000 per month (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592494/) for the lifetime of the patient, that along with the larger market results in a far greater spending power for research.

If Larry King were to pay for the freezing of millions of low-income individuals in high population countries I’m not sure it could be considered a philanthropic act. Cryonic preservation is for all intents and purposes still experimental, in many ways equivalent to a drug trial and as such should be governed by the same guidelines. Namely the Nuremberg code (http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html), and the freezing of low-income individuals is highly likely to violate the first clause of that code. As such individuals are highly likely to have little or no education and as a result won’t have enough information/training to make an informed decision, and the amount of education required would bump up the cost per individual considerably.

While I don’t agree with religious beliefs about burial (or cremation for that matter) it’s a common belief held that burial must be done is a specific way in order to gain entry to heaven (holy ground, intact body etc.) It would be unfair to portray as a sure fire way of preserving their life when if it were to fail, their burial wishes wouldn’t be met.

I can’t help but agree with you on the matter of cryonics companies having a far more stable business model than the previous pay-as-you-go sort. However it seems to me at least this arrangement is far from indefinite, the longer you wait the more likely something like WW3 is to break out. In fact the longer the wait the less likely cryogenics companies are to honour their contract (200 years from now, not many people will care that much about popsicles from the early 21st century. In 300 years even less people will, the longer it takes the easier it will be to justify the disposal of cryogenically preserved individuals, more so if during that time no major advancements are made.)

Arran_Stirton 19 Dec 2011 11:10 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Logos01’s comment on: Larry King: I want to be frozen
Just thought I’d say: excellently well put.

Arran_Stirton 21 Dec 2011 5:44 UTC
10 points
on: Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration
Firstly let me just say: this is brilliant.
I’m not sure those words quite encapsulate the awesome but they’ll have to do. Kudos on putting it all together, very well executed.

This reminds me of something I heard at a Secular Society talk a while back about a minister who identified as a Christian-Atheist. Reportedly he promoted religion as a human-made construct rather than a set of beliefs about how the world is.

Though on avoiding the whole becoming-cult thing it might be an idea to change the theme yearly? I mean Lovecraft is beyond epic, but having a different “Santa” each year might help to counter possible cult-ishness. Also having a different range of rationality-inspired literature each year should help toward the same goal. Though those are just suggestions of course.

Arran_Stirton 21 Dec 2011 6:44 UTC
0 points
on: No one knows what Peano arithmetic doesn’t know
My knowledge of computability is far from extensive so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.

Does an oracle being able to determine if a statement is provable in Peano arithmetic necessarily be capable of proving that all of the Turing machines that halt for standard integers do in fact halt? Or to put it another way, is there a Turing machine that operates on some standard integer that cannot be proved in Peano arithmetic?

Thanks.

Arran_Stirton 21 Dec 2011 7:18 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration
I have to agree with you on the song, although if it only really made sense in the context of the stories you told, perhaps a short prelude could be added to the beginning? (I assume this is one of the songs you wrote yourself?)

Given that it is a lot of work, have you looked at potential collaborators? Again just a suggestion, but the end result could be that more time gets spent on each element of the ritual and it would greatly lessen the strain on yourself. Of course that’s providing your fellow collaborators are as effective as yourself in ritual construction!

If this is what you’ve achieved in a month though, I’m almost scared of what you could achieve in a year.

Arran_Stirton 21 Dec 2011 10:06 UTC
0 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: No one knows what Peano arithmetic doesn’t know
Ah thanks, it seems I misread the whole “is there an integer N such that T takes N steps” as “is there an integer N such that T takes some number of steps then halts”, sorry about that—brain malfunction I guess. Though now that I see what you mean rather than what I thought you meant, good post! Not old news to me, but them I’m relatively new to computability theory.

Arran_Stirton 22 Dec 2011 8:16 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration
I suspect you’ll probably find it much easier to get local people to contribute next time around given the awesomeness inherent in this time around.

Perhaps you could put all the resources (in terms of data) you’ve used for this year’s ritual in one place (I’ve no idea where you might host it though) to provide the basis of a kind of “ritualist’s toolbox”. The idea being to over time build up enough resources in order to hold future rituals indefinitely and ensure the kind of variety in content required to prevent cultishness.

An added bonus is that it means you can make the resources to be used for the next ritual open to collaboration while keeping the specific narrative planned a secret, the ritual the oomph can be maintained all the better. (While a new narrative may not contain more information than present in the toolbox it will present it in a different manner causing its implications to be perceived differently, something along the lines of Making History Available )

Just some thoughts.

Arran_Stirton 23 Dec 2011 9:04 UTC
1 point
on: Applied Rationality Practice
What kind of problems to you mean specifically? By “one decision problem of one person” do you mean problems that may arise in day to day life, or is the scope allowed to be wider than that?

Arran_Stirton 23 Dec 2011 21:06 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Curiouskid’s comment on: Applied Rationality Practice
Being 18 I’m in a pretty similar situation to yourself, and I’ve looked extensively into the whole problem.

The things you mention as talents are actually qualities, programing on the other hand counts as a skill (of course if you’re particularly good at it, it counts as a talent).

What you need to look for is your Element (to use Sir Ken Robinson’s concept). While it is all well and noble to pick what you want to do on the basis of mitigating existential risk your best bet is to find something you’re both good at and passionate about (your talent). Then work out how to use that to reduce existential risk. Not only will you end up happier for it, you’ll also be more effective in saving the world.

Of course that doesn’t mean other areas of skill aren’t worth developing, so long as their useful they’re good, but in terms of your career go with what you’re most passionate about. If you’re serious about learning maths you should take a look at http://www.khanacademy.org/ , the videos on there cover a great deal of stuff, from the very basics to calculus to matrices and the likes.

I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you about which existential risk is greatest but rather which one you are most suited to negate. In fact if you were to try to negate a potential horror that requires a certain area of expertise to counteract, and not being particularly good (that is just average) you could end up screwing things up even worse. Eliezer posts about how he nearly destroyed the world are a good example of that.

I hope some of that helps.

Arran_Stirton 23 Dec 2011 21:11 UTC
1 point
in reply to: ksvanhorn’s comment on: Applied Rationality Practice
Ah I see, by wider scope I was thinking more along the lines of “What sort of economic system could be constructed to encapsulate most of the benefits of capitalism while having far fewer failings?” and “What is the best way to prevent a Nuclear Holocaust?”

You know, just the small things...

Arran_Stirton 23 Dec 2011 23:08 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Kevin’s comment on: Spend Money on Ergonomics
Do you have any data to back this up? (Be it second hand or third hand)

For the record I’m not actually against improving ergonomic well-being, I’m just interested in the statistical significance. Mostly so I can estimate if it’s worth implementing certain things at the point in time, or if the disruption caused won’t be sufficiently counterbalanced by the benefits.

Also the DVORAK is not necessarily a better layout in practical terms. While for pure typing it surely is a great improvement upon the efficiency of the QWERTY keyboard it has several potentially crippling disadvantages. To start with standard keyboard shortcuts like ctrl-c and ctrl-v become harder to use. And actually learning to type on a different keyboard layout at the same speed as previously is a substantial investment in time. Plus there’s the incompatibility with control systems based on the QWERTY keyboard (this is most noticeable in games where the WASD keys often replace the arrow keys). I’m not sure the increase in performance really warrants such a disruption.

Arran_Stirton 23 Dec 2011 23:36 UTC
0 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Spend Money on Ergonomics
Touché

Perhaps I should have said “one of the most common occurrences of this would be,” or something instead.

Arran_Stirton 23 Dec 2011 23:43 UTC
5 points
in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Spend Money on Ergonomics
True! And that would be a tragedy.

Arran_Stirton 4 Jan 2012 4:05 UTC
0 points
in reply to: A1987dM’s comment on: Rationality quotes January 2012
Sorry to be so ignorant but what is 3^^^3? Google yielded no satisfactory results…

Arran_Stirton 4 Jan 2012 4:47 UTC
0 points
in reply to: MinibearRex’s comment on: Rationality quotes January 2012
Ah thank you, that clarifies things greatly! Up-voted for the technical explanation.

Arran_Stirton 4 Jan 2012 4:57 UTC
4 points
on: Rationality quotes January 2012
While this quote isn’t directly about rationality, it reminds me a good deal of Tsuyoku Naritai!.

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 and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, 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 he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

~ Theodore Roosevelt, The Man in the Arena

(Edit: Just to clarify as some might misinterpret the posting of this to be a knock on rationality, the relevance of this quote is that what counts is trying to solve problem. While with hindsight it’s easy to say how (to pick a mundane example) one might work out the area under a curve once you already know calculus, it’s not so easy to do it without that knowledge.)