bogus

Karma: 2,292

bogus 17 Jul 2009 21:13 UTC
4 points
in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Formalized math: dream vs reality
The NP-complete problem you describe corresponds to automated theorem proving, i.e. searching for a proof of a new mathematical theorem: this is indeed a difficult search problem. Verifying that an existing, human-created proof is correct is a different problem which is definitely tractable.

The real challenge is putting in the grunt-work of formalizing the undergrad math curriculum: one estimate put the required effort at about 140 man-years.

bogus 17 Jul 2009 22:09 UTC
3 points
on: Formalized math: dream vs reality
The December 2008 issue of AMS Notices is entirely devoted to formal proof: http://www.ams.org/notices/200811/

As these papers show, the state of the art is still extremely primitive from an user-friendliness point of view. Formalized math proofs still read too little like math and too much like computer code.

The issue is exacerbated since most proof assistants in common use today are “procedural” proof assistants. A proof in a procedural proof assistant is a linear list of complex proof “tactics” which involve manipulation of the proof state: hypotheses and goals are typically left implicit. These scripts are unreadable unless one replays them step-by-step in the proof assistant.

The most interesting project seems to be http://www.vdash.org—which is intended to be a formal math wiki. The website features a lot of background information but the wiki itself is not up and running, and discussions in the mailing list seem to have died off.

Another useful site is http://www.formalmath.org : it is a “user-friendly” presentation of IsarMathLib, a library for the Isabelle proof assistant based on Zermelo-Frankel set theory.
What links here?
- bogus's comment on Formalizing informal logic by Johnicholas (14 Sep 2009 14:04 UTC; 2 points)

bogus 18 Jul 2009 1:28 UTC
2 points
in reply to: AllanCrossman’s comment on: Absolute denial for atheists
To someone who deeply disdains human society, it probably is equivalent. Suppose that it were possible to soothe your hunger by just rubbing your stomach—how many people would do it and forgo food completely?

bogus 18 Jul 2009 19:01 UTC
3 points
in reply to: thomblake’s comment on: Absolute denial for atheists
Marx’s equivalent to objectification is actually called “commodity fetishism” (seriously—no pun intended). It corresponds to replacing social relations between human beings with mere exchange of commodities. In Marxian analysis, this obscures the social and exchange relations between producers and consumers, since e.g. a worker becomes utterly unaware of the people who will consume his products, except to the extent that his “labor-power” is valued as a commodity.

Of course, as Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek observed, commodity fetishism (or the “commercial production process”) is what makes modern-day specialization and complex supply chains possible: even something as humble as a cotton shirt might incorporate designs sketched out in Italy, cotton grown in Africa and plastic buttons made in China. Requiring human contact or conscious agreements between so many agents would clearly be infeasible.

The benefits of sexual objectification are far less clear, except to the extent that (as some empirical evidence bears out) some people are positive towards being objectified in a sexual context.

bogus 18 Jul 2009 22:55 UTC
1 point
in reply to: pjeby’s comment on: Absolute denial for atheists

IME, however, women tend to prefer that all of these things be explicitly stated or disclaimed…

Is it really the case that women would respond positively towards this kind of “full disclosure”? If we are to take dating experts seriously, men are much better off if they leave such things unsaid. I agree with Steve Rayhawk that what most people really object to is depersonalization, i.e. the absence of empathy: as long as it is known with certainty that this is not your intent, you are in practice free to objectify as much as you want.

bogus 19 Jul 2009 2:38 UTC
5 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Absolute denial for atheists

Is there some reason you are put off when others don’t share your desires?

Read Roko’s comment again and you’ll realize that Wu wei is quite justified in being put off by it. Roko was implying that people who do not adopt these specific values are setting themselves up for failure at their goals due to not being motivated enough.

In my opinion, Roko’s whole argument reeks of availability bias. People who have attained more wealth and social status are certainly more salient to us, but this doesn’t make them more influential by real-world measures. Still, money makes the world go round and having more wealthy philanthropists who can look beyond warm fuzzies to actual utilons created would be a very good thing.

bogus 20 Jul 2009 0:55 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Furcas’s comment on: Sayeth the Girl

Even pickup artists can’t think of women as objects, since the only way they can be successful is by interacting with women in accordance with a certain model of the female psyche.

I would also hazard a guess that people who are “naturally good with women” objectify women more than people who use PUA techniques. Without the benefit of careful analysis, respect for the “goals or interests or personhood” of the picked-up turns out to be detrimental: many “naturals” flounder when they have to abandon their “tried and tested” rules-of-thumb and seek an intimate relationship.

bogus 20 Jul 2009 8:20 UTC
12 points
on: Being saner about gender and rationality
There is simply no way of enforcing “sanity” standards about a political dispute that people physically fight over in the real world: we should be very clear about this. What disputes like this require is real-world mediation and negotiation skills which go far beyond Less Wrong’s scope.

The best introduction to the topic I’m personally aware of is Bernard Crick’s work In Defense of Politics, which is helpfully summarized on Wikipedia. Note that Crick describes politics as “an ethical dispute which has become public”, and that ethical disputes are an inevitable consequence of goodness and morality standards. Accordingly, virtues like adaptability and compromise are of far higher merit than any platitude about “sanity” or “rationality”.

bogus 20 Jul 2009 9:11 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Roko’s comment on: Being saner about gender and rationality
We could certainly encourage more discussion of the political virtues on Less Wrong—I’m talking about general concepts like mediation or compromise—and this would definitely help forestall the factionalization of Less Wrong’s userbase.

However, it would be a grave mistake to encourage “base level” political discussions on Less Wrong itself: that part should be left to specialized open politics websites, which often need to include such features as argumentation frameworks, support for clearly-defined factions, acceptance of anonymous input etc.

bogus 20 Jul 2009 13:46 UTC
4 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Sayeth the Girl

What? Clothing lipstick fingernails haircut tan waxing liposuction diet aerobics…

Most of this is part of some silly game which women play amongst themselves: some of it may be male-directed, but it’s definitely a minor portion. Overall, F2M seduction and “focused self-improvement” are still woefully underexplored.

bogus 20 Jul 2009 14:41 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Being saner about gender and rationality
Make no mistake: this is not a problem in “instrumental and epistemic rationality”, it is a problem in politics. We simply cannot afford to appeal to some sort of “rational”, god’s-eye-view ideology and lose our real world credibility.

bogus 20 Jul 2009 14:58 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Raka’s comment on: Being saner about gender and rationality
Hi, Raka, and welcome to Less Wrong!

I can tell you’ve been lurking for a while and have a well-developed sense of humor. These are well-appreciated qualities in our community, but do not overdo it: being overly trollish is discouraged here. Have fun!

bogus 20 Jul 2009 15:18 UTC
5 points
in reply to: CronoDAS’s comment on: Rationality Quotes—June 2009

I leave the room. ;)

It is pitch dark. You’re likely to be eaten by a grue.

bogus 21 Jul 2009 7:52 UTC
5 points
in reply to: HughRistik’s comment on: Sayeth the Girl
This should be a top-level post. It would counter both the pervasive misunderstanding of what PUA is about and Eliezer’s point about PUA being locker-room man talk.

bogus 21 Jul 2009 9:57 UTC
20 points
in reply to: komponisto’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics

So, yes, this is in fact an argument for a certain kind of political correctness—just enough of it to avoid signaling low status if at all possible.

No no no. Discouraging topics with “low status” connotations (as opposed to topics which are politically divisive or needlessly exclusionary) is cowardly and epistemically dangerous. If we were playing a chronophone game, this would come out as “Let’s not discuss Copernicus’ theories: this should be a place where Jesuit scientists and philosophers can be comfortable”.

Rationalists should win, and one can win big by seeing things that society at large dares not point out just yet.

bogus 21 Jul 2009 19:58 UTC
2 points
in reply to: pjeby’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
Relevant post. There is a huge difference between marketing communications which is the garden-variety sort of marketing you’re talking about, and marketing research, which is about giving people the things they’ll want to buy. (And not just what they say they want to buy, but what they’ll actually put cash down for).

bogus 22 Jul 2009 7:09 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics

Edit: Why does this apparently bother two different people that I suggested it?

I downvoted you because you’re endorsing overt factionalization of Less Wrong’s userbase (again). As the previous discussion has shown, there’s no shortage of people (male and female) who will take genuine offense at objectifying or otherwise insensitive language: we have no need for meat-puppets or “deputies”.

Edited to address reply: The only situation where Eliezer called for female rationalists to intervene was to debunk a hypothetical feminist commenter who took offense at eminently sensible things like, say, evolutionary psychology [1]. This is not at all the same as identifying genuine sexism concerns.

[1] Which is ironic, since evolutionary psychology as currently practiced is full of baseless “just-so stories”. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if some of these stories were genuinely problematic.

bogus 22 Jul 2009 19:28 UTC
−11 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Missing the Trees for the Forest

-When I’m told all my life that I’m an oppressor, and have to watch out for the invisible acts of oppression that I’m committing, which can only be revealed by consultation with a special class of offical censors, all the while men who ignore these rules attract all the women.

You do realize that your beef is essentially with Gandhian non-violent resistance? Whether you care to admit it or not, you are on the controlling side of an unequal power relationship. It is grossly unethical—not to mention clearly unfeasible—to demand that people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint.

ETA: Why does this comment bother so many of you? I realize that political arguments are generally unwelcome here, but this should not be used to excuse comments as misguided as Silas’s.
What links here?
- SilasBarta's comment on Missing the Trees for the Forest by Scott Alexander (23 Jul 2009 2:56 UTC; -7 points)

bogus 22 Jul 2009 19:47 UTC
−5 points
in reply to: SilasBarta’s comment on: Missing the Trees for the Forest

Yes, I do feel personally injured. I’m told all my life what is proper behavior around women and what is not,

It seems that you have bought into anti-feminist propaganda—color me unsurprised. The so-called “proper behavior” you’re talking about has consistently been codified and endorsed by the existing power structure, as a means of perpetuating its self-serving mindsets and systemic biases.
What links here?
- bogus's comment on Missing the Trees for the Forest by Scott Alexander (23 Jul 2009 9:15 UTC; 3 points)
- SilasBarta's comment on Missing the Trees for the Forest by Scott Alexander (23 Jul 2009 2:45 UTC; -9 points)

bogus 22 Jul 2009 21:09 UTC
4 points
in reply to: taw’s comment on: An observation on cryocrastination

Expressing lifetime or otherwise long term cost in terms of “cost per day” is insulting to readers’ intelligence and is an extremely dishonest attempt at making things appear cheaper than they really are. Please never ever do this.

Why? Do you object to amortizing any capital cost or expenditure?

Of course you can get life insurance, but by the basic laws of economics, amount of money you can expect to pay for your life insurance is higher than

The point of getting life insurance is not that it’s any less expensive (in expectation) than putting the money in the bank: it’s to hedge the risk that you will need to be cryopreserved before you’ve saved enough.