Capla

• Capla 15 Aug 2014 0:24 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Truth vs Utility

  Uh...Why?

• Capla 15 Aug 2014 0:38 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: PhilGoetz’s comment on: Every Paul needs a Jesus

  Yes, but my understanding is that they were written following Paul’s example.

  For instance, I once asked a teacher if the Gospels, written by Jews for a the followers of a Jewish rabbi, were originally written in Aramaic. With the possible exception of Luke, we are pretty certain that the original versions were written in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, because the Gospel writers were following the convection set by Paul. Christianity did not have any texts (other than the traditional Jewish ones) before Paul, and his actions prompted other people to write down their oral history of Jesus.

  The fact fact that Paul chose to write in Greek, is itself interesting, and reflective of the content of his reformed message; that it was one meant for the world, and not just the Jews (which it can certainly be argued was not the case of Jesus’s original teachings).

• Capla 15 Aug 2014 0:49 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: iDante’s comment on: What are use­ful skills to learn at uni­ver­sity?

  I think you are overestimating your comprehensibility. It is comparatively difficult to make out what you are saying.

• Capla 22 Aug 2014 17:39 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: A thought on AI un­em­ploy­ment and its consequences

  In Ricardo’s example, England and Portugal already exist and will not change significantly. The number of producers is basically constant.

  In the human/​robot example, given such a huge absolute advantage to the robot, we would just build more robots. That would be vastly more economical than having humans do the things that the bots are much better at, but isn’t their highest aptitude.

• Capla 2 Sep 2014 21:33 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: MaximumLiberty’s comment on: Overly con­ve­nient clusters, or: Be­ware sour grapes

  The link didn’t work. You ended your sentence with a period but it was included in the URL.

  Is this what you meant?

  http://​​en.wikipedia.org/​​wiki/​​Serenity_Prayer

• Capla 5 Sep 2014 19:00 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: jefftk’s comment on: Per­sis­tent Idealism

  I am reminded of an old Robin Hanson post on “helpful” professions.

  http://​​www.overcomingbias.com/​​2006/​​12/​​do_helping_prof.html

• Capla 6 Sep 2014 20:38 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Caue’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Septem­ber 2014

  What? He’s crusading against GMOs? Can you give me some references?

  I like his writing a lo, but I remember noting the snide way he dismissed doctors who “couldn’t imagine” that there could be medicinal benefit to mother’s milk, as if they were arrogant fools.

• Capla 6 Sep 2014 20:40 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Azathoth123’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Septem­ber 2014

  This is not always true (as Taleb himself points out in The Black Swan): in investing the worst that can happen is you loss all of your principle, the best that can happen is unbounded.

• Capla 6 Sep 2014 21:06 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: CCC’s comment on: The Oc­to­pus, the Dolphin and Us: a Great Filter tale

  Why was this down-voted?

• Capla 7 Sep 2014 22:37 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Bill_Mill’s comment on: You Only Live Twice

  I might pose I similar thought experiment: if a scientist today, discovered he could raise the dead, restore anyone who had ever lived, what would we do with that power? Do we have a moral responsibility to “save” all humans ever? Even if resurrection were free, the earth couldn’t (currently) support a population of every human (and perhaps some pets?) who’s ever been. We’d have to decide who gets to live and who doesn’t. Restoring past-people will almost certainly entail displacing some people who might otherwise have been born. Why do we privilege those that already got to live a “full” (typical human) life over the millions of potential humans that could populate the earth in our stead?

  Furthermore, I don’t see much of a distinction between deciding who gets revived and who doesn’t, on the one hand, and killing the people we don’t want around, on the other. Faced with a delemia of “who gets to live”, unless we aim for a sort of “equality of time alive”, out of a sense of fairness (in which case, most modern humans are running a deficit), it seems we would kill the ass-holes to make room for the cool people from history. Is that inhumane?

  Or consider, maybe we’d stop giving birth entirely, so that all the existent people can take turns being the one’s alive. Does a world where every person is old, where no one is falling in love for the first time, where children are absent, so that we can have more life, see like a good one?

  I’m asking these questions sincerely. Maybe that is the world we want.

• Capla 23 Sep 2014 1:30 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: SanguineEmpiricist’s comment on: LessWrong’s at­ti­tude to­wards AI research

  Can you direct me to some of those papers? Where should I start?

• Capla 29 Sep 2014 1:48 UTC

  1 point

  on: Mea­sur­ing Op­ti­miza­tion Power

  Whether and how well an intelligence “steer[s] reality into regions that are higher in [its] preference ordering” is dependent not just on its intelligence but also on it’s “power”. A vastly intelligent AI that is running on a disk connected to all kinds of sensors and a power source, but not connected to anything that lets it effect the world outside of itself (internet, contact with humans, a robot arm, a nano-factory, etc.) won’t steer reality anywhere. All it can do is think about what it would do if ti could do ANYthing.

  Defining intelligence in this way (as an optimization process), would lead us to disregard this hyper-intelligent entity as not an intelligence at all. It seems like we have account for power (the ability to actualize one’s will) somewhere. Granted, intelligence makes one powerful, but it is not the only attribute that does so.

• Capla 3 Oct 2014 0:24 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Metus’s comment on: Up­com­ing CFAR events: Lower-cost bay area in­tro work­shop; EU work­shops; and others

  Not very, I don’t think.

  I had my initial interview (though not the one for aid) and I didn’t get the impression that they’d ask for a transcript. In fact, it hadn’t even occurred to me.

• Capla 7 Oct 2014 1:03 UTC

  1 point

  on: Ra­tion­al­ity, Cry­on­ics and Pas­cal’s Wager

  This is exactly the sort of breakdown I needed to see (regardless of whether I agree with the numbers). Lots of people are asserting the rationality of cryonics, but as a relative newcomer to the community, I want you to explain it to me. I need more info before I’d sign up.

  To which Robin Hanson post are you referring? Can anyone share similar analyses of the effectiveness of cryonics?

• Capla 7 Oct 2014 1:11 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: rwallace’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity, Cry­on­ics and Pas­cal’s Wager

  Why did you have to add the last bit? You were making a good point!

• Capla 16 Oct 2014 22:30 UTC

  10 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: What false be­liefs have you held and why were you wrong?

  I can’t up-vote this enough. This is such a useful pastern to understand.

• Capla 16 Oct 2014 22:38 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: XiXiDu’s comment on: What math is es­sen­tial to the art of ra­tio­nal­ity?

  Thank you. Having a ready made “course sequence” that I can then adapt, is really helpful.

  I appreciate having Khan academy for looking up math concept that on which I need a refresher, but I’ve heard (or maybe just assumed?) that the higher level teaching was a bit mediocre. You disagree? I’m fully prepared to update on the estimates of people here.

  What’s the value of taking classes in math vs. teaching myself (or maybe teaching myself with the occasional help of a tutor)?

• Capla 16 Oct 2014 22:52 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: shminux’s comment on: What math is es­sen­tial to the art of ra­tio­nal­ity?

  I hope not, because then there must not be even a single tool I know how to use.

  http://​​www.econlib.org/​​library/​​Essays/​​rdPncl1.html

• Capla 16 Oct 2014 22:57 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: What math is es­sen­tial to the art of ra­tio­nal­ity?

  So other than learning the formula, how do you suggest that we learn to apply it, other than actually applying over and over, until one stops getting problems wrong? It seems that it’s just a function of practice.

• Capla 16 Oct 2014 23:11 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: IlyaShpitser’s comment on: What math is es­sen­tial to the art of ra­tio­nal­ity?

  With regards to insight porn, I was actually a bit surprised to see EY say “change your outlook on life”, which seems very strong. (He did say, “more than” the alternatives, so perhaps it’s a bit uncharitable to critique that.)

  Acknowledging that its not a substitute for real understanding, I like insight. There’s no reason why I can’t have them both.

  Also, I’m not sure that it is always true that cheep, quick insights aren’t the way intellectual growth happens. There have been many little realizations (and even just exposures to new ideas or topics), that, taken together, made for a more intellectually competent me. Sure, it’s harder to “act on that knowledge in our society” (that takes self-discipline), but I consider that separate from “intellectual growth”