And just the other day on the TVtropes forum discussing transhumanism i pointed people towards overcoming bias.
Mycroft65536
The question is an either/or, the similarities between “not” and “Mu” appear to be coincidental and misleading. The idea that an enlightened nature of a dog could be properly communicated to us to the degree we could understand it seems flawed. The idea that a Buddha dog and a Buddha person would be the same is silly. Having a Buddha nature seems to be fulfilling one’s potential in at least one respect. Do all dogs have the same nature? Do all men? Mu
It’s important to struggle with fictional problems because all the beginner real problems have been spoiled. Eliezer seemed to point this out with his zogged utopia’s educational system. We jump into the deep end of the pool thinking we’ve mastered the shallow end, when the shallow end was filled with concrete by our fore bearers.
Any idea HOW to do that?
“I do not fear [technology]. I fear the lack of them. ” -Isaac Azimov
You might be taking the metaphor too far.
I think the argument is that if the stakes are high enough people’s betting patterns create a zero expectation on the bit itself. This seems wrong on the face of it. It assumes that the bettors on the chess match are perfectly evaluating their skills at making perfect bets with expectation of zero, that there is no skill in determining the bet. Thus with an expectation of zero, the winner of the bet is determined by luck.
This becomes more absurd in the poker game. The difference in skill of betting for action is a large part of the game. Most poker books try to teach it. Most people can’t do it.
Manipulation of human beings. Otherwise known as social skills. From the basic aspects of making eye-contact and don’t examine every tangent and metaphor improvements that any geek could use, to properly reading what people want from you.
If using your own intelligence to it’s maximum effectiveness is the best skill you can have, using other people’s intelligence to your own ends has to be second.
The evidence that would disprove Robin is disproving the population growth rate he assumes or finding a way to increase wealth in a super linear manner once we’ve reached the theoretical maximum usage of each atom.
Not in the top 100? If the goal of rationalists is to “win” given our various utility functions, you really think there are 100 better skills that aspiring rationalists could use to maximize their personal utility function and become “toe curling happy”?
It’s most definitely a fallacy. It puts forth a conclusion without sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion. Just like an argument from authority or a gambler’s fallacy.
We’re strong enough to fill our evolutionary niche, barely.
Our heuristics are good enough to get us through life with an adequate chance of success.
We can do better.
Faith is easy to dismiss because it can fairly be defined as “belief without evidence”.
What exactly is meant by “anticipation”?
Mike Caro, a poker player, writes about this sort of behavior. The idea here is that people psychologically want to do a little above the median each day. They work late to get up to normal money, and quit early when they do well. Whereas optimal behavior is the opposite.
I play a quick game of minesweeper on my phone. If I get a decent hard map solved in under 1 min I’m sharp. An easy map under 15 seconds. If i lose, I try and figure out if it was random or poor judgment. It’s not as good as some other tests mentioned, but it’s fast and mobile.
Do you have a reason to believe that your opinion is more likely to be correct than other commenters on this site?
Do you believe them to be guilty and linked to an impassioned site full of logical fallacies over a more informative one? (I don’t mean to impune your post, just guessing that this is the solution to your rationalist puzzle)
I think this experiment is going to be of limited success at best due to the fact that people on the road to rationality are far less likely to acquire new beliefs with both strong emotional component and poor grounding in facts. That’s kind of the point of being a rationalist, true beliefs.
That doesn’t just make rationality irrelevant, it makes everything irrelevant. Love doesn’t matter because you don’t meet that special someone in every world, and will meet them in at least one world. Education doesn’t matter because guessing will get you right somewhere.
I want to be happy and right in as many worlds as possible. Rationality matters.
Or at least of maintaining friendships with people who have cats.
Doesn’t catpenny cost less than a penny (in terms of dollars spent)? You can recover most, if not all, of the pennies.
I’ve always thought you can have more fun in New York than splashing around in the water. But I’m not a dolphin.
The test seems about as useful as a thermometer that starts at 100 degrees. It doesn’t tell you a lot about your environment except in extreme situations. Not very useful, at least as a first test.