omnizoid
Underwater Torture Chambers: The Horror Of Fish Farming
Eugenics Performed By A Blind, Idiot God
Losing Faith In Contrarianism
Ethics Needs A Marginal Revolution
The commenting restrictions on LessWrong seem bad
Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Ignorant. They’re Bad At Epistemology.
Two Pieces of Advice About How to Remember Things
Anyone want to debate publicly about FDT?
On Leif Wenar’s Absurdly Unconvincing Critique Of Effective Altruism
Why The Insects Scream
I agree with the orthogonality thesis, so no point disagreeing there. I’m not explaining the most widely held lesswrong beliefs—just a few that I strongly disagree with.
He thinks it’s very near zero if there is a gap.
If you half and don’t think that your credence should be 2⁄3 in heads after finding out it’s Monday you violate the conservation of evidence. If you’re going to be told what time it is, your credence might go up but has no chance of going down—if it’s day 2 your credence will spike to 100, if it’s day 1 it wont’ change.
Yes—Lewis held this, for instance, in the most famous paper on the topic.
I didn’t say Eliezer was a liar and a fraud. I said he was often overconfident and eggregiously wrong, and explicitly described him as an interesting thinker who was worth reading.
Yeah, I agree I have lots of views that LessWrongers find dumb. My claim is just that it’s bad when those views are hard to communicate on account of the way LW is set up.
It’s not epiphenomenalism because the law invokes consciousness. On the interactionalist account, consciousness causes things rather than just the physical stuff causing things. If you just got rid of consciousness, you’d get a physically different world.
I don’t think that induction on the basis of “science has explained a lot of things therefore it will explain consciousness” is convincing. For one, up until this point, science has only explained physical behavior, not subjective experience. This was the whole point (see Goff’s book Galileo’s error). For another, this seems to prove too much—it would seem to suggest that we could discover the corect modal beliefs in a test tube.
I agree! Eliezer deserves praise for writing publicly about his ideas. My article never denied that. It merely claimed that he often confidently says things that are totally wrong.
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical view, not a meta-ethical view. I’m a utilitarian and a realist. One can be a utilitarian and adopt any meta-ethical view.