Roland2

Karma: 246

Roland2 1 Apr 2008 4:24 UTC
14 points
on: Heat vs. Motion
Consider two identical flywheels made of iron:

a) starts in room temperature, you apply force and make it spin. b) stands still but you heat it uniformily with several flames.

Suppose that in both cases the same amount of energy has been put into the flywheels.

In both cases the atoms are moving in high speed. Now if you look at the flywheels with an infrared camera would they look the same? This is not a rethorical question.

Roland2 25 Nov 2007 16:42 UTC
14 points
on: Lost Purposes
As someone who actually practices medieval fighting arts I have to take objection to this:

Miyamoto Musashi said:

“The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means.”

This is of course a generalization. The reality is more complex. Never forget that the real primary goal of yours is to stay alive and unharmed(at least that’s my goal), so sometimes a parry makes sense, even if you can’t cut the enemy in the same movement. You could cut or kill the enemy a lot of times if you simply ignore his blade and go straight for the attack/counter-attack, but that would also mean that you would be killed or injured.

Btw you don’t want to always cut the enemy. Sometimes your objective will be to disarm him and take him captive without seriously injuring him.

But in GENERAL his advice is correct: defend and attack(cut) in the same movement, that’s a good guideline although it’s not always possible to do that depending on the actual situation.

Btw generating the entire art from withhin yourself would be kinda hard like trying to generate physics from yourself, you better have a good teacher. Of course you probably mean that you should be able to understand the idea behind each move so if the teacher doesn’t explain it you better think about it and try to figure it out for yourself.

Roland2 3 Jun 2008 9:03 UTC
13 points
on: Timeless Identity
Where can I sign up for cryonics if I live outside the United States and Europe?

Roland2 12 Mar 2008 6:28 UTC
10 points
on: Probability is in the Mind
GBM:

Q: What is the probability for a pseudo-random number generator to generate a specific number as his next output?

A: 1 or 0 because you can actually calculate the next number if you have the available information.

Q: What probability do you assign to a specific number as being it’s next output if you don’t have the information to calculate it?

Replace pseudo-random number generator with dice and repeat.

Roland2 27 Nov 2007 2:12 UTC
10 points
on: How Much Evidence Does It Take?
Sorry, ignore my erratum above, I was wrong. I mixed up odds and probability, they are different things.

Roland2 23 Dec 2008 21:07 UTC
9 points
on: Imaginary Positions
I write as an ex-christian. Common misconceptions:

-All christians believe in creationism(as opposed to evolution). -All christians believe that the Bible is 100% correct and the inerrant word of God.

Roland2 19 Sep 2008 18:35 UTC
9 points
on: The Sheer Folly of Callow Youth
We all know what happened to Donald Rumsfeld, when he went to war with the army he had, instead of the army he needed.

Sorry Eliezer, but when it comes to politics you are often wrong. AFAIK Donald Rumsfeld is doing fine and made a lot of money with the war, as did many others in power. Using your words: he is smiling from the top of a giant heap of utility. Do you really think he cares about the army or Iraq?

Roland2 14 Jun 2008 5:34 UTC
9 points
on: Possibility and Could-ness
I feel the obligation to post this warning again: Don’t think “Ohhh, the decision I’ll make is already determined, so I can as well relax and don’t worry too much.” Remember you will face the consequences of whatever you decide so make the best possible choice, maximize utility!

Roland2 7 Apr 2008 2:40 UTC
9 points
on: GAZP vs. GLUT
I mean, there’s got to be more to it than inputs and outputs.

Otherwise even a GLUT would be conscious, right?

Eliezer, I suspect you are not being 100% honest here. I don’t have any problems with a GLUT being conscious.

Roland2 22 Jan 2008 20:34 UTC
9 points
0
on: Circular Altruism
Torture vs dust specks, let me see:

What would you choose for the next 50 days:
1. Removing one mililiter of the daily water intake of 100,000 people.
2. Removing 10 liters of the daily water intake of 1 person.
The consequence of choice 2 would be the death of one person.

Yudkowsky would choose 2, I would choose 1.

This is a question of threshold. Below certain thresholds things don’t have much effect. So you cannot simply add up.

Another example:
1. Put 1 coin on the head of each of 1,000,000 people.
2. Put 100,000 coins on the head of one guy.
What do you choose? Can we add up the discomfort caused by the one coin on each of 1,000,000 people?

Roland2 18 May 2008 19:18 UTC
8 points
on: No Safe Defense, Not Even Science
One suggestion for the flaw:

Conclusions from this article: a) you are never safe b) you must understand a) on a emotional basis c) the only way to achieve b) is through an experience of failure after following the rules you trusted

The flaw is that the article actually does the opposite of what it wants to accomplish: by giving the warning(a) it makes people feel safer. In order to convey the necessary emotion of “not feeling safe”(b) Eliezer had to make the PS regarding the flaw.

In a certain sense this also negates c). I think Eliezer doesn’t really want us to fail(c) in order to recognize a), the whole point of overcomingbias.com is to prevent humans from failing. So if Eliezer did a good job in conveying the necessary insecurity through his PS then hopefully c) won’t happen to you.

Roland

Roland2 10 Oct 2008 23:51 UTC
7 points
on: Crisis of Faith
“How do I know if long-held belief X is false?”

Eliezer, I guess if you already are asking this question you are well on your way. The real problem arises when you didn’t even manage to pinpoint the possibly false believe. And yes I was a religious person for many years before realizing that I was on the wrong way.

Why didn’t I question my faith? Well, it was so obviously true to me. The thing is: did you ever question heliocentrism? No? Why not? When you ask the question “How do I know if Heliocentrism is false?” You are already on your way. The thing is, your brain needs a certain amount of evidence to pinpoint the question.

How did I overcome my religion? I noticed that something was wrong with my worldview like seeing a deja vu in the matrix every now and then. This on an intellectual level, not as a visible thing. But much more subtle and less obvious so you really have to be attentive no notice it, to notice that there is a problem in the pattern. Things aren’t the way they should be.

But over time I became more and more aware that the pieces weren’t fitting together. But from there to arrive at the conclusion that my basic assumptions where wrong was really not easy. If you live in the matrix and see strange things happening, how will you arrive at the conclusion that this is because you are in a simulation?

Your posts on rationality were a big help, though. They always say: “Jesus will make you free.” Unfortunately that didn’t work out for me. Well, I finally am free after a decade of false believing, and during all the time I was a believer I never was as happy as I’m now.

Roland2 3 Jul 2008 6:27 UTC
7 points
on: The Bedrock of Fairness
At first I tend to side with Zaire. The pie should be divided according to everyone’s needs. But what if Zaire has a bigger body and generally needs to eat more? Should he always get more? Should the others receive less and be penalized because Zaire happens to be bigger? This is not easy, sigh...

Roland2 4 Jun 2008 6:55 UTC
7 points
on: Why Quantum?
Another great post. Eliezer I really don’t trust you 100% but I try to read and understand everything you write with great interest. I agree with you in that a lot of the negative commenters here seem to underestimate the mental work you have put into all this.

Roland2 19 Dec 2007 5:08 UTC
7 points
on: Guardians of Ayn Rand
Studying up on the math of probability theory and decision theory.

Eliezer or anyone else, which books on these subjects are good for beginners?

Roland2 8 Dec 2007 2:20 UTC
7 points
on: Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs
As a former member of a lot of different “christian”(the quotes are there for a reason) churches I can only say: you hit the nail on the head! Btw, I’m not a member of any church nowadays.

If you get rid of the old outliers, the group position will shift, and someone else will become the oddball. If you eject them too, you’re well on the way to becoming a Bose-Einstein condensate and, er, exploding.

The real problem is that some group-leaders really want their groups to become BECs, with them at the center of control. So they will do all that is possible to eject dissenting voices. Alas, I speak from experience here.

Roland2 21 Oct 2008 2:54 UTC
6 points
on: Ethical Injunctions
@Tom McCabe: I would have answered “yes”; eg., I would have set off a bomb in Hitler’s car in 1942, even if Hitler was surrounded by babies. This doesn’t seem to be a case of corruption by unethical hardware; the benefit to me from setting off such a bomb is quite negative, as it greatly increases my chance of being tortured to death by the SS.

It’s easy to talk now about it, harder if you actually lived in Germany at that time and had to really fear the SS. Are you american? If yes did you consider the fact that the actual political situation in the states has a lot of similarities with Nazi-Germany?

As for killing Hitler you have a few hidden assumptions in there like: -killing him would actually stop the war and/or the killing of the jews.

For me it seems you have fallen for the simplification that Hitler is the personification of evil and so you failed to understand the complexity of the political situation at that time.

Roland2 14 Jun 2008 5:38 UTC
6 points
on: Possibility and Could-ness
Paraphrasing my previous comment in another way: determinism is no excuse for you to be sloppy, lazy or unattentive in your decision process.

Roland2 18 May 2008 13:51 UTC
6 points
on: No Safe Defense, Not Even Science
I tried, but didn’t find a flaw, anyone else?

Roland2 19 Dec 2008 5:12 UTC
5 points
on: High Challenge
@ D. Alex: Some important reasons why the game is so pleasurable seem to be:

a) the ultimate goals are pretty clear (so unlike real life...)

b) the “measures of progress” are likewise clear -

c) the rewards are clear -

This looks like real life without the hard parts. Sure, it makes it more fun, but at the end will you feel rewarded? If you look back now or in a few years to the time spent playing and consider what you could have achieved in real life if you invested the same time into real challenges how will you feel? From my own experience I can tell you that I regret every minute I wasted playing stupid games. Nowadays I still play chess ocasionally to relax, but I’m successfully getting rid of that habit. I avoid overly immersive/addictive games like the plague.