Tenoke
If you’re writing a post comparing the experimental evidence for four different diets, that’s not “Rational Dieting”, that’s “Optimal Dieting”.
Isn’t that as wrong and misleading as using Rational Dieting? Wouldn’t Optimal imply that this is the very best way to diet when the article is actually on ‘Comparing evidence for for diets’? Same as how ‘Rational Dieting’ carries an implication that your post discusses the cognitive algorithm for dieting, as opposed to four contributing things to keep in mind and thus you should use ‘Four Biases Screwing Up Your Diet’ for a title, doesn’t Optimal imply the wrong thing? Seems to me like you are committing different fallacies (or errors) when you are trying to fix the previous fallacies (or errors) committed due to the misuse of the word ‘rational’.
“People who were right a lot of the time were people who often changed their minds.”
Jeff Bezos
I know it doesnt work exactly like that, but I couldnt help but think of Dark matter and energy as something which could plausibly affect us, but not be affected by us, although its probably the case that the gravity and weak force of normal matter affects dark matter just as much as vice versa.
I can commit to 20 as well. For the record, I reckon around 3⁄4 of his predictions will pass.
The Google Groups discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/lesswronglondon/glfR5L49M-M
A debate-like environment seems like an obvious example for a martial arts-like competition.
The singularity is highly correlated with an argument abaut awesome immortality. fair enough
He saw it in a Facebook thread, the person who recommended it was probably not his friend but to be honest that surprised me too.The only reason I’ve even heard before of this is Facebook as well but it was a rant against MMS by an ‘Objectivist’.
I’ve been refreshing this a bit too much in the wait for the next 2 chapters.
This is a prime example of self handicapping, we as a society should probably not encourage that kind of a behavior. Having said that, I am exactly the kind of person that does things like that and I even go further.
I am a fan of the idea since they announced it and I wouldn’t see why someone on here could be against it.
It is private resources and a relatively low amount as well so this is baarely applicable here. It is obviously not the optimal use of resources (because we probably can’t even calculate the absolute optimal use of those resources) but if they are doing anything even slightly positive we should be for it and most will argue that this is a highly valuable endeavour for humanity (even if we only account the amount of useful tech that will be invented/improved during the course of this mission).
I study only the day before the exam, sometimes get high(would get drunk as well if I can find someone to do it with) immediately before an exam, I start my courseworks a few hours before they are due etc. I guess feeling like a badass is/was more important to me than slightly higher grades.
If you would rather have something happen over nothing happening at all than you are not against that something BY MY DEFINITION. And if you are against everything that requires resources but is not the optimal use for those resources then you must hate almost everything including yourself and all of your decisions and you should definitely be against wasting your time on arguing instead of inventing or working or volunteering or whatever. nothing as in nothing that uses those resources and not ‘nothing in the universe’
What does it mean for nothing to happen at all?
Sorry, I edited immediately and added a disclaimer on what I meant by that, but it seems that the final edit of my post hasn’t submitted. In the disclaimer I explained that I mean nothing to happen with the resources (which still wasn’t a good explanation of what I meant) and tried to add a different explanation because of my bad wording that I pretty much mean that ‘If you’d rather have event over ~event than..’
Sorry, where did hate come in?
If you are against everything you must (as in it is logical that) you must hate the situation. Anyway, the hate was not the point, the point was that no use of resources is optimal.
Theoretically there is an optimal use, practically you can’t calculate the optimal use and nothing you do is optimal. Anyway I retracted my previous 2 comments because this is kind of going in circles.
Yes!
The results of the process is effectively a copy of the old brain and personality, but with permanent brain damage in several regions—this manifests effectively as an extreme form of cerebral palsy, partial amnesia (retrograde and anteretrograde), bipolar disthymia, and a partial frontal lobotomy—in short, you’ll get something that has recognizable facets of the original, but it’s an utter mess.
It seems unlikely that any of those damages except retrograde amnesia can be TRULY permanent in a post-resurrection society. The bigger problem in most people’s eyes (afaik) is that what you get back might have only a tiny overlap with the original and the resurrection might be more of a ‘creating a new human being which shares something with the original’ and less of a resurrection of the old person.
But to answer your questions if we assume that somehow things end up the way you are describing.
Q1: 1.0 if 1.0 is possible otherwise whatever they can do, I don’t mind waiting while I am frozen.
Q2: I think this is at least partially addressed in the cryonics contact (That is what I was told on #lesswrong recently) so there are no ethical problems.
Q3 As far as I know cryonics operates under a last in, first out paradigm for obvious reasons.
- 27 Nov 2012 18:30 UTC; 1 point) 's comment on Cryonic resurrection—an ethical hypothetical by (
It depends on the technology and the actual risks, but yes it makes more sense to start with the best preserved, because after everything has been cleared up you will have less completely messed up people and also because the technology will most probably improve faster if at the beginning you start using it on better preserved people, because there are less factors to worry about.
I am very interested as to what would’ve happened if there was a 4th experimental group (or a new experiment) which is told the outcome, told to avoid hindisght bias and told that in previous experiments being told to avoid hindsight bias did nothing to acctually reduce the effect of hindsight bias.