Does SPR beat prediction markets?
Zachary_Kurtz
Karma: 146
Agree with the absurdity bias. For most (even smart) people their exposure to cryonics is things like Woody Allen’s Sleeper and Futurama. I almost can’t blame them for only seeing the absurd… I’m still trying to come around to it myself.
Again, I like your characters but I think you’re missing one. The person who thinks that belief in [a] God is the result of rational and reasonable thought.
could you write the program in your spare time and run the program while you’re there, while making it seem like you’re working?
the “sharp teeth” assumption is a silly one, because it requires evolution of earth-like mouths, digestive systems, etc. There is no reason whatsoever to assume evolution would take this course in two independent “trials.”
A great example would be Arthur Conan Doyle. When it came to Sherlock Holmes, he was a brilliant writer but failed when he tried anything else, including his belief in spiritualism and the supernatural.
I don’t think pre-modern catastrophes are relevant to this discussion.
The point about the anthropic issues are well taken, but I still contend that we should be skeptical of over-hyped predictions by supposed experts. Especially when they propose solutions that (apparently, to me) reduce ‘freedoms.’
There is a grand tradition of them failing.
And, if we do have the anthropic explanation to ‘protect us’ from doomsday-like outcomes, why should we worry about them?
Can you explain how it is not hypocritical to consider anthropic explanations relevant to previous experiences but not to future ones?
instead of buying textbooks check out library.nu
Largest collection of [illegal, mostly] free textbooks I’ve seen on the net.
Success story: I posted this link on my facebook and was able to reference 1 friend to EY’s “Intuitive Intro to Bayes.” He’s taking a grad course this semester on Bayesian stats application to forensic psychology and I thought Intuitive Intro would probably prepare him well for the course.
Thanks for sharing.
“imagined by the author as a combination of whatever a popular science site reported”
I’ve heard this argument from non-singulatarians from time to time. It bothers me due to the problem conservation of expected evidence. What is the blogger’s priors of taking an argument seriously if it seems as if the discussed about topic reminds him of something he’s heard about in a pop sci piece?
We all know that popular sci/tech reporting isn’t the greatest, but if you low confidence about SIAI-type AI and hearing it reminds you of some second hand pop reporting then discounting it because of the medium that exposed you to it is not an argument! Especially if you priors about the likelihood of pop sci reporting being accurate/useful is already low.
I tend to pick my fruit from bonsai trees
I’m seriously considering writing a rationalist Ender’s Game/Shadow. It’s fairly low hanging fruit b/c the Ender and (especially) Bean are obviously intelligent and have excellent priors.
I never thought about the connection between logic and probability before, though now it seems obvious. I’ve read a few introductory logic texts and deductive reasoning always seemed a bit pointless to me (in RL premises are usually inferred from something). -
To draw from a literary example, Sherlock Holmes use of the phrase “deduce” always seemed a bit deceptive. You can say “that color of dirt exists only in spot x in London. Therefore, that Londoner must have come in contact with spot x if I see that dirt on his trouser knee.” This is presented as a deduction, but really, the premises are induced and he assumes some things about how people travel.
It seems more likely that we make inferences, not deductions, but convince ourselves that the premises must be true, without bothering to put real information about likelihood into the reasoning. An induction is still a logical statement, but I like the idea of using probability to quantify it.
Both really. How much time should we dedicate to making our map fit the territory before we start sacrificing optimality? Spend too long trying to improve epistemic rationality and you begin to sacrifice your ability to get to work on actual goal seeking.
On the other end, if you don’t spend long enough to improve your map, you may be inefficiently or ineffectively trying to reach your goals.
We’re still thinking of ways to be able to quantify these. Largely it depends on the specific goal and map/territory as well as the person.
Anybody else have some ideas?
No reasonable scientific evidence would suggest so. You’re supposition is most likely correct. The OP’s scientist’s conjecture is anthropocentric drivel.
Cryonics is good because life is good. The subjective value of my life doesn’t make it ok to kill someone I perceive as less valuable.
Here’s another argument against: if murder suddenly becomes a defensible position in support of cryonics, then how do you think society, and therefore societal institutions, will respond if murder becomes the norm? I think it becomes less likely that cryonic institutions will succeed, and thus jeopardize everyone’s chances of living 100,000+ years.
I wish I could take that much time to do this
England reporting in. I mostly agree with Will/Russia/Cosmos about the game. While I don’t think I was as busy as him, my newbishness with the rules (especially convoy rules) really held me back. I got lucky that I was England, and land locked enough that, at the beginning, nobody could take advantage of my blunders.
My favorite part was the diplomacy under anonymity, coordination being a real problem when you can really only use in-game incentives.
My chat logs are also posted as well as the first turn game journal, which I couldn’t maintain.
Special thanks to Zvi for the in-game analysis and for staying impartial (as possible) for the running analysis.
From the perspective of a biomedical scientist-in-training here. I think you may be underestimating the role that other types of biology research, that’s not specifically labeled “longevity” will play in attaining ‘immortality.’
For example, it may be necessary to cure cancer before we can safely switch off the cellular aging process. The fact that cancer has such an impact on society makes cancer one of the best funded areas of research, but I don’t think you can accurately say that this comes at the opportunity cost of longevity knowledge, because they are really compliments. Most of our knowledge of human cell biology comes from studying cell lines isolated from cancer.
Meanwhile, specialized research increases our general knowledge that, purposeful or not, is leading to longevity if not immortality outright.