robertk

18 ms·

151.
by robertk 14y ago
Well, as a mathematician, I can say the same is true of mathematical research. Climbing Mount Bourbaki is a difficult endeavour, but from the top the pastures are relatively peaceful to explore. Most papers are not groundbreaking theoretica
152.
by robertk 14y ago
Yes, but the point is they do not do evil knowingly, in the sense of comprehending how the nature of their soul came about and determining this is the best course of action under reflection over the space of all possible minds; the evolutio
153.
by robertk 14y ago
In light of evolutionary psychology, talent is a combination of domain-specific neural adaptations and illusions. We know from data mining and machine learning that more data equals better results. Since one example of machine learning is n
154.
by robertk 14y ago
Not if you can set up a framework where physical objects are equivalent to reversible computations (and hence energyless).
155.
by robertk 14y ago
Either way. I imagine silicon hardware that we intelligently designed would be easier to backup than messy biology we hardly understand.
156.
by robertk 14y ago
Backups. If you can backup someone's brain (which should be doable in silicon), then even if they contract cancer, you can simply back them up for a few hundred years (or however long it takes) until there's a cure.
157.
by robertk 14y ago
The ultimate sandbox. Deterministic, free will-less sandbox. :(
158.
by robertk 14y ago
If you think that's bad, imagine my despair when realizing that things like the CIA torturing someone through sensory deprivation for 1000 days (this actually happened in the 60s) is an irrevocable component of our universe because that's h
159.
by robertk 14y ago
Hi from hell! Good list y'all.
160.
by robertk 14y ago
Hi from hell
161.
by robertk 15y ago
I see. Then I lay the claim that Hitchens did not have enough medical expertise to know what will or will not work, and conditional on something working, he would have espoused it, and conditional on it not working, he would have not have e
162.
by robertk 15y ago
Your site says you operate under Crocker's rules, Julian, so please hear me out. (And to Phil Welch: I understand, but allow me the claim that he probably would have agreed with the message. And even if the distastefulness depends on the p
163.
by robertk 15y ago
We shall have to work faster. http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda
164.
by robertk 15y ago
Cialdini's book on influence mentions this. An effective persuasion tactic is to request something absurd, then request something less extreme, and people are more likely to comply. No doubt the SOPA writers know this.
165.
by robertk 15y ago
Yes.
166.
by robertk 15y ago
"We shall have to work faster." http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda Even if it was suicide, this too we will overcome.
167.
by robertk 15y ago
No, it is not. Yet not knowing what the alternative is like gives us that delusion. http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html
168.
by robertk 15y ago
That's why IBM is now working on Deep Watson.
169.
by robertk 15y ago
> What characteristics would satisfy people like this that something is "AI"? It seems Mr. Turing answered that question a while ago.
170.
by robertk 15y ago
Hey, we number theorists still use fraktur all the time! Prime ideals in Dedekind domains are usually denoted with fraktur letters.
171.
by robertk 15y ago
I see. Let's say we completed the study of a new field, neurophilosophy, where we learn precisely the neural mechanisms for how and why we generate the philosophical questions we do, and why we find them "interesting," and why we reason abo
172.
by robertk 15y ago
I don't see why. Without mechanical tools and rudimentary physics, progress on flying machines was nil until the Wright brothers. Without better tools to study brains, there is no reason to expect we have produced any valuable answers to th
173.
by robertk 15y ago
Thank you for the references. I wasn't trying to debate the point, only offer one perspective on your question. To elaborate a little more, the reason why philosophy prior to 1859 is not relevant is because philosophy is the study of human
174.
by robertk 15y ago
Oh, no doubt. I have long ago realized that from a psychological point of view, it is purely axiomatic whether to "have faith" or not, and is primarily a factor of one's upbringing. Unlike formal systems, the brain has no need for internal
175.
by robertk 15y ago
A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. To me, philosophical and theological reasoning are not fundamental as they ma
176.
by robertk 15y ago
I agree. Here's why that will never happen (and I'm sure you know this): Only the mistaken need proclaim their philosophy with grandiloquence. It is painful for atheists to proselytize with the only effective mechanism--propaganda--as it is
177.
by robertk 15y ago
It isn't. In terms of Eliezer-style rationality, a much more effective approach would be to study marketing and psychology techniques and take a more calculated approach to changing minds. But I think Dawkins is disinterested in this becaus
178.
by robertk 15y ago
Dawkins is perfectly aware of this. In fact, he gives arguments of your flavor in The God Delusion. See also http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind... He is aware that his approach is not optimal in terms of changing
179.
by robertk 15y ago
Just in case anyone took the above seriously, please keep in mind the author was joking.
180.
by robertk 15y ago
Lesson 1 is that you don't make an A. The girls get an A from you. I know girls want me, and I make them chase me. Combine that with the basics (dress well and go out and talk to girls) and you're halfway there. But don't think "basics" mea

More ›