CWG

Karma: 83

CWG Sep 12, 2014, 5:06 AM
1 point
on: Open thread, September 8-14, 2014
Trans-human thought experiment:
- Scenario 1: A human brain is converted to a virtual brain through a destructive process (as described in many science-fiction stories). In what sense is this virtual intelligence the same “person” as the original, organic person?
- Scenario 2: A human brain is converted to a virtual brain through a non-destructive process. The original, organic person lives on as before. In what sense is this virtual intelligence the same “person” as the original, organic person – is this the same as the answer in scenario 1?
Why this seems to matter: If a virtual version of me is not really me in the sense of being a continuation of my experience, then what does it matter to me if that virtual brain exists, as opposed to some other virtual brain? Is there actually any advantage to working out how to convert people en masse to virtual intelligences?

(I am aware that the questions of identity and “being a continuation of my experience” are vague but I anticipate that replies here will help me get clearer. )

CWG Sep 12, 2014, 4:36 AM
2 points
in reply to: Adam Zerner’s comment on: Open thread, September 8-14, 2014
Given the limitations (that you describe in other replies) I think you’ve got a good list.

Regarding podcasts, this could be a great time to experiment with new ones & decide which you want to listen to longer term.

Perhaps there are some short activities of value to you, such as Anki (assuming you have a smartphone), mentally reviewing your memory palace, or mindfulness exercises. Mindfulness exercises on public transport may seem a little odd, but the distractions may make it more effective as exercise—just be patient with yourself.

CWG Aug 13, 2014, 7:19 AM
0 points
in reply to: syllogism’s comment on: What are you working on? January 2014
TIL: NLP can mean Natural Language Processing, as well as Neuro Linguistic Programming. I was confused for a while there.

CWG Aug 13, 2014, 7:14 AM
2 points
in reply to: ThrustVectoring’s comment on: What are you working on? January 2014
How is your stenographic typing progressing? What has the return on effort been for you, so far?

CWG Aug 5, 2014, 11:01 AM
0 points
in reply to: edanm’s comment on: [LINK] Neuroeconomics course on coursera started just this week
I’ve done the first 6 weeks now, and finding it very easy—but I’m definitely learning something each week.

If you already know about the roles of different parts of the brain (e.g. orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, DLPFC) and their interactions, then it might not be word your time. For me it’s worth the time. Playing the videos at high speed helps.

CWG Jul 11, 2014, 2:08 PM
0 points
on: Less Wrong Study Hall—Year 1 Retrospective
I love it… but I need to make sure I get up & move during the breaks rather than sitting and chatting.

I just used it for the first time. Very valuable, but the Android Tinychat app seems unreliable.

CWG Jun 24, 2014, 1:14 AM
4 points
on: Motivators: Altruistic Actions for Non-Altruistic Reasons
I have upvoted your post in the hope that it will contribute to your positive feelings about having written it, so that you will continue to write intelligent and thoughtful posts in future.

CWG Mar 5, 2014, 8:27 AM
0 points
in reply to: ericn’s comment on: Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided
A “council that doles out things people deserve” sounds like Parecon: Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert.

(Personally, it fills me with horror, but there are people who think it’s a good idea.)

“Mind reading”—how is this done?

CWGAug 15, 2013, 3:31 PM

5 points

41 comments2 min readLW link

CWG Oct 11, 2012, 4:44 AM
4 points
in reply to: handoflixue’s comment on: Reasons for someone to “ignore” you
Me too. I get frustrated by forums where old threads are routinely closed, or where participants are rebuked for bumping an old thread.

CWG Sep 19, 2012, 2:25 PM
0 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Anti-Akrasia Tactics Discussion
Of course, how hard it is depends whether you’re in, say, Indonesia or Finland!

Do you find a particular benefit from the cold shower?

CWG Sep 16, 2012, 1:40 PM
2 points
0
on: Willpower Hax #487: Execute by Default
I read this, and some time later I started trying it.

I misremembered, so I’ve been counting from 1 to 10. Interesting thing is that I generally start getting up as I say the “1”, or before. It seems that by the time I’ve decided to employ the technique, I’m actually ready to get up—I just need something to focus my mind and get out of the “monkey mind” thing that Buddhism talks about. The little bit of focus I get from deciding to count is enough to switch my brain into action.

Next: to try it for starting a work task I’m avoiding. I’ll combine it with monoidealism (stopping everything else, and thinking about the task, but not doing it) then at some point deciding to do the countdown. Or the count up.

CWG Sep 2, 2012, 11:21 AM
4 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Preventing discussion from being watered down by an “endless September” user influx.
In particular, I don’t think you can make a share-alike requirement on a public domain item.

That’s correct.

“Public domain” is sometimes used in a much vaguer sense to mean the information is out there and being used and shared, but this vaguer sense is best avoided.

I suggest to Epiphany to either:
- Strike out “public domain” and replace it the idea of being “open licensed”, or
- As Alicorn suggests, declare it public domain. Creative Commons has tools for this (the advantage being that you give a lot more clarity—so I know that you mean the same thing as I understand by public domain). See the nice summary and: Apply CC0 to your own work.
Hope that’s helpful.

CWG Sep 2, 2012, 11:11 AM
2 points
in reply to: Epiphany’s comment on: Preventing discussion from being watered down by an “endless September” user influx.

Poorly informed ranters wanting to debate does sound annoying, I didn’t realize there was a problem with that. It seems to me the best way to deter them would be to paste a link that’s directly related to their points and ignore them. Do that enough times and they’ll probably wake up and realize they’ve got a problem with not knowing what they’re talking about.

I haven’t come across this either. Doesn’t the downvoting minimize this problem?

That said, I like civility to be one of the core principles of any discussion group—but without every feeling we have to agree with what someone else is saying.

CWG Sep 1, 2012, 4:30 PM
1 point
in reply to: GLaDOS’s comment on: What Is Signaling, Really?

4 year summer camp

You’re clearly not talking about a degree such as engineering—unless you’re talking about a summer camp run by sadists.

CWG 4 Jun 2012 7:08 UTC
2 points
on: Open Thread, June 1-15, 2012
I was annoyed after first hearing the Monty Hall problem. It wasn’t clear that the host must always open the door, which fundamentally changes the problem. Glad to see that it’s a recognized problem.

“The problem is not well-formed,” Mr. Gardner said, “unless it makes clear that the host must always open an empty door and offer the switch. Otherwise, if the host is malevolent, he may open another door only when it’s to his advantage to let the player switch, and the probability of being right by switching could be as low as zero.” Mr. Gardner said the ambiguity could be eliminated if the host promised ahead of time to open another door and then offer a switch. - http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/us/behind-monty-hall-s-doors-puzzle-debate-and-answer.html?pagewanted=5&src=pm

More discussion on the previous page of that article: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/us/behind-monty-hall-s-doors-puzzle-debate-and-answer.html?pagewanted=4&src=pm

CWG 4 Jun 2012 5:58 UTC
0 points
on: Raising safety-consciousness among AGI researchers
Just looking at Wikipedia, and artificial general intelligence redirects to Strong AI).

I’m concerned that there’s no mention of dangers, risks, or caution in the Wikipedia article.* Is there any “notable” information on the topic that could be added to the article? E.g. discussion of the subject in a publication of some kind (book or magazine/newspaper—not a self-published book).

*haven’t read the whole thing—just did a search.

CWG 4 Jun 2012 5:50 UTC
2 points
on: Raising safety-consciousness among AGI researchers
I don’t know how many LessWrongers knew what AGI meant. (Apparently it’s artificial general intelligence, aka Strong AI).

CWG 4 Jun 2012 5:38 UTC
0 points
in reply to: timtyler’s comment on: Raising safety-consciousness among AGI researchers
Would negative public opinion do much more than (a) force such research underground, or (b) lead to researchers being more circumspect?

(Not a rhetorical question—just unsure whether focusing on public opinion is a useful approach.)

CWG 2 Jun 2012 14:59 UTC
1 point
on: How can I argue without people online and not come out feeling bad?

What decision did those that were already aware of it make, in order to optimise this activity?

Acknowledge the other person—their intent, the effort they’ve made, and/or the things they’ve got right. Be sincere rather than superior. E.g. to an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist, I might say “I understand why you’re suspicious of big pharma, and I know that you’re concerned for the health of children. However, I believe vaccines do far more good than harm, and here’s why...”

This helps take heat out of the exchange, by making it clear (on an emotional as well as intellectual level) that you aren’t attacking them. If they don’t feel themselves and their status under attack, and you demonstrate an interest in understanding them, people can feel more secure and be more open to understanding what you’re saying.

It’s not infallible of course, and it’s not enough on its own. Follow some of the other good suggestions on this page, as well.

E.g. if you’re making an effort and the other person is still on the attack, disengaging is wise. My preference is to briefly say why I’m disengaging, wish the other person well, quit, and stop following the thread (unsubscribe, unfollow depending on the platform)..

CWG

“Mind read­ing”—how is this done?

“Mind reading”—how is this done?