SanguineEmpiricist

Karma: −47

SanguineEmpiricist 13 Nov 2016 6:04 UTC
−4 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Yudkowsky vs Trump: the nuclear showdown.
Salafi support will decrease tremendously no matter what you say, Syria is too important, it defeats all other concerns and is preeminent not only right now, but for history. Syria has greco-roman heritage too. Only white people would obscurantly try to say Trump is not a great candidate.

I don’t think that the world would give a president Trump prestige even if he ends the Syrian war.

They gave some random ass president prestige for destroying 3 countries and accomplishing nothing significant. My race is the race of the anti-mohammeans, and such are my metaphysical biases, that will remain this way.

SanguineEmpiricist 12 Nov 2016 0:14 UTC
0 points
on: Yudkowsky vs Trump: the nuclear showdown.
I blocked Eliezer for gossiping too much and doing everything he can via gossip to manufacture support for his views, such as saying he knew Peter Thiel and Thiel wans’t going to support Trump, I support both but he did not correct himself afaik and I blocked him because of excessively propagandizing their own views he did it to take the edge off Mr.Thiels endorsement. Julia Galef is another one that cannot stop the excessive posturing fashion show.

The situation in Syria is too important you guys, nothing else matters if we bring that one home we get our prestige back, the rest of the world has to deal with Salafi support, Saudi Arabia backed HRC with a lot of money, HRC works favor to favors, Trump hates Salafi/Saudi’s , next the oil price is lower than is good for Saudi Arabia so much that ARAMCO oil had to go public and sell of 10% of their shares, this was no doubt a very bitter moment for the House of Saud, anyways because the oil price is low this is the perfect time that everyone get’s their vengeance for the mess that Saudi Arabia has generated, who is actually funding ISIS, but is also responsible for AQ and all other extremist islamic ideologies.

There’s no other time that’s better than now, shut up, we gotta do it.
- I know he knows Peter Thiel he just didn’t correct himself but used his privileged position to say he didn’t to manufacture support for his own views

SanguineEmpiricist 23 Apr 2016 21:16 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Dacyn’s comment on: The Least Convenient Possible World
First i’ve heard of this, super interesting. Hmm. So what is the correct way to highlight the differences while still maintaining the historical angle? Continue w/ Riemannian geometry? Or just say what you have said, Lorentzian.

SanguineEmpiricist 12 Apr 2016 21:00 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Luke_A_Somers’s comment on: How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?
I’m not sure I understand claims are supposed to be ) Universal ) not spatio-temporally restricted right? I thought pseudo-statements were a good example....?

I’m not even sure what he is asking for..

Wikipedia lists the “all swans are white” as an example for a falsifiable statement, but it is not practical enough. To prove that all swans are white would require to observe all the swans in the world. I’m searching of a simple example which uses the scientific method to determine the workings of an unknown system, starting by forming a good hypothesis.

Falsifiability was created for non spatio-temporally universal statements right? The point is that those are unverifiable. So OP saying “all swans are white” is not verifiable is part of the point for why falsifiability was introduced and cannot be merely taken out.

OP seems to say he wants a statement where you could verify all claims(?) Or hints towards that (by expressing displeasure against the all swans are white example) but the point is that claim is not verifiable, but falsifiable. So why is that example unsatisfactory? He seems to want to make falsifiability something other than what it is.

again > To prove that all swans are white would require to observe all the swans in the world.

Help me out here?

Falsifiability is used to separate science vs metaphysics, as a criterion of demarcation, so how is the OP’s example of the 2-4-6 game even make sense? I’m not quite sure I understand what any one is asking.

“We must clearly distinguish between falsifiability and falsification. e have introduced falsifiability solely as criterion for the empirical character of a system of statements. As to falsification, special rules must be introduced which will determine under what conditions a system is to be regarded as falsified. ”

So the flying spaghetti monster example or my example does work, doesn’t it? Ok fine I see this line was the critical one here.

“A good working example would be one, where we want to study a familiar concept, but by forgetting to take falsifiability into account, we arrive to an obviously wrong (and preferably humorous) conclusion.”

And it’s written by val so I assume it’s for CFAR?

SanguineEmpiricist 12 Apr 2016 4:15 UTC
−5 points
on: How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience?
h

SanguineEmpiricist 4 Apr 2016 1:08 UTC
0 points
on: Open Thread March 28 - April 3 , 2016
g

SanguineEmpiricist 24 Mar 2016 21:07 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Lumifer’s comment on: Open Thread March 21 - March 27, 2016
Something tells me Gigerenzer is misquoting Kahneman, he is just saying any deviation from that counts as irrational and measuring that as his baseline, i’m more than sure he would be happy to use ecological rationality as a baseline as well.

SanguineEmpiricist 24 Mar 2016 21:02 UTC
4 points
in reply to: username2’s comment on: Open Thread March 21 - March 27, 2016
He liked Bostrom’s new institute dedicated to existential risks. He doesn’t think AI is a ruin-style risk, saying it requires “risk vigilance” but isn’t a ruin type risk yet, and that he would be willing to reconsider later.

He has his own risk initiative called the “Extreme risk initiative”.

SanguineEmpiricist 24 Mar 2016 20:38 UTC
2 points
on: Open Thread March 21 - March 27, 2016
Excellent piece of epistemology from Yudkowsky, someone put this in main right now.

https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154067130774228

AllLivesMatterButBlackLivesAreEspeciallyLikelyToBeEndedByPolice AndItsOkayForNationalPoliticsToFocusOnThatPartForAWhile

Running this through my parser I was able to extract the statement “All live matter but black lives are especially likely to be ended by police and it’s okay for national politics to focus on that part for awhile”.

http://imgur.com/sbxLjPb

SanguineEmpiricist 21 Mar 2016 18:52 UTC
5 points
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Open Thread March 21 - March 27, 2016
=/ We should tell him the opportunity cost of this stuff is too large, don’t run down the clock on your life. Eugine_Nier go get a more productive way to channel this frustration.

SanguineEmpiricist 21 Mar 2016 1:41 UTC
7 points
in reply to: Viliam_Bur’s comment on: Open Thread March 21 - March 27, 2016
What’s going on in his thought process? Is he still downvoting people? What is he doing that’s this bad? I mean i’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s sort of strange he keeps coming back and not changing his behavior or not moving on to one of our tangent communities.

I’ve not dealt with him, so can someone explain to me what he is doing?

SanguineEmpiricist 18 Mar 2016 18:21 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
This is the exact sort of community that would delude themselves in exactly this department and would never stop arguing(not saying you do this), but if someone told me “Can you have fun/meet people without drinking”, I would say “sort of, but you’re better of just participating anyways”.

When you drink with friends you learn why you were wrong, there’s always going to be just that “one guy” who thinks he knows better though.

SanguineEmpiricist 18 Mar 2016 6:48 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Brillyant’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
This is just what nerdy types tell themselves and they come up with all these rationalizations for it, most peoples skillsets don’t lend themselves for that type of socialization. These people just realize they were wrong years later when it’s much too late.

SanguineEmpiricist 16 Mar 2016 19:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
I did not have sleep apnea or tested negative for it and narcolepsy.

SanguineEmpiricist 16 Mar 2016 0:43 UTC
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
It’s an incredibly good indicator of poor sleep quality for me. I have to take phenibut to get good sleep quality nowadays though.

Yes I have. I notice it has to do with body position or when my head is on a tilt.

SanguineEmpiricist 15 Mar 2016 20:17 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
Drinking alcohol is very necessary for connecting with people. People who are against alcohol don’t know much they miss out at times.

SanguineEmpiricist 15 Mar 2016 20:16 UTC
0 points
on: Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016
Do you guys know how you can prevent sleep paralysis?

SanguineEmpiricist 27 Jan 2016 20:37 UTC
−1 points
in reply to: knb’s comment on: Open thread, Jan. 25 - Jan. 31, 2016
Alright so how do we keep these people away then while lowering prices?

SanguineEmpiricist 25 Dec 2015 9:13 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Dardan-’s comment on: Voiceofra is banned
There’s already too much of a pull towards the consensus opinions here, would punish us Nrxer’s quite a bit.

SanguineEmpiricist 7 Dec 2015 20:28 UTC
0 points
0
in reply to: gjm’s comment on: Mark Zuckerberg plans to give away 99% of his facebook wealth over his lifetime
Effective Altruists & Consequentalists tend to be vain with plausible deniability, always making a show of their set of beliefs, coming into the room loudly and attracting attention always repeating “effectiveness” “consequences”. It gets annoying. I wish some would have taste.