Comment by nawitus on [SEQ RERUN] Science Doesn't Trust Your Rationality · 2012-05-06T20:59:48.785Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If tipping stopped, waiting staff wages would increase and so would food prices (to pay for the wage increases).

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T17:43:28.573Z · score: 5 (7 votes) · LW · GW

"Arguing against "Women suffer more unfairness""

Nobody has yet provided arguments that women suffer more in e.g. USA. I'd say my points are true to some degree in USA, except for military service and perhaps domestic violence. I've talked with a researcher of income equality, and atleast he said that wages are pretty much equal for male and females in the USA. Income is not. In Finland for example, males have 20% higher income, but they do 20% more work hours yearly.

"Or do you deny the existence of international organizations working for equality, and that individuals have some (limited) ability to choose for which cause in which country they fight?"

No, but each country has a local equity resource budget. A global one does not exist, but can be "conjured" up in your mind.

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T15:34:58.216Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I made a list of problems in a comment on a website. That's not a good way to make politicial decisions. We need a proper study of the question. I think a priori the 50/50 split between genders is a good balance. You can call that a political compromise, I call it "don't make quick decisions without proper scientific research".

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T15:26:47.351Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My data justifies slightly more resources for men, but until we have proper scientific research on the question, I'm okay with a 50/50 split. The split is currently about 97/3 in favor of women, so going to 50/50 would help significantly.

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T15:24:18.882Z · score: 7 (9 votes) · LW · GW

I didn't claim you were talking about Finland. However, many of those issues are true in most Western nations. It's just that I'm not an expert in any other country.

"a global equality resource budget"

This doesn't even exist..

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T14:10:50.988Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

"For example, by "evenly" do you mean 50/50 between these two causes?"


More information here:

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T13:50:57.962Z · score: 14 (16 votes) · LW · GW

"Women suffer more unfairness so presumably most resources would be directed towards them anyway, but there could easily be a number of low hanging fruit on the male side."

This claim is often made, but I haven't seen any calculations to back it up. I'm active in the gender equality debate in Finland, so I can only talk about Finnish statistics:

  • Men are forced to serve on average 8,5 months in "slave work". No modern work regulations apply. I personally witnessed many broken bones and other health problems which happened to my friends during my service. Work was often 24/7 for weeks. Psychological stress is commonplace.
  • Men make 80 % of suicides, and 80 % of the homeless are men.
  • Women have higher wages by 2 percent.
  • Men have less success in studying
  • Men don't have sexual power
  • Men face the majority of violence (and men face as much domestic violence as women)
  • Mutilation of boys for religious reasons is legal, but mutilation of girls is illegal.
  • Men die seven years earlier
  • 60% of unemployed people seeking work are men

(I can provide sources for these, but they would be in Finnish, so I don't think most people are that interested, check for more information though)

Obviously, women also face problems like rape and lack of leadership positions in corporations. On the political front, we have a female president and a female prime minister.

I'm not claiming definately that men suffer more, but this non-technical examination seems to imply it. At least it has not been proven that women suffer more nowadays.

Until such calculation has been made, I think it should be reasonable to direct 50% of equality resources for feminism, and 50% for masculism.

EDIT: There have been a downvote, but I don't really understand why. Of course, Finland is only one nation, but similar lists have been made in USA for example. If this site assumes that we should only talk about USA, I think that's unfair, since there's a significant Finnish representation. I'm clearly talking about the situation in Finland, and the situation differs from country to country.

There are of course some countries, where women have less freedom than men etc. I don't think it makes sense to talk about a global average here, since equity politics are not a global, but local question.

Comment by nawitus on A Rationalist's Account of Objectification? · 2011-03-24T11:59:44.168Z · score: 10 (16 votes) · LW · GW

"I'm a tall white American male, so sometimes it takes a bit of work for me to understand what it's like to be a member of a suppressed group."

Females are suppressed, and so are males. Gender roles suppress both genders. They also offer advantages to both genders.

List of male privileges:

List of female privileges:

It is true that popular discourse paints females as the suppressed group and males as the non-suppressed group.

"So I've always thought of myself as a feminist."

Feminism goes beyond technical gender equality of having the same rights and privileges. I'm a feminist too, because I think politics should solve problems facing women. And I'm also a masculist (or a men's rights activist), since men's problems should be solved too.

"Of course, some activists (the word has positive connotations to me, BTW) pushed too far, as is the case in all large movements."

The main problem with feminism today is that all the political gender equality resources are directed to feminism. It should be evenly distributed between masculism and feminism.

Comment by nawitus on Procedural Knowledge Gaps · 2011-02-09T01:48:30.249Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I stutter, and I've done it for as long as I can remember. Anyone know how to beat it? I feel this has pretty significant (negative) effects on my life, because I'm often afraid of speaking up in a group, as stuttering is extremely embarrassing.

Comment by nawitus on Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness. · 2010-08-24T17:59:35.263Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

And that's why we need an article somewhere which would define some common terms, so you don't have to define them all over again in every article about consciousness.

Comment by nawitus on Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness. · 2010-08-24T11:44:48.439Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Yet qualia cannot be measured empirically (atleast that's the consensus), which makes such tests extremely unlikely. And this discussion seems to turn into a regular qualia debate. I'm not sure if that's desirable.

Comment by nawitus on Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness. · 2010-08-24T10:39:56.519Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

He is probably talking about the hard problem of consciousness, e.g. whether qualia exists. While it's possible conceptually to have empirical tests for subjective consciousness, it's seems extremely unlikely.

We can already imagine a computational simulation of the brain, and empirical test for qualia seems impossible pretty much by definition. Sure, it's possible to test whether the simulation has self-awareness from a computational point (and it will have that since it's a human brain simulation).

Comment by nawitus on Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness. · 2010-08-24T10:23:09.383Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

There should be some kind of "read this first before talking about consciousness" post which would atleast provide some definitions so articles about consciousness would be comprehensive.

Comment by nawitus on Minimum computation and data requirements for consciousness. · 2010-08-24T09:20:54.960Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

Consciousness actually means a number of different things, so any one definition will make discussion problematic. There really should be a number of different definitions for qualia/subjective consciousness, empirical consciousness etc.

Comment by nawitus on Is it rational to be religious? Simulations are required for answer. · 2010-08-12T18:21:28.779Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

And you don't provide any arguments for your claim either..

Okay, here's one: Even with time-continuos self, humans value other people, even though they personally experience anything other peope do. There's some (moral) value in other persons. Maybe people value themselves more, but that's not even relevant to the argument. So, if time-continuos self doesn't exist, people will value their future selfs as much as any other persons, which is atleast more than nothing.

Of course, this assumes that such a person does value other people. May not apply to every single person.

Comment by nawitus on Is it rational to be religious? Simulations are required for answer. · 2010-08-12T14:15:47.867Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Eh. If you don't know the argument it's irrational to call it wrong. I didn't really argue anything, I just made an observation for those people who possibly believe that time-continuos self is required for morality.

Comment by nawitus on Is it rational to be religious? Simulations are required for answer. · 2010-08-11T21:55:06.386Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Care to give an example then?

Comment by nawitus on Is it rational to be religious? Simulations are required for answer. · 2010-08-11T17:39:23.017Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

The lack of belief in a time-continuos self would give the same moral value to yourself as to other people, but wouldn't eliminate caring about yourself altogether.

Comment by nawitus on Is it rational to be religious? Simulations are required for answer. · 2010-08-11T15:27:34.031Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

According to these definitions, it could be instrumentally rational to be religious for some subset of people, but not epimestically rational.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread, August 2010 · 2010-08-08T21:15:43.900Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

You can use the wget program like this: 'wget -m'. A database download would be easier on the servers though.

Comment by nawitus on David Pearce on Hedonic Moral realism · 2010-02-03T18:46:23.971Z · score: 0 (12 votes) · LW · GW

As you know, I'm sceptical that classical serial computers with a von Neumann architecture will ever be conscious, let alone have an empathetic appreciation of other conscious minds.

I don't think an article with statements like this belong to this site.

Comment by nawitus on David Pearce on Hedonic Moral realism · 2010-02-03T18:35:40.651Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Yes there is.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread: February 2010 · 2010-02-03T11:18:04.985Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Well, the mentioned Pirate Party is an example of succesfull political activism. Our party is already doing politics even before our first national elections, since the party often gives out statements on new legislation as requested by the justice ministry. Our neighbour parties in Sweden and Germany are even more succesful. And many of the lesswrong/transhumanist people are active in the Finnish Pirate Party.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread: February 2010 · 2010-02-02T20:29:26.158Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I posted a link that showed Singapore had a budget deficit the very second their economy shrinked, in fact, the same thing happened in Western nations. Singapore didn't have to take a loan because thay had a national reserve.

So in fact the policy Singapore has is the same as Western nations, with the only difference that Singapore happened to have money saved. Singapore didn't want to cut spending to they used their savings. There's no real difference in policy, they even have a stimulus package.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread: February 2010 · 2010-02-02T18:37:07.512Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Singapore isin't a Western nation or a fully developed on, and they have extremely high economic growth (around 10%), so that's not comparable to stable Westerne economies. Singapore had economic growth of 1.1% during 2008, so they didn't have to loan anything in that year.

In fact, a quick search showed that Singapore had significant budget deficit for 2009: "-- 2009/2010 budget deficit to be 6 pct of GDP, before accounting for transfers. " So it seems Singapore has used their national reserves immediately after their economy fell, just like all the other Western nations. They don't have to take a loan because they have significant national reserves.

Although it's true that Obama has increased spending more than Bush, even if he didn't increase it (inflation adjusted) at all, the U.S. would have taken a significant loan, just like all the other Western nations, as tax income dropped for probably all of them.

Furthermore, economic crisis did indeed cause large debts, because it caused the tax income for the state to drop, and the rest was loaned because Western nations do not wan't to reduce spending. Although nothing seems to have consensus in economics, many economists made the decision not to cut spending, which can make the economic crisis even worse. I think that was even a common agreement amongst most Western nations.

Summing up, your claim that large debts are a bad thing in this situation has not been proved at all. Although I'm not an expert in economics, there's no consensus for that claim in science.

Singapore, 22 Jan. S$20.5b (US$15b) might not sound like a lot of money in these days of trillion dollar collapses, but when it represents 6% of GDP (estimated at US$227b in 2007), then it becomes one of the most aggressive stimulus plans on a per capita basis in the planet.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread: February 2010 · 2010-02-01T18:35:00.509Z · score: -3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Does the MWI make rationality irrelevant? All choices are done in some universe (because there's atleast one extremely improbable quantum event which arranges the particles in your brain to make any choice). Therefore, you will make the correct choice in atleast 1 universe.

Of course, this leads to the problems of continuing conscious experience (or the lack of), and whether you should care of what happens to you in all the possible future worlds that you will exist in.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread: February 2010 · 2010-02-01T18:23:35.854Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Well, hormones, and chemicals such as DMT or endocannabinoids etc surely affect the thinking progress. But the phrasing of the question is not really clear to say if you can count these.

Comment by nawitus on Open Thread: February 2010 · 2010-02-01T18:13:24.123Z · score: -1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You can't compare those, because the economic crisis happened mostly after Bush. Large debts have been taken by pretty much all Western nations.

Comment by nawitus on Normal Cryonics · 2010-01-28T14:26:21.938Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

What we need are studies of damage from vitrification when the operation was not done immediately after death, but after few hours as it usually happens.

Comment by nawitus on Welcome to Heaven · 2010-01-26T08:04:56.502Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

I think people shy away from wireheading because a future full of wireheads would be very boring indeed. People like to think there's more to existence than that. They wan't to experience something more interesting than eternal pleasure. And that's exactly what an FAI should allow.

Comment by nawitus on Easy Predictor Tests · 2010-01-21T23:18:14.893Z · score: 3 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Somewhat offtopic, but I'd like to see someone writing a GreaseMonkey script which hides the name of the commenter and the current score level on all comments, so you're not being influenced by the status of the commenter and/or the current score level on that comment. The commenter name could be seen with a mouseover so you can reply to it though.

Comment by nawitus on That Magical Click · 2010-01-20T17:21:52.644Z · score: 3 (9 votes) · LW · GW

Isin't it more sane to donate money to organizations fighting against existential risks rather than spending money on cryonics?

Comment by nawitus on The Wannabe Rational · 2010-01-16T08:19:45.573Z · score: -4 (6 votes) · LW · GW

A person is not really either a rationalist or a irrationalist. There's no general "rationality level". Person can be more or less rational depening on the subject or time etc. Belief in God may not be that irrational depending on how you define God. And the community should not of course ban someone based on their beliefs in some particular matter. You can probably have a "rational discussion" on other subjects quite well.

Also, there's nothing inherently irrational about chasing UFOs or buying lottery tickets.

Comment by nawitus on The Correct Contrarian Cluster · 2009-12-24T13:49:06.937Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

That's a pretty good explanation. Another way to look at it is to think what would happen if the propeller was not connected to the wheels. In that situation, the cart would travel as fast as the wind, but the propeller would spin at high speed. If you connect the propeller to the wheels that energy is used to further increase velocity.

In fact, it would work if you place a radio controlled clutch between the propeller and the wheels. First wait for the cart to accelerate to wind speed, and the propeller to rotate faster than the wheels (if it's 1:1 ratio without gears), then engage the clutch. The end result would be that the wheels would rotate at a higher speed and thus the cart would travel faster than the wind.

Comment by nawitus on The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory · 2009-12-24T12:35:14.550Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If you're referring to WTC 7, it didn't spontaneously collapse, it collapsed because of a fire. There was 91 000 liters of diesel fuel stored in that building for generators. Anyway, a few years ago a similar university building collapsed in Netherlands I believe. Even if it didn't, just because something happens the first time, doesn't mean the official report is wrong. A lot of things happen the first time, like a nuclear plant has exploded only once in history.

Comment by nawitus on The Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle · 2009-08-02T08:31:34.727Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Qualia is not a full explanation as of yet, you can think of it as a philosophical problem. There are many arguments to believe in the existence of qualia. It might be possible to show all of them to be false, in fact Dennet has attempted this. After you've shown them all to be false, it's okay to say "qualia doesn't exist". However, it's irrational to claim that since the concept/problem of qualia doesn't predict anything, qualia therefore doesn't exist.

Comment by nawitus on The Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle · 2009-08-01T22:39:26.986Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

There are many valid arguments or reason to believe in the existence of qualia, you can't simply say that because we cannot use qualia to predict anything at this point, then you can just ignore qualia. Qualia is "mysterious" in the same way the universe is, we don't know it's properties fully.

Comment by nawitus on The Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle · 2009-07-30T13:42:34.702Z · score: -3 (7 votes) · LW · GW

The problem with this argument is, that it doesn't explain anything nor does it solve the hard problem of consciousness. You simply redefine consciousness to mean something experimentally detectable, and then use that to claim p-zombies are impossible. You can move on, but that doesn't leave the original problem answered.

"Consciousness, whatever it may be - a substance, a process, a name for a confusion - is not epiphenomenal; your mind can catch the inner listener in the act of listening, and say so out loud." That's simply a fact about human brains, and is of course empirically detectable, and we can in principle write out algorithms and then create a consciousness detector. That doesn't explain anything about qualia though, and that's the hard problem.

Comment by nawitus on Sayeth the Girl · 2009-07-20T14:48:53.002Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Sexbots will be like bots in a computer game. They will be fun, sure, but real players will be even more fun. I don't really see the relevance of 'disapproving bots', some people will prefer them (or maybe be their only choice), and some will choose real players. If someone even enjoys playing with bots more than with real players, let them, it's what they want to do.

Comment by nawitus on Timeless Decision Theory: Problems I Can't Solve · 2009-07-20T10:58:38.953Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

If you're an AI, you do not have to (and shouldn't) pay the first $1000, you can just self-modify to pay $1000 in all the following coin flips (if we assume that the AI can easily rewrite/modify it's own behaviour in this way). Human brains probably don't have this capability, so I guess paying $1000 even in the first game makes sense.

Comment by nawitus on The Aumann's agreement theorem game (guess 2/3 of the average) · 2009-06-20T17:58:50.696Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

This game (along with the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons) nicely shows how the best choice to make is heavily influenced with how much you know about the other players (and therefore what they vote). If you know that the other players are "rationalists", then you can safely submit 0 (assuming that this hypothetical rational intelligence indeed submits 0). In real world tests you can pretty safely assume that the players are not-perfectly-rational humans. It may also be possible (as you can here) to influence other players.

Comment by nawitus on Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts · 2009-05-09T20:50:35.952Z · score: -25 (31 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not a troll, but we all know rationalism doesn't apply when it comes to silencing critique of the Great Leader.

Comment by nawitus on Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts · 2009-05-09T14:15:47.492Z · score: -22 (32 votes) · LW · GW

It was an example how embarrassing facts (yes, there was a small error, which didn't change the point though) about the Great Leader are being hidden by the karma system by "Eliezer-follower cultists".

Comment by nawitus on Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts · 2009-05-08T19:46:41.826Z · score: -18 (48 votes) · LW · GW

Eliezer Yudkowsky is a high school dropout with no formal education in anything.

Comment by nawitus on Wanted: Python open source volunteers · 2009-05-07T13:04:22.085Z · score: -2 (4 votes) · LW · GW

The license of Reddit is free software, so it's better to use that term instead of open source.