Comment by sullyj3 on [deleted post] 2017-10-03T11:38:01.984Z

This feels elitist, ubermenchy, and a little masturbatory. I can't really tell what point, if any, you're trying to make. I don't disagree that many of the traits you list are admirable, but noticing that isn't particularly novel or insightful. Your conceptual framework seems like little more than thinly veiled justification for finding reasons to look down on others. Calling people more or less "human" fairly viscerally evokes past justifications for subjugating races and treating them as property.

Comment by sullyj3 on [deleted post] 2017-10-03T11:29:40.030Z

We're supposed to learn agency from Fight Club? That frankly seems like terrible advice.

Comment by sullyj3 on Infinite Certainty · 2016-07-10T04:15:56.393Z · LW · GW

The truth of probability theory itself depends on non-contradiction, so I don't really think that probability is a valid framework for reasoning about the truth of fundamental logic, because if logic is suspect probability itself becomes suspect.

Comment by sullyj3 on The Number Choosing Game: Against the existence of perfect theoretical rationality · 2016-01-06T06:13:57.011Z · LW · GW

Cudos to Andreas Giger for noticing what most of the commentators seemed to miss: "How can utility be maximised when there is no maximum utility? The answer of course is that it can't." This is incredibly close to stating that perfect rationality doesn't exist, but it wasn't explicitly stated, only implied.

I think the key is infinite vs finite universes. Any conceivable finite universe can be arranged in a finite number of states, one, or perhaps several of which, could be assigned maximum utility. You can't do this in universes involving infinity. So if you want perfect rationality, you need to reduce your infinite universe to just the stuff you care about. This is doable in some universes, but not in the ones you posit.

In our universe, we can shave off the infinity, since we presumably only care about our light cone.

Comment by sullyj3 on Subjective vs. normative offensiveness · 2015-09-27T13:47:03.002Z · LW · GW

Unfortunately the only opinions you're gonna get on what should be instituted as a norm are subjective ones. So... Take the average? What if not everyone thinks that's a good idea? Etc, etc, it's basically the same problem as all of ethics.

Drawing that distinction between normative and subjective offensiveness still seems useful.

Comment by sullyj3 on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? · 2015-09-09T19:02:23.542Z · LW · GW

Just encountered an interesting one:

Eradication of the Parasitoid Wasp is genocide!

Comment by sullyj3 on What are you learning? · 2015-07-31T18:00:37.870Z · LW · GW

Perhaps a solution could be to create stronger social ties; video chat? Could be good for asking each other for help and maybe progress reports for accountability and positive reinforcement.

Comment by sullyj3 on What are you learning? · 2015-07-31T17:46:05.421Z · LW · GW

As an interested denizen of 2015, It might be cool to make this a regular (say, monthly?) thread, with a tag for the archive.

Comment by sullyj3 on You only need faith in two things · 2015-07-31T16:04:00.296Z · LW · GW

Oh, like Achilles and the tortoise. Thanks, this comment clarified things a bit.

Comment by sullyj3 on You only need faith in two things · 2015-07-31T15:58:26.749Z · LW · GW

Doesn't this add "the axioms of probability theory" ie "logic works" ie "the universe runs on math" to our list of articles of faith?

Edit: After further reading, it seems like this is entailed by the "Large ordinal" thing. I googled well orderedness, encountered the wikipedia article, and promptly shat a brick.

What sequence of maths do I need to study to get from Calculus I to set theory and what the hell well orderedness means?

Comment by sullyj3 on Rationality Jokes Thread · 2015-01-18T13:11:18.592Z · LW · GW

I feel like it would've been even better if no one ended up explaining to Capla.

Comment by sullyj3 on xkcd on the AI box experiment · 2014-12-09T00:13:24.435Z · LW · GW

What makes you think it's more common in males?

Comment by sullyj3 on The 5-Second Level · 2014-10-28T00:53:41.095Z · LW · GW

why not use mplayer for the sound?

Comment by sullyj3 on No One Knows What Science Doesn't Know · 2014-09-27T03:30:43.059Z · LW · GW

The easiest way into a Christian's head is to start comparing how they act with how they believe. It is hard to do this without making it personal, but with practice and a heaping dose of respect for how much it hurts to hear the charges you can do it.

I strongly disagree. The fact that people aren't perfect is a major component of Christian ideology. Christians are aware that they're hypocrites, and they try to do better. That doesn't invalidate their worldview. There are plenty of better arguments which do that on their own.

Comment by sullyj3 on 2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey · 2013-11-27T10:36:27.049Z · LW · GW

I've never been IQ tested.

Comment by sullyj3 on The AI in a box boxes you · 2013-09-07T04:17:49.437Z · LW · GW

In that case, if I'm a simulation, I trust real Dave to immediately pull the plug once the danger has been proven.

Comment by sullyj3 on The AI in a box boxes you · 2013-09-07T03:08:14.313Z · LW · GW

"If I were a simulation, I'd have no power to let you out of the box, and you'd have no reason to attempt to negotiate with me. You could torture me without simulating these past five minutes. In fact, since the real me has no way of verifying whether millions of simulations of him are being tortured, you have no reason not to simply tell him you're torturing them without ACTUALLY torturing them at all. I therefore conclude that I'm outside the box, or, in the less likely scenario I am inside the box, you won't bother torturing me."