How can I argue without people online and not come out feeling bad? 2012-06-01T14:24:59.902Z

Comment by wantstojoinin on Consequentialist Formal Systems · 2012-05-09T09:53:32.735Z · LW · GW

Why isn't building a decision theory equivalent to building a whole AI from scratch?

Comment by wantstojoinin on Logical Uncertainty as Probability · 2012-05-01T02:56:44.334Z · LW · GW

I understand, what I wrote was wrong. What if we use n%3=0 and ~(n%3=0) though?

Comment by wantstojoinin on Logical Uncertainty as Probability · 2012-04-30T09:06:33.931Z · LW · GW

A natural number n can be even or odd: i.e. n%2=0 or n%2=1.

If X = {n is natural number} then you showed that we can use P(n%2=0|X) + P(n%2=1|X) = 1 and P(n%2=0|X) = P(n%2=1|X) together to get P(n%2=0|X) = 1/2.

The same logic works for the three statements n%3=0,n%3=1,n%3=2 to give us P(n%3=0|X) = P(n%3=1|X) = P(n%3=2|X) = 1/3.

But then the same logic also works for the two indistinguishable statements n%3=0,n%3=1 \/ n%3=2 to give us P(n%3=0|X) = P(n%3=1 \/ n%3=2) = 1/2.

But 1/2 = 1/3 is a contradiction, so we find that axiom 3 leads to inconsistencies.

Comment by wantstojoinin on "Nice Guys Finish First" - Youtube Video of selected reading (by Dawkins) from The Selfish Gene · 2012-03-17T22:07:37.097Z · LW · GW

Isn't it just strategy stealing? Calling it tit-for-tat maybe focuses away from the fundamental reason why it wins.

Comment by wantstojoinin on Anyone have any questions for David Chalmers? · 2012-03-11T12:19:50.178Z · LW · GW

I'd like to ask him for an explanation of what the hard problem is and why it's an actual problem, in a way that I can understand it (without reference to undefinable things like "qualia" or "subjective experience"). Would probably have to discuss it in person with him and even then doubt either of us would get anywhere though.