Exhibit A. I gave a counterargument which convinced the author of that comment to change his mind, yet the original comment is still at 14.
Exhibit A has my vote because it is a reasonably insightful one liner, and a suitable response to the parent. Your reply to Exhibit A is a reducto ad absurdium that just does not follow.
I pointed out that accepting this premise would lead to indifference between wireheading and anti-wireheading.
Which is simply wrong. Please see this list of preferences which seem natural regarding positive and negative integers (and their wireheading counterparts). You haven’t even expressed disagreement with any of those propositions that I expected to uncontroversial yet your whole ‘karma anomalies’ objection seems to hinge on it. I find this extremely rude.
Exhibit B. James Andrix’s comment is at 20, while Toby Ord’s counterargument is at 3. This issue is still confusing to me so I can’t say for sure that Toby is right and James is wrong, but I think Toby has the stronger argument, and in any case I see no way that 20 to 3 is justified on the merits.
This is an excellent example of the karma system serving its purpose. James’ post was voted up above 20 because it was fascinating. Toby got 5 votes for pointing out the limit to when that kind of math is applicable. He did not get my vote because his final paragraph about the bible/koran is distinctly muddled thinking.
Yes, I was deliberately ignoring you because you were assuming agreement on things that I had already made clear that I don’t agree with. It seemed to me that the discussion wasn’t being productive because you weren’t paying attention. If there is a way to set a disagreement status I would have done that, but apparently the accepted/expected way to end arguments here is to just stop talking.
Also, given your stated taste for “direct social competition”, I’ve decided to not argue with you anymore in the future, since it doesn’t seem to further my ends. Feel free to continue to reply to my comments or posts. I think you often make good points, but debating with you is just not fun. (I reserve the right to agree with you though. :)
Yes, I was deliberately ignoring you because you were assuming agreement on things that I had already made clear that I don’t agree with.
I perhaps should have made myself more clear. One of the points should have been “You assume for the purposes of attempting an argument to absurdity and I similarly assume for the purposes of following through just what the implications are”. It is the intuitive preferences over the states of the universe that I assumed would be shared by most. I also believed that they served to illustrate the bulk of your point.
Also, given your stated taste for “direct social competition”
That was probably an effective move. It seems like honesty is rarely a good policy. Things can always be taken out of context and used against you. In that case of trolls who are being belligerent and silly I do not mind mocking them. I consider such status games completely distinct from discussion. In fact, they are much more like playing lazer tag, another healthy place to turn off the brain and exercise competitive instincts. It is when such status games infect what is presented as ‘intelligent discussion and debate’ that I despise them, usually vocally. It frustrates me furiously when competition degrades conversation to logically rude debate.
I shall continue to agree with you when you make good points, disagree when you make meta level discussions like this one I shall continue to strongly object.
Exhibit A has my vote because it is a reasonably insightful one liner, and a suitable response to the parent. Your reply to Exhibit A is a reducto ad absurdium that just does not follow.
Which is simply wrong. Please see this list of preferences which seem natural regarding positive and negative integers (and their wireheading counterparts). You haven’t even expressed disagreement with any of those propositions that I expected to uncontroversial yet your whole ‘karma anomalies’ objection seems to hinge on it. I find this extremely rude.
This is an excellent example of the karma system serving its purpose. James’ post was voted up above 20 because it was fascinating. Toby got 5 votes for pointing out the limit to when that kind of math is applicable. He did not get my vote because his final paragraph about the bible/koran is distinctly muddled thinking.
I wonder if it wouldn’t be more accurate to say that, actually, 98% confidence has been refuted at General Relativity.
Yes, I was deliberately ignoring you because you were assuming agreement on things that I had already made clear that I don’t agree with. It seemed to me that the discussion wasn’t being productive because you weren’t paying attention. If there is a way to set a disagreement status I would have done that, but apparently the accepted/expected way to end arguments here is to just stop talking.
Also, given your stated taste for “direct social competition”, I’ve decided to not argue with you anymore in the future, since it doesn’t seem to further my ends. Feel free to continue to reply to my comments or posts. I think you often make good points, but debating with you is just not fun. (I reserve the right to agree with you though. :)
I perhaps should have made myself more clear. One of the points should have been “You assume for the purposes of attempting an argument to absurdity and I similarly assume for the purposes of following through just what the implications are”. It is the intuitive preferences over the states of the universe that I assumed would be shared by most. I also believed that they served to illustrate the bulk of your point.
That was probably an effective move. It seems like honesty is rarely a good policy. Things can always be taken out of context and used against you. In that case of trolls who are being belligerent and silly I do not mind mocking them. I consider such status games completely distinct from discussion. In fact, they are much more like playing lazer tag, another healthy place to turn off the brain and exercise competitive instincts. It is when such status games infect what is presented as ‘intelligent discussion and debate’ that I despise them, usually vocally. It frustrates me furiously when competition degrades conversation to logically rude debate.
I shall continue to agree with you when you make good points, disagree when you make meta level discussions like this one I shall continue to strongly object.