I disagree with “of course”. The laws of cognition aren’t on any side, but human rationalists presumably share (at least some) human values and intend to advance them; insofar they are more successful than non-rationalists this qualifies as Good.
So by my metric, Yudkowsky and Lintemandain’s Dath Ilan isn’t neutral, it’s quite clearly lawful good, or attempting to be. And yet they care a lot about the laws of cognition.
So it seems to me that the laws of cognition can (should?) drive towards flouishing rather than pure knowledge increase. There might be things that we wish we didn’t know for a bit. And ways to increase our strength to heal rather than our strength to harm.
To me it seems a better rationality would be lawful good.
A lot of problems arise from inaccurate beliefs instead of bad goals. E.g. suppose both the capitalists and the communists are in favor of flourishing, but they have different beliefs on how best to achieve this. Now if we pick a bad policy to optimize for a noble goal, bad things will likely still follow.
What? This apology makes no sense. Of course rationalism is Lawful Neutral. The laws of cognition aren’t, can’t be, on anyone’s side.
I disagree with “of course”. The laws of cognition aren’t on any side, but human rationalists presumably share (at least some) human values and intend to advance them; insofar they are more successful than non-rationalists this qualifies as Good.
So by my metric, Yudkowsky and Lintemandain’s Dath Ilan isn’t neutral, it’s quite clearly lawful good, or attempting to be. And yet they care a lot about the laws of cognition.
So it seems to me that the laws of cognition can (should?) drive towards flouishing rather than pure knowledge increase. There might be things that we wish we didn’t know for a bit. And ways to increase our strength to heal rather than our strength to harm.
To me it seems a better rationality would be lawful good.
The laws of cognition are natural laws. Natural laws cannot possibly “drive towards flourishing” or toward anything else.
Attempting to make the laws of cognition “drive towards flourishing” inevitably breaks them.
A lot of problems arise from inaccurate beliefs instead of bad goals. E.g. suppose both the capitalists and the communists are in favor of flourishing, but they have different beliefs on how best to achieve this. Now if we pick a bad policy to optimize for a noble goal, bad things will likely still follow.