Perhaps that is when the universe is due to expire.
Interpolate
Karma: 53
I upvoted the original post for:
Stimulating critical discussion of the Less Wrong community—specifically: the beliefs almost unanimously shared, and the negativity towards criticsm; as someone who has found Less Wrong extremely helpful, and would hate to see it descend into groupthink and affiliation signalling.
A question to those who dismiss the OP as merely “noise”: what do you make of the nature of this post?
Stimulating critical discussion of the operating premises of the SIAI; as someone who is considering donating and otherwise contributing. This additionally provides elucidation to those in a state of epistemic limbo regarding the various aspects of FAI and the Singularity.
I am reminded of this passage regarding online communities (source):
So there’s this very complicated moment of a group coming together, where enough individuals, for whatever reason, sort of agree that something worthwhile is happening, and the decision they make at that moment is: This is good and must be protected. And at that moment, even if it’s subconscious, you start getting group effects. And the effects that we’ve seen come up over and over and over again in online communities...
The first is sex talk, what he called, in his mid-century prose, “A group met for pairing off.” And what that means is, the group conceives of its purpose as the hosting of flirtatious or salacious talk or emotions passing between pairs of members...
The second basic pattern that Bion detailed: The identification and vilification of external enemies. This is a very common pattern. Anyone who was around the Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties could see this all the time...
The third pattern Bion identified: Religious veneration. The nomination and worship of a religious icon or a set of religious tenets. The religious pattern is, essentially, we have nominated something that’s beyond critique. You can see this pattern on the Internet any day you like...
So these are human patterns that have shown up on the Internet, not because of the software, but because it’s being used by humans. Bion has identified this possibility of groups sandbagging their sophisticated goals with these basic urges. And what he finally came to, in analyzing this tension, is that group structure is necessary. Robert’s Rules of Order are necessary. Constitutions are necessary. Norms, rituals, laws, the whole list of ways that we say, out of the universe of possible behaviors, we’re going to draw a relatively small circle around the acceptable ones.
He said the group structure is necessary to defend the group from itself. Group structure exists to keep a group on target, on track, on message, on charter, whatever. To keep a group focused on its own sophisticated goals and to keep a group from sliding into these basic patterns. Group structure defends the group from the action of its own members.
There isn’t a copy of The MIT Encylopedia of Cognitive Sciences lying around, or is it not specific enough? (For those interested, the surprisingly navigatable pdf version can be downloaded surreptitiously here)
EDIT: Amazon shows Mapping the Mind as a suggestion after viewing MITECS; from a cursory glance it seems topical.
If he is gifted and interested in science, introducing him to lesswrong, rationality and the Singularity could have a substantial positive impact on his academic development. What would be the worst that could happen?
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1500