LKtheGreat

• LKtheGreat 3 Jun 2012 13:31 UTC

  11 points

  in reply to: XiXiDu’s comment on: This post is for sac­ri­fic­ing my cred­i­bil­ity!

  No, but that’s a fallacious comparison. The header does in fact read “a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality,” and I’m here because I want to read that kind of site.

  Also, I’ve read some of Will’s “computational theology” blog. His posts there seem to consist of actual reasoning and logic and such, whereas over here his posts on the same general topic tend toward “I’ve got a big secret I’m not going to tell you, so there, nyaah.” (My apologies if this is an unfair representation, but that’s the impression I’ve formed.)

• LKtheGreat 2 Jun 2012 17:24 UTC

  15 points

  in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: This post is for sac­ri­fic­ing my cred­i­bil­ity!

  This is mainly what I want to know. From the comments on this post, it looks like W_N claims to have (read: geniunely has, geniunely thinks he has, or trolls as though he has) come across something he can’t tell people about—a basilisk, some conspiracy-theory-type information, something. Being a relative newcomer unwilling to go through large numbers of his previous posts, I’d like to know if anyone who’s seen him longer has any more information.

  Also, this whole thing is absolutely hilarious to read.

• LKtheGreat 24 Apr 2012 14:04 UTC

  1 point

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 16, chap­ter 85

  I could benefit from using the hiatus time to reread MOR and make notes of anything that seems significant in light of 85 chapters’ worth of perspective. This would be even more productive if some number of us read and analyzed together, I believe. Anyone care to join in such an endeavour?

• LKtheGreat 17 Apr 2012 17:56 UTC

  2 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  Just noticed this lovely little tidbit at the very end of Chapter 84:

  “[Hermione] thought she heard, as she was within the doorway, a distant cawing cry. But it wasn’t meant for her, she knew[.]”

  What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Who or what is cawing in Hogwarts or on the grounds, and how does she know something about it that we don’t? Or am I missing some terribly obvious connection here?

• LKtheGreat 16 Apr 2012 19:17 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Eneasz’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  That passage, of course, ties into what the Defense Professor says in the latest chapter: “You cannot use the Killing Curse, so the correct tactic is to Apparate away.” If I had to work from the premise that the revision is actually related to that, I’d assume it’s emphasising the Defense Professor being, in fact, a Dark wizard.

  But I agree that from a point of view outside Eliezer’s head, it appears to have at best neutral impact, and at worst negative impact on the effect of the passage.

• LKtheGreat 16 Apr 2012 18:23 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Benquo’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  My interpretation was that we’re meant to connect the two incidents and conclude that Harry’s (seemingly numerous) forgotten memories are something to do with Voldemort, whether specifically memories of that night or something wider.

• LKtheGreat 16 Apr 2012 16:21 UTC

  16 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  How many instances can y’all remember where Eliezer has repeated himself in an oddly specific way?

  • Chapter 17, when Harry picks up Neville’s Remembrall: “The Remembrall was glowing bright red in his hand, blazing like a miniature sun that cast shadows on the ground in broad daylight.”

  • Chapter 43, when Harry has a Dementor-induced flashback of the night… something happened in Godric’s Hollow: “And the boy in the crib saw it, the eyes, those two crimson eyes, seeming to glow bright red, to blaze like miniature suns, filling Harry’s whole vision as they locked to his own—”

  That really sets off my deliberate-hint senses—so much is repeated that it’s got to be intentional. (My apologies if this was already discussed to death in the considerable time since #43 was posted.)

  Likewise the basilisk, which I know was discussed at some point:

  • Chapter 35, H&C speaking: “Salazar Slytherin would have keyed his monster into the ancient wards at a higher level than the Headmaster himself.”

  • Chapter 49, the Defense Professor speaking: “or by some entity which Salazar Slytherin keyed into his wards at a higher level than the Headmaster himself.”

  I’m sure I could find more if I put my mind to it, but that’s all I’ve got for now.

• LKtheGreat 15 Apr 2012 21:32 UTC

  −1 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  Related to the discussion about the Defense Professor’s talk with Hermione, but more generalized:

  We’ve had Word of God (can’t find the specific comment quickly) to the effect that parts of the text that are “too obvious” to readers are in fact meant to be that obvious, not meant as red herrings. Have we had any pronouncement about the truthfulness of things that the characters find “too obvious”? (As, for example, Hermione’s realisation that Quirrell was apparently trying to get her to leave.)

• LKtheGreat 15 Apr 2012 21:05 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  Excellent point about Harry. The Defense Professor virtually certainly knows Harry’s opinions on the subject, whether by his mental model of Harry or by observing him telling anyone who’ll listen that Hogwarts is dangerous.

  On the other hand, I believe we’ve seen Harry failing to convince Hermione of something she was morally set on, much like this. (Anybody remember the specific incident, or am I imagining things?) Once Hermione had refused Harry’s entreaties for her to leave, it would have been much harder for the Defense Professor to change her opinion.

  And finally, there’s this:

  She couldn’t have described it in words, what triggered the realization, unless it was the sheer pressure that the Defense Professor was exerting on her.

  Which supports your argument that he’s being a little too over-the-top. The Defense Professor is above all, subtle—this kind of all-out effort is not like him. Maybe there’s some time constraint, though, and he doesn’t have time for “subtle?” Aargh.

• LKtheGreat 15 Apr 2012 16:22 UTC

  5 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 15, chap­ter 84

  How likely is it that the outcome of the Defense Professor’s talk with Hermione was genuinely not what he wanted? Surely he has to have realized by now that Hermione is the sort of person who’d act like that, however incomprehensible it may be to him. I am reminded of the passage in the LotR omake that reads:

  “If the Enemy thought that all his foes were moved by desire for power alone—he would guess wrongly, over and over, and the Maker of this Ring would see that, he would know that somewhere he had made a mistake!”

  Maybe he truly doesn’t understand her psychology, especially if he doesn’t have H&C’s, erm, experimentation to draw on. (I rather think he is H&C, but that’s another issue entirely.) But working from the supposition that he wanted Hermione to react as she did, what does he gain from that?

  • She’s within easy striking distance if he wants to use her in some future action.

  • She’s acquired extra suspicion of the Defense Professor, which she will communicate to Harry, and which the Defense Professor may duly disprove to Harry, strengthening the latter’s trust.

  • She may, if she stays near Harry, do something unpredictably Good (c.f. SPHEW) of her own free will (inasmuch as that exists anymore) that would be useful for enacting various lessons.

  • Something else that I haven’t thought of yet.

• LKtheGreat 3 Apr 2012 22:54 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  Thank you, this comes of posting in a hurry. Let me restructure that in a better way: How well supported is the theory that HJPEV’s behavior is completely explained by rational extensions of something in-canon? Has he done anything that could not be explained by the interference of Horcrux!Riddle (who did in fact have pretty much the upbringing that McGonagall describes), and has anything at all happened in the story that would suggest something else at play there?

• LKtheGreat 3 Apr 2012 21:35 UTC

  0 points

  on: Harry Pot­ter and the Meth­ods of Ra­tion­al­ity dis­cus­sion thread, part 13, chap­ter 81

  How well supported at this point is the theory that HJPEV is… unmodified, if you will? I.e., that the person we know as our protagonist is the product of James and Lily’s son progressing linearly through eleven years in exactly the way that we’ve heard from various in-story sources, and not the product of any other, unknown influence whatsoever.

  I am almost convinced that there’s some other influence at work, but I don’t know what to attribute it to. His oddities, especially his “dark side,” could be from the Horcrux (assuming he is one in this ’verse) or something else from canon, which Eliezer would have taken to a more logical conclusion than JKR. On the other hand, rational!Riddle (or another unexpectedly rational entity) could well have done something drastically different from our canon expectations, and that could be what’s made Harry the rather unusual creature that we know.