Could you give me a hypothetical? I really can’t imagine anything I could say that would be so terrible.
pleeppleep
Karma: 599
Adult readers never seriously maintain that fictitious characters exist
A) “Never” is a strong word. I imagine there are all kinds of mental disorders that can lead certain adults to confuse fiction with reality
B) “Existence” here is a cached term used for simplifying a concept to the point of being inaccurate. When a person says that, for instance, Frodo Baggins doesn’t exist, he or she would be entirely incorrect to say that there is nothing in existence that matches the concept of Frodo Baggins. What the person is actually saying, is that a description of the character of Frodo calls to mind an image of something resembling an organism and that this image fits into a mental category that no actual organism can fit into. Whether or not Frodo “exists” is a pretty poor question unless fleshed out.
I can’t imagine anything I could say that would make people I know hate me without specifically referring to their personal lives. What kind of talk do you have in mind?
Have there been any interesting AI box experiments with open logs? Everyone seems to insist on secrecy, which only serves to make me more curious. I get the feeling that, sooner or later, everyone on this site will be forced to try the experiment just to see what really happens.
Only read “External” so far, but I propose god(s) be divided into “trusted and idealized authority figures”, “internalized sense of commitment to integrity of respected and admirable reputation (honor)”, and “external personification of inner conscience”.
If people cite God as the source of spiritual value, it’s because he represents a combination of these things and the belief that their values are ingrained in reality. God isn’t the root cause, and taking Him out of the equation still leaves the relevant feelings and commitment.
Also, “other humans” isn’t relevantly different from “other agents”.
Also, also, I’m not entirely clear on the point of this post (probably should’ve brought that up before correcting you, really). Are you citing actual sources of value, or the things people sometimes believe are the sources of value, whether or not they’re correct? Value is necessarily formed from concepts in the mind, so the brain can be assumed to be the thing most usefully termed the origin.
Also, also, also, when you say “value” do you just mean moral value, or things people care about on the whole?
This post was from awhile ago and I don’t think anyone with access to the note is still around to supply it. You could try asking everyone here for a copy and see if anything comes of it.
yes actually
This seems interesting. Are you just doing the whole thing through email? Also, voluntary response isn’t a great way to get accurate results, but I guess it’s all you have to work with.
I squeed when I saw this post and you should have shown the .mov series, everyone finds those funny.
Also, I don’t think I can say that the root cause of climate change denial and cartoon hatedom is the exact same bias. With cartoons, people mostly reject them for fear of falling out of line with a vague but undeniably present cultural standard that could cause them grief in the future. With climate change, the issue has become so muddled in politics that clear lines have been drawn and to cross them would be labeled betrayal. Also, there are various non-scientific authorities that support either side and sometimes have personal agendas, so anyone who doesn’t have a particularly strong trust in scientists, enough to take shortened summaries at face value without suspicion, has to either put time into actual research, or default to one side based on political affiliation. And I might have breached the no-politics rule there, I’m not sure.
There are so many biases behind fundamental creationism that I’m not even going to touch them.
72% probability of welcoming you to the herd
That’s.… an interesting analysis. Can I ask whether you’re speaking from experience, or is that too personal? If not, do you have any links for where you got you’re information? I myself feel self destructive from time to time, and I think that’s a pretty good description of the emotions involved, so I’m a bit curious here.
Freedom to make any sort of arrangement as long as all parties are willing. A “contract” would be a formal agreement. If you bring force into the mixture you’ll end up with more problems than if you don’t. You can’t have everyone and their grandmother making arbitrary agreements and then using state power to coerce others into following through, so let them make arbitrary agreements and sort it out amongst themselves. Otherwise you get as much injustice as if you’d just allowed the government to dictate your affairs on a whim.
That still means he wanted to die, but the nature of his desire provokes extreme sympathy.
It seems to me the problem here is that the private contracts would be enforced in the hypothetical model. Libertarians seem to propose that the legal benefits of marriage as opposed to the arbitrary spiritual components are the aspect of marriage to be agreed upon. I disagree.
I think that people should be allowed to create private contracts for any issue, but only if those contracts are not enforced. Both parties must remain willing participants throughout the process. Also, if the state deems any contracts unacceptably offensive, or contrary to public interest, it obviously has the power to nullify them. “Contracts” without the intervention of force, would be nothing more than symbols that a consensus for agreement has been reached. Of course, I imagine that this will be unstable in the long run as people will gradually seek government assistance in getting their way, and the state will become more and more involved as time goes on, and the system will get slower and more complicated with each new contract.
It is my opinion, if I may get just a tad bit political, that the state, having little to no interest in the more harmless dynamics of an individual’s love life, should ignore any agreements on how a person conducts their marriage as long as none of the rights the state formally exists to secure are infringed beyond what the public will tolerate. The legal status of a married couple, being relevant because the lives of two people living as a partnership have different financial qualities than the life of a person living independently, should apply to any arrangement with the same configuration of economic impact as a married couple. I think this is the optimal system, but seeing as how most people appeal to libertarian ideals only to support there own fundamentalist political tribe, it may or may not actually arise.
I’m really not sure if the fact that he wanted to die makes it better or worse...
Good post, but I can easily imagine awesome ways to starve hundreds of children.
“Awesome” to me means impressive and exciting in a pleasant manner. You seem to use it to mean desirable. If morality just means desirability, then there’s no reasons to use the word morality. I think that for morality to have any use, it has to be a component of desirability, but not interchangeable with it.
You posted this here just for an excuse to ask the poll, didn’t you?
This question is probably a violation of rule 4, but I think if we’re discussing politics then it just has to be asked:
Regarding American politics, which party’s general stance is more optimal for ensuring prosperity?
I realize that politicians often fail to meet the idealistic standards of their affiliations, and that both parties’ s positions are too biased, general, and simple to actually be correct, but which one do you think comes closer to the mark, overall?
I believe Eliezer said somewhere that, if you had to choose between one of the two major tribes, the Republican camp was slightly better. He may have updated since then. Politics may kill minds, but it is still important, and individual votes do influence it even on a national scale, so if we’re going to talk politics, we may as well spend the time trying to figure out how best to apply our conclusions.
Again, I’m sorry if this question is too mindkill-y even for this thread, but I believe that this is the most relevant question we can ask if we’re talking politics. Also, I don’t mean to fence off non-Americans, but I am American, as are the majority of Lesswrongers, and in any case, America has enormous influence on other nations one way or the other. If you have an opinion on the matter, please share it, whether you’re American or not.
I intend to live forever or die trying
-- Groucho Marx
You really relish in the whole “scariest person the internet has ever introduced me to” thing, don’t you?