Annoyance comments on Cascio in The Atlantic, more on cognitive enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong

20 [deleted] 18 June 2009 03:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Annoyance 18 June 2009 03:20:37PM * -1 points [-]

For every Voltaire, there are a hundred Newtons, Increase Mathers, and Descartes. And countless Michael Behes.

And that's just religion. There are more sacred cows than just the traditional religions, more golden idols than could be worshiped by a hundred thousand faiths. Human cognition is a sepulchre, white-washed walls concealing corruption within.

“Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism,” Leto said. “Before the Bene Gesserit, the Jesuits were the best at it…. You learn enough about rhetorical despotism from a study of the Bene Gesserit. Of course, they do not begin by deluding themselves with it…. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities. (... ) It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil..."

Comment author: Cyan 18 June 2009 03:57:38PM * 0 points [-]

Nice Heart of Darkness reference.

Comment author: gwern 18 June 2009 08:44:55PM 0 points [-]

Hm, where's the Conrad ref? I see a God Emperor of Dune ref (Dune seems pretty popular here, I've noticed), but not that.

Comment author: Cyan 18 June 2009 08:58:38PM * 1 point [-]

It's the whited sepulchre thing; it's one of the central themes of Heart of Darkness. (Google tells me the original quote is from Matthew 23:27).

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: orthonormal 22 June 2009 06:40:21PM 2 points [-]

There was a point in history where atheism and antitheism was highly correlated with intelligence - as in Voltaire's day - but intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism or antitheism.

You keep using this word "correlated". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Namely, if A is positively correlated with B, then B is positively correlated with A. B does not have to happen the majority of times A happens for this to be the case.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: Cyan 22 June 2009 09:10:36PM * 2 points [-]

If you mean statistical correlation, then corr(x,y) = corr(y,x). I think you mean something more like implication, e.g., your claim is that at one time in the past, atheist implied intelligent but intelligent did not imply atheist.

Comment author: Annoyance 22 June 2009 09:13:18PM -1 points [-]

If the correlation is sufficiently small, it can be lower than the error rate in detecting it.

And though the two concepts are distinct, in this context they're the same. Implication and statistical correlation can be the same when what's implied is a likelihood instead of a certainty.

Comment author: Cyan 22 June 2009 11:06:18PM 0 points [-]

Implication and statistical correlation can be the same when what's implied is a likelihood instead of a certainty.

I can't tell if I disagree with you in a substantive way or just in your word usage (i.e., semantics). Can you please translate this assertion into math?

Comment author: orthonormal 22 June 2009 09:22:52PM 2 points [-]

No, you said, as I quoted, that intelligence was not at all correlated with atheism, despite atheism being highly correlated with intelligence. This is uncontroversially and trivially impossible; if p(A|B)≠p(A) where p(A) and p(B) are positive, then p(B|A)≠p(B).

A corr B means B corr A, but the strength of one correlation doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the other.

The coefficient of correlation between A and B is the same as the coefficient of correlation between B and A, so this is false. I believe you mean, rather, that having a positive test for a rare disease can still leave you less than 50% likely to have the disease, while having the disease makes you very likely to test positive for it. However, the correlation is still strong in both directions: your chance of having the disease has jumped from "ridiculously unlikely" to just "unlikely" given that positive test.

Comment author: Annoyance comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Annoyance comments on Cascio in The Atlantic, more on cognitive enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (77)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (77)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login