wedrifid comments on Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts - Less Wrong

124 Post author: steven0461 22 March 2009 08:17PM

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

Comments (290)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 December 2010 01:50:05PM 23 points [-]

It's unclear whether Descartes, Spinoza or Leibniz would have lasted a day without being voted down into oblivion.

So? I don't see what this is supposed to prove.

I know, I loved that quote. I just couldn't work out why it was presented as a bad thing.

Comment author: Jack 21 December 2010 08:55:46PM 14 points [-]

Descartes is maybe the single best example of motivated cognition in the history of Western thought. Though interestingly, there are some theories that he was secretly an atheist.

I assume their point has something to do with those three being rationalists in the traditional sense... but I don't think Rational Wiki is using the word in the traditional sense either. Would Descartes have been allowed to edit an entry on souls?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 27 September 2011 03:30:01AM 4 points [-]

You think the average person on LessWrong ranks with Spinoza and Leibniz? I disagree.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 September 2011 03:33:25AM *  19 points [-]

Do you mean Spinoza or Leibniz given their knowledge base and upbringing or the same person with a modern environment? I know everything Leibniz knew and a lot more besides. But I suspect that if the same individual grew up in a modern family environment similar to my own he would have accomplished a lot more than I have at the same age.

Comment author: Jack 27 September 2011 04:00:13AM 4 points [-]

the same person with a modern environment

They wouldn't be the same person. Which is to say, the the whole matter is nonsense as the other replies in this thread made clear.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 27 September 2011 04:09:29AM 7 points [-]

Sorry, I thought the notion was clear that one would be talking about same genetics but different environment. Illusion of transparency and all that. Explicit formulation: if one took a fertilized egg with Leibniz's genetic material and raised in an American middle class family with high emphasis on intellectual success, I'm pretty sure he would have by the time he got to my age have accomplished more than I have. Does that make the meaning clear?

Comment author: Jack 27 September 2011 05:16:14AM 2 points [-]

Right, I understand. But Rational Wiki didn't have clones of Leibniz and Spinoza in mind. I'm just saying, the whole thing is goofy.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 September 2011 04:30:34AM *  11 points [-]

You think the average person on LessWrong ranks with Spinoza and Leibniz? I disagree.

Wedrifid_2010 was not assigning a status ranking or even an evaluation of overall intellectual merit or potential. For that matter predicting expected voting patterns is a far different thing than assigning a ranking. People with excessive confidence in habitual thinking patterns that are wrong or obsolete will be downvoted into oblivion where the average person is not, even if the former is more intelligent or more intellectually impressive overall.

I also have little doubt that any of those three would be capable of recovering from their initial day or three of spiraling downvotes assuming they were willing to ignore their egos, do some heavy reading of the sequences and generally spend some time catching up on modern thought. But for as long as those individuals were writing similar material to that which identifies them they would be downvoted by lesswrong_2010. Possibly even by lesswrong_now too.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 21 December 2010 08:37:26PM 1 point [-]

Yes. Upvotes come from original, insightful contributions. Descartes', Spinoza's, and Liebnitz's ideas are hundreds of years old and dated.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 December 2010 01:31:51AM 5 points [-]

Not exactly the point - I think the claim is that they would be downvoted even if they were providing modern, original content ... which I would question, even then. We've had quite successful theist posters before, for example.

Comment author: Jack 22 December 2010 01:41:19AM 7 points [-]

I think the claim is that they would be downvoted even if they were providing modern, original content

What would this even mean? Like, if they were transported forward in time and formed new beliefs on the basis of modern science? If they were cloned from DNA surviving in their bone marrow and then adopted by modern, secular families, took AP Calculus and learned to program?

What a goofy thing to even be talking about.

Comment author: RobinZ 22 December 2010 01:45:16AM 1 point [-]

Goofier than a universe in which humans work but matches don't? Such ideas may be ill-formed, but that doesn't make them obviously ill-formed.

Comment author: Jack 22 December 2010 01:51:09AM *  0 points [-]

Sure...

ETA: I'm making fun of that wiki, not you.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 December 2010 02:12:11AM 5 points [-]

Not exactly the point - I think the claim is that they would be downvoted even if they were providing modern, original content ... which I would question, even then.

I would downvote Descartes based on the quality of his thinking and argument even if it was modern bad thinking. At least I would if he persisted with the line after the first time or two he was corrected. I suppose this is roughly equivalent to what you are saying.