gwern comments on [fic idea] Rationalist Gurren Lagann? - Less Wrong

0 Post author: Multiheaded 07 July 2011 05:27AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (39)
Tags: fiction

Comments (39)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: gwern 07 July 2011 02:59:27PM 2 points [-]

Is it really a good idea to come up with a rationalist version of a story which explicitly asks you to kick reason to the curb?

I mean, wouldn't one rather, if one is investing the dozens to hundreds of hours such an endeavour requires, start with somewhat more promising base material?

Comment author: Manfred 08 July 2011 12:49:10AM *  2 points [-]

It is possible that the irrationality of the base material doesn't much matter to rationalist fanfic quality. I don't see why endorsements of any old thing can't just be transmogrified into endorsements of reason. The emotional impact may be less, but that's largely a function of use not having as much practice promoting reason like that. Eyeshield 21's team cheer 'Fucking Kill Them!!!" comes to mind.

Throw away your logic and kick reason to the curb! Beautifully following the golden road!

-

Stare into the darkness to bring forth the light! Every atom of us is in this attack!

To do the impossible, think the unthinkable! Break down the walls, claim the universe as your own!

Comment author: Multiheaded 07 July 2011 03:30:03PM 1 point [-]

There's nothing irrational against kicking the collection of fallacies and aging heuristics commonly dubbed "reason" to the curb (especially in the face of first hopeless misery and then x-risk), the question is what you replace it with. In fact, Eliezer has several posts on doing the impossible, seeing the invisible, touching the untouchable and breaking the unbreakable.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 July 2011 03:57:30PM *  3 points [-]

And one on the regret of rationality. This has some bits I'm going to intersperse with Gurren Lagann Quotes:

"But," says the causal decision theorist, "to take only one box, you must somehow believe that your choice can affect whether box B is empty or full - and that's unreasonable! Omega has already left! It's physically impossible!"

Anti-Spiral: Foolish creatures, drunk on your spiral power. Do you possess the resolve to do that? Anti-Spiral: We defended the universe by killing out fellow spirals, and halting our own evolution. Anti-Spiral: Do you possess the sheer fortitude that is on par with that?! DO YOU?! Anti-Spiral: We say, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! NOT! AT! ALL!!! Anti-Spiral: You possess neither will! Nor resolve! NOR REASON!

Unreasonable? I am a rationalist: what do I care about being unreasonable? I don't have to conform to a particular ritual of cognition. I don't have to take only box B because I believe my choice affects the box, even though Omega has already left. I can just... take only box B.

Anti-Spiral: "Impossible, sentient beings can't possibly escape from a muti-dimensional labyrinth." Simon: Don't underestimate us. We don't care about time, or space or... multi-dimensional whatevers! We don't give a damn about that. Force your way down a path YOU choose to take, and do it all yourself! That's the way Team Dai-Gurren rolls!

Also, let me show you a funny coincidence that I found in the context of writing a Gurren Lagann fan fiction off of this article:

I do have a proposed alternative ritual of cognition which computes this decision, which this margin is too small to contain; but I shouldn't need to show this to you. The point is not to have an elegant theory of winning - the point is to win; elegance is a side effect.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/64/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality

TENGEN TOPPA GURREN RATIONALITY 40K: I have a truly marvelous story for this crossover which this margin is too narrow to contain.

I know that these are both based off of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem and that's just a quotable phrase. I just found it interesting looking for connections between the ideas.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 September 2011 03:59:05AM *  2 points [-]

"But," says the causal decision theorist, "to take only one box, you must somehow believe that your choice can affect whether box B is empty or full - and that's unreasonable! Omega has already left! It's physically impossible!"

...

Unreasonable? I am a rationalist: what do I care about being unreasonable? I don't have to conform to a particular ritual of cognition. I don't have to take only box B because I believe my choice affects the box, even though Omega has already left. I can just... take only box B.

Looking back on it, this post is what finally shifted my intuition from two-boxing to one-boxing on Newcomb's. I guess that counts as anecdotal evidence for the power of rationalist fanfics.

Comment author: Multiheaded 07 July 2011 05:17:52PM 1 point [-]

Yeah! I've got to run myself through a checklist on the Sequences now btw, don't want to miss any of the core stuff.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit