= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Do people think Less Wrong rationality is parochial? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (196)
Is this the opinion of the cogsci experts, as well? If not, then either it is not true, or you have a communication problem.
(My personal feeling, as a complete non-expert, is that, once you shed the FAI/cryonics/MWI fluff (and possibly something about TDT/UDT, though I know next to nothing about that), and align the terminology with the mainstream, there is nothing parochial about "modern rationality". If anything, there is probably enough novel stuff in the sequences for a graduate degree or two.)
I would amputate exactly these. I doubt however, that the site community can live as such with those gone.
There is at least a non-negligible minority (or a silent majority?) of those who would retroactively call it an improvement if your wish were granted by some magic measure.
Even though I do think decoherence-based MWI is a better model than Copenhagen non-interpretation, it doesn't look like there are any new arguments in support or against it on LW anyway.
But given that LW is run mostly by SingInst people, and they do believe in possibility of FOOM, there is no reason for FAI to become offtopic on LW. Most of the time it is easy to recognize by the thread caption, so it is easy for us to participate only in those discussions that are interesting to us.
Actually, SingInst is very busy right now trying to create a Center for Modern Rationality organization, which will have, as its primary focus, increasing the sanity waterline, and will not "polluted" by involvement with any FAI research.
Discussing FAI was banned for two months when LW started. Maybe we could do that again?
Having read the Quantum Physics Sequence, I think Eliezer himself would agree with that. I think the actual point was to show the crushing power of already existing arguments, to showcase a foolish long-standing rejection of compelling arguments by very bright people.
The point was also to familiarize the readers with MWI and convince them of it so that it could then be used as a source of evidence and examples for some points about identity and free will.
Yes, I forgot that. I recall being… relieved, to see that mundane physics can solve seemingly hard philosophical questions.
Still, from time to time people start discussing it here without even using those collected arguments and counterarguments well - ten old posts hurt nobody, the complain seemed to be about ongoing things.