fubarobfusco comments on Rationality Quotes July 2012 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: RobertLumley 04 July 2012 12:29AM

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

Comments (466)

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

Comment author: fubarobfusco 02 July 2012 09:53:15PM *  25 points [-]

If the "assumption" is so obvious and near-universal, why does Singer go on pompously to announce it.

Possibly for the same sorts of reasons that Eliezer wrote this big long thing to "restore a naïve view of truth", or that Nick Bostrom wrote this big long thing to explain why death is bad ... namely, that people have come up with all kinds of non-obvious, idiosyncratic rationalizations to justify the status-quo of starvation, ignorance, and death; that these rationalizations have, over the centuries, become cached thoughts; and that therefore getting back to "obvious and near-universal" basics is both desirable and nontrivial.

Comment author: peter_hurford 02 July 2012 10:09:55PM 5 points [-]

Yeah, this is what I had in mind.

Another lesson I think it teaches is it is easy to get caught up in long, drawn out debates about positions that are nearly impossible to conclusively refute (think theism).

Comment author: [deleted] 03 July 2012 12:30:42AM *  -1 points [-]

In other words, ask yourself: "What would William Lane Craig do?"

Then don't do that.

Comment author: peter_hurford 03 July 2012 01:47:42AM 6 points [-]
Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 03 July 2012 12:39:14PM 3 points [-]

At best, don't do that for the same reasons he did - but even there I'm sure that he's right even on the reasoning some of the time.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 July 2012 02:10:27AM 0 points [-]

Edited.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 03 July 2012 07:05:16AM 10 points [-]

Fun fact: William Lane Craig has rigorously argued that it's best to one-box on Newcomb's problem.

If the rule you followed led you to this of what use was the rule?

— Anton Chigurh

Comment author: Oligopsony 05 July 2012 12:08:13AM 2 points [-]

That question has some surprising correlations more generally (at least for someone who's been trained to cluster LW positions together into a natural set.)

Comment author: [deleted] 03 July 2012 07:23:37AM 5 points [-]

I'm not interested in your bullshit, Anton.

Carson Wells

Comment author: mwengler 04 July 2012 06:54:10PM -2 points [-]

Recced because it is funny and relevant, I am actually quite enjoying the Chigurh quotes. Although I am tired of Will always bringing in Catholic stuff. :)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 04 July 2012 11:03:14PM 5 points [-]

Lane Craig isn't Catholic, and I didn't bring him up.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 July 2012 01:17:08AM 1 point [-]

I hadn't heard of him before. [follows the link]

Craig modifies the thought experiment by introducing operations such as subtraction and shows that subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities would have non-identical remainders.[9] Since we have no evidence of such things in the actual world

Don't we?