PhilGoetz comments on Homogeneity vs. heterogeneity (or, What kind of sex is most moral?) - Less Wrong

-8 Post author: PhilGoetz 22 May 2009 11:25PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (78)

Comments (78)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 23 May 2009 11:15:19PM *  0 points [-]

That's a harsh accusation to make without supporting it in any way.

After all the posts and comments I've made on LW, you should realize that the odds are much greater that you failed to understand my post, than that I am insane. I'm disappointed in you.

I doubt that you're confused by assumptions, since this post contains far fewer assumptions than anything else you're likely to read today. What is confusing is that it removes many of the assumptions you rely on in everyday conversation - such as that society is made of humans, who are sexually diploid, and face certain ethical problems and have a certain range of possible actions available to them - and doesn't explicitly say where it stops removing assumptions.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 23 May 2009 11:44:44PM *  2 points [-]

I referenced the word "insane" with the Raising the Sanity Waterline article, thus qualifying it, taking, for example, belief in God as a kind of insanity in the intended sense.

Judging by the rating of your post, my impression about there being something wrong with it is shared by other readers. My comment was an attempt to express what in particular I found to be wrong: presentation is extremely confused.

By "unstated unsubstantiated assumptions" I mean the things like:

  • "your task is to choose the proper weight to give collective versus individual goals" (what weight? what kind of framework are you working from?),
  • starting to talk about "the transhuman" (what's that exactly? how did it get in the article?),
  • "organisms with less genetic diversity" (genetic diversity? what does it have to do with transhumans?),
  • ethics being determined by "sexual diploidy" (where's that come from in the article? explanation please),
  • "when people are software", "a more insightful AI" (you are assuming a specific futuristic model now)
  • "exploration" and "exploitation" (you are selecting a specific algorithmic problem; why?)
Comment author: steven0461 23 May 2009 11:24:20PM 1 point [-]

He said "its presentation is borderline insane", not "its author is insane". Argumentative hygiene, please.

(Is there a case for valuing some kinds of insanity because the best contributors to a rationalist group are not always the best individual rationalists for division-of-labor reasons? Should we ever think in terms of "psychiatric diversity"?)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit