Armok_GoB comments on Open Thread, November 1 - 7, 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: witzvo 02 November 2013 04:37PM

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

Comments (299)

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

Comment author: Armok_GoB 07 November 2013 04:52:57PM 0 points [-]

Seems I were wrong about you not understanding the word thing. Apologies.

You keep saying that word "independent". I'm starting to think we might not disagree about any objective properties of tulpas, just things need to be "independent" or only the most important count towards your utility, but I just add up the identifiable patterns not caring about if they overlap. Metaphor: tulpas are "10101101", you're saying "101" occurs 2 times, I'm saying "101" occurs 3 times.

I'm fairly certain talking to bodies that claim those things would not change my probability estimates on those claims unless powerful brainwashing techniques were used, and I certainly hope the same is the case for you. If I believed that doing that would predictably shift my beliefs I'd already have those beliefs. Conservation of Expected Evidence.

((You can move a tulpa between minds to, probably, it just requires a lot of high tech, unethical surgery, and work. And probably gives the old host permanent severe brain damage. Same as with any other kind of incommunicable memory.))

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 November 2013 05:20:26PM 1 point [-]

You keep saying that word "independent".

(shrug) Well, I certainly agree that when I interact with a tulpa, I am interacting with a person... specifically, I'm interacting with the person whose tulpa it is, just as I am when I interact with a PC in an RPG.

What I disagree with is the claim that the tulpa has the moral status of a person (even a newborn person) independent of the moral status of the person whose tulpa it is.

I'm fairly certain talking to bodies that claim those things would not change my probability estimates on those claims unless powerful brainwashing techniques were used, and I certainly hope the same is the case for you.

On what grounds do you believe that? As I say, I observe that such experiences frequently convince other people; without some grounds for believing that I'm relevantly different from other people, my prior (your hopes notwithstanding) is that they stand a good chance of convincing me too. Ditto for talking to a tulpa.

((You can move a tulpa between minds to, probably, it just requires a lot of high tech, unethical surgery, and work. And probably gives the old host permanent severe brain damage. Same as with any other kind of incommunicable memory.))

(shrug) I don't deny this (though I'm not convinced of it either) but I don't see the relevance of it.

Comment author: Armok_GoB 07 November 2013 06:53:41PM 0 points [-]

Yea this seems to definitely be just a fundamental values conflict. Let's just end the conversation here.