= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Velorien comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapters 105-107 - 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)
Comments (353)
Quirrell's Parseltongue statements could use a close reading.
This could just mean that the Pioneer horcrux prevents him from being "truly killed".
This seems quite explicit. Quirrell thinks that he can bring Hermione back to life.
(Not in Parseltongue.) Quirrell later asks Harry in Parseltongue to promise to help get the Stone, but he never says in Parseltongue that help getting the Stone is what he actually wants from Harry.
Does this rule out Quirrell transferring his soul into Harry's body (wiping out Harry's identity and reuniting with the Tom Riddle groundwork that he laid in Harry's mind)? Because without this line, that would be my leading hypothesis for what Quirrell actually wants Harry for.
I thought it was worth revisiting Quirrell's past uses of Parseltongue. Most are nothing noteworthy, but there are a few interesting ones in Chapter 58.
Quirrell was telling the truth about not trying to kill Bahry.
While this could be literally true, or only true in the context of the hypothetical scenario suggested by Harry, it is worth noting that Quirrell never says in Parseltongue that the healer waiting for Bellatrix is real.
This one sounds important now that we know it is definitely true (or at least was at the time).
What does "you" mean, though? Tom Riddle? In which case Quirrell could just as well be speaking of himself. The physical body others designate "Harry"? In which case Quirrell could just permanently transfigure himself into Harry's body using the stone, shoot Harry and vanish the body and claim "Quirrell" had urgent business elsewhere.
If Voldemort (or whatever created both Voldemort and Harry) consideres Potter the same person as himself, then "I do not intend to raisse my hand or magic againsst you in future, sso long ass you do not raisse your hand or magic againsst me." is a tautology and always true.
This is probably not the case however, as it would feel like a very cheap language trick given that Quirrel has used "you" and "I" in parseltongue in a non-ambiguous manner several times already. Even worse, if Quirrel was going by this then he'd risk Harry picking up the trick and promising to help himself get the stone, and not consider it a betrayal.
What if Quirrell is so good at dissociation that he can lie through parseltongue by convincing himself that what he's saying is true?
Canon!Voldemort, maybe. MoR!Voldemort, not a chance.
But rationalists should win, so MoR!Voldie should self-modify to be less Spock-rational and more capable of deceiving himself.
Only if the ability to lie to Harry Potter is more valuable than having a clearly-functioning mind that accurately represents the real world.
Well, I'm not denying that it's a Dark Art. He'd have to apply this very selectively. I couldn't pull it off. Eliezer probably couldn't pull it off. But this is Quirinus Quirrell we're talking about!
Edit after Ch 109: That's actually pretty similar.
Were any of these said by Quirrell as a snake, as opposed to Parselspeaking as a human?
All of them, as this is the first time Q hasn't turned into his Snake form first...
For that matter, why did he ever bother turning into his snake form? Just to make Harry think he had the limitation of not being able to speak Parseltongue while human, for some reason?
Voldemort is the last known Parselmouth, so it would be highly suspicious for Quirrell to also be one.
Looks like I misunderstood the relevant passage in Chapter 49--when Quirrell confirms that other snake Animagi can't overhear them, he isn't implying that you also have to be a Parselmouth, he's implying that he can only understand Harry because Harry wills it.
For an obvious reason - pretend to have more limits than you do, to be underestimated.
This makes me wonder whether we can trust anything Quirrell said as a snake. Let's say Parseltongue is "the ability to speak in snake language" and was created by Slytherin so that his heirs would have a way to talk to each other in a trusting way (plus so they could talk to snakes, because he liked snakes). Then Harry or Quirrell speaking as humans in Parseltongue are using Slytherin's creation, but Quirrell speaking as a snake animagus is just doing normal snake-talk and wouldn't have the restriction.
But Quirrell's justification RE Parseltongue was "snakes can't lie". So if we believe his explanation to begin with, we must assume that normal snake-talk is equally trustworthy.
Another possibility is that snakes can't lie (lying depends on some brain feature they lack) and Parselmouthing people can't lie (part of how it works) but a snake animagus is neither and so can lie.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that EY would endorse the claim that lying depends on a brain feature that snakes lack. Lying in the sense of deliberate deception requires a theory of mind of the one being deceived, and snakes aren't that intelligent, or so I believe that EY believes (and for that matter believe myself).
OTOH, snakes aren't intelligent enough to talk either; in HPMOR, they only do so by borrowing the mind of the Parseltonguer. And Parseltonguers can conceive of other minds, both for the benefit of snakes and for their own speech. So this doesn't prove anything.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's EY's model.
But a snake animagus doesn't have a snake brain; you keep your normal mind while you're an animagus.
Yes, I agree. So if Quirrel were deliberately trying to mislead, ‘Snakes can't lie.’ would be a great statement to use.
Or it's almost all truth with one crucial lie.
Does that matter?
(If you're suggesting that snakes -- even ones that are actually human animagi -- can lie when speaking Parseltongue even though humans apparently can't, where does that come from? If conversely you're suggesting that snakes can't but humans can, surely Harry's failure to say 2+2=3 in Parseltongue is strong evidence against that.)
That definitely hints that part of the plan is to make use of Harrymort in some way, which makes the "why the hell did he bring Harry along" part make sense.