= 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)
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.