You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 12 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Xachariah 25 March 2012 11:01AM

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

Comments (692)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 26 March 2012 11:40:08AM *  23 points [-]

Lily's last conversation with Voldemort just so happens to replicate the requirements of a Dark ritual - you name the thing sacrificed, and then the thing to be gained.

I've always considered the protection Harry had by Lily's "Love" (in canon) to be essentially dark magic done by Lily. She spent her own life to cast a ridiculously powerful and specific spell of protection on her son. The 'power of love' nonsense is true only in the mundane sense of the term. It was the motivation to use the spell. This doesn't devalue the power of love - that's how love really works - it influences the incentive of intelligent agents.

How much of this is Dumbledore actually guilty of? Do we know or suspect other trickeries, or have other evidence?

I wouldn't place this one in the realm of 'guilt'. Assuming things happened according your story, Dumbledore gave Lily the power to do something that she wanted to do (sacrifice, save). Helping other people save their babies does not accrue guilt.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 March 2012 03:03:44AM 0 points [-]

She spent her own life to cast a ridiculously powerful and specific spell of protection on her son.

I like that. Definite improvement over canon.

Comment author: pedanterrific 27 March 2012 04:48:06AM 2 points [-]

I've always considered the protection Harry had by Lily's "Love" (in canon) to be essentially dark magic done by Lily. She spent her own life to cast a ridiculously powerful and specific spell of protection on her son.

?

Comment author: wedrifid 27 March 2012 08:43:55AM *  3 points [-]

I interpreted buybuy as claiming that at some point JKR or some authoritative HP encyclopedia or suchlike explicitly affirmed that there is a literal "Love Magic" in place - rather than that being just a description by Dumbledore. I let it pass, without agreeing. I'm not aware of JKR saying any such thing but nor would I expect to be, I haven't looked and don't especially want to hear it. If there is literal love magic I'd hold that in the same esteem as I hold the rules of Quidditch. (Also, midichlorians never happened.)

Comment author: thelittledoctor 27 March 2012 03:46:01PM 2 points [-]

Upvoted primarily for the sentence in parentheses.

Comment author: Alsadius 27 March 2012 06:16:03PM 0 points [-]

Midichlorians were totally inoffensive by comparison to everything else in that godforsaken movie. I don't see why a fairly advanced civilization being able to stick a number on Force potential gets nearly as much hate as it does.

Comment author: TobyBartels 31 March 2012 06:51:56PM 0 points [-]

Wedrifid, do not read Deathly Hallows. It will disappoint you. (Personally, I was pleased; it could have been a lot worse.)

Comment author: wedrifid 01 April 2012 02:06:29PM *  0 points [-]

I read all the Harry Potter books the first day they came out. From what I recall of Hallows... the first half was "Frodo and Sam walked a lot" but with more pouting.

Comment author: TobyBartels 01 April 2012 05:49:43PM *  0 points [-]

Then we must have interpreted it differently. I took the existence of literal love magic as pretty firmly established by the protection granted by Harry to every good guy in the Battle of Hogwarts. I'm having difficulty imagining how anything Rowling says could make this story-breaking power worthy of any lower esteem. (And I am only thinking of the second half, which was the interesting one.)

Comment author: wedrifid 01 April 2012 06:02:39PM 2 points [-]

I'm having difficulty imagining how anything Rowling says could make this story-breaking power worthy of any lower esteem.

Lower esteem? By no means. Merely more reductionist detail and less Dumbledorish drivel. Sacrificing one's life to make a protection spell over a loved one is in no way diminished if the magic mechanism doesn't sound like it was developed by carebears.

Comment author: TobyBartels 01 April 2012 06:16:11PM 0 points [-]

OK, I'm pretty thoroughly confused. When you write

I haven't looked and don't especially want to hear it.

what don't you want to hear? And what more would have to be true to trigger the hypothesis in

If there is literal love magic I'd hold that in the same esteem as I hold the rules of Quidditch.

Comment author: Alsadius 27 March 2012 04:40:46AM 1 point [-]

I've heard it argued as being the case in canon, but poorly explained. (That may have been pre-Deathly Hallows, though). Agreed, it's much better.