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.

RobertLumley 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: RobertLumley 26 March 2012 04:52:40PM *  4 points [-]

I don't think anyone in HPMOR is "just evil". Just like no one is "just good".

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 March 2012 07:12:23PM 19 points [-]

Dementors are just evil. Fawkes is just good.

Comment author: Alsadius 27 March 2012 12:30:12AM 16 points [-]

The problem is, Fawkes fits a little too well into the Spaceballs maxim - "Evil will always prevail, because good is dumb". Fawkes certainly has a purity of intent that'd put any of the human characters to shame, but the consequences are not always quite so good as would be hoped.

(Incidentally, the comparison you drew makes me notice something - if Harry is searching for eternal life, there's a path to resurrection that neither MoR!Harry nor canon!Voldemort has noticed - phoenixes seem pretty good at that sort of thing. Mentioning them as an absolute contrast to dementors makes me wonder just how strong an antithesis they actually are, and if that might be an answer.)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 March 2012 12:22:31PM *  3 points [-]

Fawkes certainly has a purity of intent that'd put any of the human characters to shame, but the consequences are not always quite so good as would be hoped.

This is not a problem. Dementors are also not particularly cunning; there are other players.

Comment author: RobertLumley 26 March 2012 07:18:15PM *  0 points [-]

I think I viewed them more as forces than people. But is this WOG against the people pedanterrific refers to in this comment?

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 March 2012 07:32:06PM 1 point [-]

Against? How could a thing be pure evil if it's controlled by people's expectations of its behavior?

Comment author: RobertLumley 26 March 2012 07:43:38PM *  0 points [-]

I'm confused. I may misunderstand you. Your second sentence seems to support that it would be evidence against, but I read your first as incredulous of my question.

ETA: Nevermind. I understand now. I did not phrase my question well. I meant WOG against the people that you are disagreeing with in the comment.

Comment author: pedanterrific 26 March 2012 07:45:56PM 0 points [-]

When you said this, did you mean my theory of independent decision making, or what I referred to as Harry's initial hypothesis?

Comment author: RobertLumley 26 March 2012 07:47:56PM 0 points [-]

I've edited my initial query to make it clear.

Comment author: bogdanb 26 March 2012 07:30:57PM 1 point [-]

I don’t think Eliezer meant that they’re necessarily sapient, only in the sense that one might say “slavery is evil” or (closer to the point) “death is evil”.