= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eneasz comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (1221)
I've always had a soft spot for Quirrell. It's made me blind to a lot of his flaws, so I've tried to actively focus on his evil actions and how much I would hate someone doing that to me. But this latest chapter made me love him all over again. Even though I realize it probably contains huge amounts of misrepresentation if not outright lies.
I'm worried I may be turning Bad.
OTOH, this may just be superb writing, to make the villain so completely relate-able. Either way, every time a chapter goes Quirrell-heavy I swoon. Glad we got one in the current arc so I don't have to wait longer.
You need not trouble yourself. Examining Quirrell's actions has merely made you realize how much you would like to have his power. "Bad" is just a label applied by those too weak to seize that power.
Do not fear the dark side - we have cookies!
Um, no. Just because we're evil doesn't mean we have to lie carelessly. Let's leave the Captain Planet villainy to Ferris Bueller (that asshole).
"Bad" in the sense you mean is a label placed on behaviors by individuals or groups who wish to discourage those behaviors, usually because it is beneficial to themselves to suppress those behaviors without regard to the benefit or detriment of others who may engage in those behaviors.. I have to say 'usually' because sometimes they do so for stupid reasons instead of self-interest.
Recognize the behaviors to which labels like 'bad' or 'evil' are likely to be applied, and practice them judiciously. A life well lived is a lift filled with risk, but weigh each carefully, determine to the best of your ability if your 'evil' behaviors are worth the risk and act accordingly. And for the sake of all that is unholy, learn for your damned mistakes.
-Lord Voldemort
Yes, and look where that got him, eh? Someone's out there arguing that no one could sincerely be that evil, that he's got to be faking it. And that argument got over fifty karma.
"Selfish" is a wrong word in this context, for what you mean is person's (idealized) goals/values, which are probably not purely selfish.
I am unsure that I understand your objection to the word, but I will replace it with a complicated phrase to try and be more clear.
And thank you for that link; that is an interesting article. The choice between stubbing my toe and a complete stranger being tortured for fifty years without my knowledge is especially interesting. I experience empathy, so I expect that amount of suffering by another when linked by the petty intimacy of being the person to allow/make it happen will create more suffering for me than would stubbing my toe.
If I would never know, though, if it were wiped from my mind that it happened or that I played a part, then the right choice is the other's torture, not stubbing my own toe. But it is difficult to say so, it is difficult to separate myself-deciding from myself-living-with-it.
Or maybe the suffering-by-empathy at the very point of deciding to sentence the other to the fifty-year oubliette of torture is greater than the direct suffering of stubbing my toe. Curious.
The right choice? Who is it telling you that you've got to have the other person tortured, if you just happen not to feel like it?
I may not understand what you're asking. Is this an internal family thing? There is only me in here, even if I talk to myself in thought.
The problem I have with the dilemma is that it expects me to separate myself-as-I-answer from myself-as-I-live-with-my-choice. If I had a realistic example, that might help
Scenario 1
me-who-answers : "I empathize with the fifty years of as yet hypothetical suffering of a stranger, and choosing that causes me more pain than I expect to feel from stubbing my toe, so I will choose to stub my toe."
me-who-lives-with-my-choice : "Ow! What the fuck did you do that for?"
me-who-answers : "So a stranger wouldn't suffer torture for fifty years."
stranger : "Yeah, thanks for that. You don't know how much that means to me."
me-who-lives-with-my-choice : "Yeah, you're right. I do not and cannot ever know, so he did not decide that for my sake. He decided it for himself. So, me-who-answers, how's that working out for you?"
me-who-answers : "Oh, I don't exist anymore."
me-who-lives-with-my-choice : "Well fuck you, toe-stubber!"
Scenario 2
me-who-answers : "Despite empathizing with the fifty years of as yet hypothetical suffering of a stranger, I recognize that I am ephemeral and my discomfort with this decision is less important than lasting effects on my successor."
me-who-lives-with-my-choice : whistles ignorantly
stranger : "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Just because your memory is going to get wiped afterwards does not mean that your on-the-spot preference is worth any less than post-memory-wipe-You's. If you had a choice between being memory wiped, then stubbing your toe; versus taking a powerful kick to the balls now, then being memory wiped, I doubt you would sigh and spread your legs.
If you are gifted (or, in this particular case, cursed) with enough empathy that the very act of deciding to condemn a stranger to torture causes you pain, then I'm not sure you can concoct a hypothetical scenario wherein you can ignore said empathy while retaining your agency and/or identity.
It really does, though. post-memory-wipe me lasts a lot longer. On-the-spot-me only exists until he decides.
Whoa, hey now. That's not just pain, that's an indignity. But you're right.
(Apples-to-apples I'd take the worst headache I've ever had if I wouldn't remember it and knew there'd be no long term damage over stubbing my toe in a conventional fashion.)
I wouldn't call it "pain," but it is an unwelcome experience. Beyond a the risk of retribution or similar consequences, isn't that why you don't hurt the people you can hurt? Aren't there experiences you would not call pain that you'd choose pain over? I get the feeling that I'm missing something obvious, here.
I've got an idea why I was hesitating instead of taking the easy answer in the first place. I think it felt like a trick question and I fixed on the not-remembering part. It was so out of place, so wild that it just had to determine the answer. Like, why would you put that in the question if it wasn't what the question was about?
Acting without remembering has to be irrelevant, it's just too damn far out of scope. I'm never going to appreciate it on a meat level and don't need to plan for making decisions with that caveat. Fuck that noise.
Some skills aren't especially useful outside of the environment that spawned them.
I would like to learn why this comment has been penalized..
Upon further reflection, I think the question of "how much of the pain/suffering/unpleasantness/etc. from a given even happens on the spot, and how much lingers on in the memory?" has an answer that wildly varies, even for the same individual.
The worst physical pain I ever felt involved a certain surgical operation, but it causes me no discomfort whatsoever to remember it; conversely, I once got stung by an unknown insect while still half-asleep, and the thought still makes me twitch and clutch at my neck. On a more mental level, there are a few seemingly random subjects that make me flinch and feel burning shame whenever brought up, because almost a decade ago I happened to make a fool of myself in conversations that involved them; yet those were by no means the most sorrowful moments of my life, or even the most embarrassing.
So I would consider the question "would you take X pre-memory wipe, or Y post-wipe?" highly dependant on X and Y. And yes, I find myself agreeing that X='condemn a stranger to torture' would be exactly the kind of event that inflicts the majority of its suffering through memory and regret.
Is he actually loyal to his students or Up To Something?.
Could be both. In any case I think it's a fair assumption that Quirrell is always up to something.
This is driving me crazy.
I never know when he's doing evil or not. This chapter, for example, led me to believe he was doing good at some point of his life. Although my rationalist-beginner-side is screaming at me he is Voldemort or something, I can't help but sympathize with that point.
Um, his "good" deed consisted of attempting to set up a fake ultimate hero and getting really pissed of when people didn't fall for it.
We don't actually know that yet. It's only a popular fan theory.
Velorien should not be downvoted. He asked himself the fundamental question of rationality:
and the fact of the matter is, we don't know that that's true, it is a falsifiable theory with supporting evidence and multiple proponents but we don't know yet.
Upvoted.
I think he takes his responsibilities seriously. His evil comes from his condemnation of the weakness, stupidity, cowardice, and irresponsibility of others. He lives up to his standards, but others don't.
I'm confident that is how Quirrell is meant to appear. But the villain's real face may be a bit of a riddle.
Groan.
You know you love it.
I do, that's the worst part.
I agree that he takes his responsibilities seriously. But I think his evil comes more from the fact that he almost certainly had some plot in mind when he freed Bellatrix, and the fact that he tried to get Hermione fed to Dementors because he didn't like the influence she was having on Harry.
Who doesn't have plots in this book? I hardly think that's a test for evil in this book - more like a test for intelligence.
And we don't know that he tried to get Hermione fed to the Dementors. When I try to read his mind on that point, I think his main goal was to get Harry to turn against the government of magical Britain - and it seemed like a fine success in those terms, at least in the moment.
See previous comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/bfo/harry_potter_and_the_methods_of_rationality/68tv
Assuming that it was all a Quirrell plot - which I do at this point - he could also have redeemed Hermione at the last minute with some evidence after she was condemned, and his point with magical Britain had been made. And he could get some Good Guy points with Harry for saving Hermione. Maybe not too, but it's hardly certain he would have allowed her to die.
Not the best test. Ron is intelligent. Ron does not appear to plot, only form and employ strategy.
Like he did with Harry against the Dementor.
Like he claimed he intended to do with the auror he threw an AK at.
Like he did in the Draco the Drop Lord Theatre incident. We should be suspicious of that one, as well.
Like he did as Voldemort when he set his Forces of Evil up to self destruct after he left the game, thereby sparing the rest of the world.
I don't think Hermione plots, at least not outside the wargame.
Also, Quirrell would want her influence to be removed from Harry. Much as I hate to admit it, this would probably have extended to allowing her to die.
Remember: Quirrell can care about his students any time he likes, because he's not Good.
Or perhaps it's more accurately phrased as "I can show up the good guys any time I want to make them look bad, because I'm not constrained by the same fear of ill consequences that they are".
Upvoted for letting me know I'm not the only one.