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.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, July 2014, chapter 102

7 Post author: David_Gerard 26 July 2014 11:26AM

New chapter!

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 102.

There is a site dedicated to the story at hpmor.com, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on hpmor.com.) 

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Comments (370)

Sort By: Leading
Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 12:03:52AM *  27 points [-]

I may be pointing out the obvious, but...

Professor Quirrell closed his eyes. His head leaned back into the pillow. "You were lucky," the Defense Professor said in a soft voice, "that a unicorn in Transfigured form... did not set off the Hogwarts wards, as a strange creature... I shall have to... take this outside the grounds, to make use of it... but that can be managed. I shall tell them that I wish to look upon the lake... I will ask you to sustain the Transfiguration before you go, and it should last long enough, after that... and with my last strength, dispel whatever death-alarms were placed to watch over the herd... which, the unicorn being not yet dead, but only Transfigured, will not yet have triggered... you were very lucky, Mr. Potter."

This is how the troll was smuggled into Hogwarts without the wards going off. In all likelihood, Quirrell had the transfigured troll on his person when Dumbledore identified to the Hogwarts wards "The Defense Professor stands within this circle". Trolls self-transfigure as a form of regeneration, so the transfiguration would not kill the troll or be detectable.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 July 2014 07:22:04PM *  14 points [-]

This suggests that the troll was known to Hogwarts as "The Defense Professor", and so explains what the wards reported:

"... The wards of Hogwarts record that no foreign creature has entered, and that it was the Defense Professor who killed Hermione Granger."

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 12:58:55PM 3 points [-]

So, people did not think this was obvious?

Screw that. I am willing to bet $50 US (1:1) that Mr. Hat & Cloak is Baba Yaga.

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 01:10:46PM 6 points [-]

I would take you up on that, but in my memory palace one of the walls is occupied by a large chalkboard covered with lines of "I will not underestimate Eliezer Yudkowsky".

Comment author: lmm 28 July 2014 07:57:57PM 4 points [-]

I'm interested in taking you up on this. Could you give a more explicit definition? How will the bet be resolved?

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 02:14:05AM 3 points [-]

I'm not picky on definitions. "The entity Hermione called 'Mister Incredibly Suspicious Person' has Baba Yaga's memories." That definition is looser than it needs to be, but I'm giving you generous odds.

Resolution would be informal, with us PMing payment instructions to each other. The payment information I would send you would be cheap, non-sketchy, and anonymous for me. We might agree to call the bet off by February 28th 2014 if the bet is not resolved by then. If there's somehow a definitional dispute, we work it out, possibly with someone else on the forum arbitrating. Default option is to cancel the bet.

If I lose the bet I will laugh it off. You probably should not accept unless you would do the same.

Comment author: lmm 29 July 2014 06:57:27PM 3 points [-]

I think the most likely scenario is that we'll hear no more about either of them. So I want to win that case; if the two are unrelated then I doubt we'll hear anything explicit to that effect.

Rather than worry about what's "cheap" let's just say the loser pays $50 gross, any payment fees or the like can come out of the winnings. And I'll stipulate that anything bitcoiny qualifies as sketchy.

And yeah, $50 is an amount that I can comfortably toss for online entertainment without checking my bank balance.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 07:14:21PM 3 points [-]

How about this stipulation: if the name Baba Yaga does not appear in the book again, and Eliezer Yudkowsky does not Word of God that Mr. Hat & Cloak is Baba Yaga, you win. I'm expecting Baba Yaga to be important, and if she's not mentioned again or only mentioned offhandedly I will likely concede.

We are on the same page about payments.

Comment author: lmm 30 July 2014 07:26:17AM 9 points [-]

Sounds fair enough. So we have a bet?

Comment author: solipsist 30 July 2014 11:11:58AM 9 points [-]

We have a bet. It's on!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 February 2015 04:33:32PM 6 points [-]

By request, I declare solipsist to have lost this bet.

Comment author: solipsist 04 December 2014 02:28:38AM 1 point [-]

The latest progress report suggests that chapters will resume in February, so the story might not finish until March. Extend the bet's expiration date to March 31st, 2015?

Comment author: lmm 04 December 2014 08:05:49AM 1 point [-]

Sure. Happy to push it out a bit longer actually, as I'm not confident there won't be further slippage; how about extending until June 30th?

Comment author: solipsist 04 December 2014 11:02:21AM 1 point [-]

Sure.

Comment author: gwern 28 July 2014 06:29:34PM 3 points [-]

How do you go from the old Quirrel troll-in-pocket theory to Hat & Cloak == Baba Yaga? And which Hat & Cloak?

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 08:27:23PM *  2 points [-]

I updated on the probability that something could seem strikingly obvious on a first reading, escape the notice of hundreds of very smart people, have little direct evidence, and still be true.

I didn't realize that there were multiple Hat & Cloaks. I meant the ones that appeared to Blaize Zabini and to Hermione, if that limits them.

Comment author: Khoth 28 July 2014 06:30:58PM 2 points [-]

Why Baba Yaga?

Comment author: arundelo 29 July 2014 02:42:03AM 4 points [-]

She's mentioned in at least three chapters. In chapter 12 Quirrell describes her as the "quote undying unquote Baba Yaga". (To my knowledge she's not mentioned at all by Rowling.) The Law of Conservation of Detail tells us that she is going to be plot-relevant somehow.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:39:52AM 5 points [-]

(To my knowledge she's not mentioned at all by Rowling.)

I can never see references to her without amusement. Bear in mind that the "canonical" Baba Yaga of Russian folklore is a cantankerous old witch who hobbles around with one leg made of bone, lives in a hut on chicken legs, and uses a giant mortar and pestle as her transport of choice. Such a character would make the likes of Hagrid and Moody seem wholly pedestrian.

Eliezer's re-imagining of her as a Dark Lady, meanwhile, just summons the most fantastic mental images.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 12:15:20PM 2 points [-]

I'll add "The Massacre of Albania in the Fifteenth Century", a book title which triggered my brain's foreshadowing alarm in chapter 26.

The "undying" Witch Formerly Known As Baba Yaga has gone by many names, including Nicholas Flamel.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 02:19:28AM *  4 points [-]

I've suspected Baba Yaga would be dramatically revealed since the sentence I read her name. Since then there's been no shortage of evidence which can be somehow contorted to confirm my theory.

Comment author: ikacer 04 August 2014 03:58:16PM 1 point [-]

I have some evidence opposing your theory.

EY has made a habit of throwing references to other fanfics in HPMOR. For example, David Monroe is a character in A Black Comedy. Baba Yaga appears in many fanfics, most famously in Turn Me Loose: A Harry Potter Adventure, where she is an immortal Dark Lady.

Comment author: hairyfigment 29 July 2014 07:19:18AM 1 point [-]

I'll take that bet, if it's still open. Though please see the possible spoiler in my previous comment if you're basing this on your interpretation of Eliezer's motives.

Comment author: Jurily 30 July 2014 01:53:49AM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure he'd needed to do that. Until we hear otherwise, he has access to all the knowledge of Salazar, who knew enough to build Hogwarts. Which also means the source code to the wards and the means to change them.

Can you even transfigure something that transfigures itself back? Of course Quirrell can do it if it's possible, but is it possible?

Comment author: Velorien 30 July 2014 10:33:03AM 1 point [-]

Until we hear otherwise, he has access to all the knowledge of Salazar, who knew enough to build Hogwarts.

This may be an exaggeration. First, it seems improbable that Salazar entrusted all his magical knowledge to the basilisk, if only because that would have been a ridiculous amount of magical knowledge. Salazar wouldn't have known which pieces of knowledge from his time were going to become lost, only that some would based on existing trends, so if he was going to tell the basilisk everything he thought valuable, it would have taken forever. Also, there's no reason to believe that basilisks have perfect memories - unless I'm misremembering, the basilisk as a species was chosen for its snakeness, deadliness and longevity rather than its intellect.

Which also means the source code to the wards and the means to change them.

Salazar was only responsible for part of Hogwarts. We don't know that he was at all responsible for the wards, only that he had admin access to them (in order to make them ignore the basilisk), which is no surprise since he was one of the four founders. We also don't know that Godric didn't revoke said admin access after Salazar betrayed him and left, in which case that portion of Salazar's knowledge would be useless. In fact, it would be downright weird if Godric hadn't done so.

Can you even transfigure something that transfigures itself back? Of course Quirrell can do it if it's possible, but is it possible?

Since I feel the wrathful shade of Professor McGonagall watching over my shoulder, I'm going to say "I don't know". But if I had to guess, a transfigured object takes on all the properties of its new form, including the property of "not having troll regenerative powers". So if you could initially transfigure the troll faster than its regeneration kicked in, you'd have no trouble maintaining it thereafter.

Comment author: 75th 01 August 2014 04:26:30AM *  3 points [-]

First, it seems improbable that Salazar entrusted all his magical knowledge to the basilisk, if only because that would have been a ridiculous amount of magical knowledge.

Well, it's not like he had to teach the Basilisk a full Hogwarts curriculum; he only had to teach it what he knew that triggered the Interdict of Merlin, which is only the top whateverth percentile of his repertoire.

Salazar wouldn't have known which pieces of knowledge from his time were going to become lost,

Sure he could have. All he had to do was write down the most powerful stuff he knew in descending order until he got to the point where someone else started understanding what they were reading.

Also, there's no reason to believe that basilisks have perfect memories

The Basilisk may not have a perfect memory as an animal, but it "would be huge flaw in sscheme" if Salazar's magical Parseltongue knowledge was corruptible by the limitations of any old snake's brain.

Salazar was only responsible for part of Hogwarts. We don't know that he was at all responsible for the wards, only that he had admin access to them…. We also don't know that Godric didn't revoke said admin access after Salazar betrayed him and left

I think you're extending your computer analogy too far. Salazar didn't have a revocable password to the wards, he knew the magic that created them, and the rest of the Founders certainly did not have the power to revoke spells from the Source of Magic.

Don't get me wrong, I think we're meant to understand that Quirrell did smuggle in the troll as a small transfigured object that Dumbledore drew his circle around. But nevertheless, I think we should also assume until further notice that h̶e̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶s̶ whoever got the basilisk's knowledge got the most powerful magic that Slytherin knew.

EDIT: Hedged my last sentence, since Chapter 102's horcrux information introduces potential ambiguity as to how Tom Riddle's knowledge has been propagated amongst his alter egos' bodies.

Comment author: Velorien 01 August 2014 09:50:57AM 1 point [-]

Well, it's not like he had to teach the Basilisk a full Hogwarts curriculum; he only had to teach it what he knew that triggered the Interdict of Merlin, which is only the top whateverth percentile of his repertoire.

Fair point. I'd forgotten about the Interdict. With that said (and this applies to your second point as well), it seems unlikely that the Interdict of Merlin is the only reason for knowledge to be lost over time. For example, Riddle apparently found the horcrux ritual in a book, and that seems like powerful mostly-lost knowledge. Also, wizard society generally seems much worse at knowledge maximisation than muggle society. (side thought: is there even a single mention in either canon of wizard universities?)

The Basilisk may not have a perfect memory as an animal, but it "would be huge flaw in sscheme" if Salazar's magical Parseltongue knowledge was corruptible by the limitations of any old snake's brain.

True. One has to wonder, generally speaking, just how the whole thing worked, given that Parseltongue seems to blur terms for which it does not have an exact parallel ("schoolmaster", "hourglass to move through time"), and that seems like it would be a problem for advanced spell instructions.

I think you're extending your computer analogy too far. Salazar didn't have a revocable password to the wards, he knew the magic that created them, and the rest of the Founders certainly did not have the power to revoke spells from the Source of Magic.

We don't know that. The four founders came together to raise Hogwarts in the first place, suggesting that each of them knew only some of the magic necessary. There is no reason to believe that Salazar was the one who knew the magic for the Hogwarts wards, rather than, say, Rowena.

Additionally, you don't need to revoke a spell from the Source of Magic to prevent someone else making use of it. Going back to the computer analogy, being a system's original programmer doesn't mean you can automatically hack into any instance of that system. It is worth remembering that once Salazar left, it would have been three magical prodigies against one in the matter of establishing Hogwarts security.

Likewise don't get me wrong, I think it's reasonable to assume that whoever got the basilisk's knowledge got at least some very powerful magic from Slytherin; I just don't think we should overestimate how much that was.

Comment author: Benito 28 July 2014 10:22:48AM 1 point [-]

That is a nice theory.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 03:33:14AM *  1 point [-]

Speculative:

Quirrell couldn't have made the troll sun resistant, since Harry touched the troll and he can't touch Quirrell magic. Explanations include:

  1. Quirrell legilimensed (say) Professor Sprout to jinx the troll
  2. Hat & Cloak (who is not Quirrell) jinxed and redirected Quirrell's troll towards Hermione. Quirrell had ulterior motives for releasing the troll (e.g. as a distraction so Snape could pull Philosopher stone mischief).
Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 02:00:51PM 2 points [-]

Alternatively there are some magic portions that can be used to make the troll sun resistant.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 July 2014 12:50:47PM *  25 points [-]

Harry seems to have forgotten the fact that he rescued Bellatrix from Azkaban. It one of those things he should ask about when asked for unsaid stuff between the two. Given Harry's knowledge of wizard medicine Quirrell could simply die the next week and take all the knowledge about Bellatrix with him to his grave.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 26 July 2014 06:46:14PM *  24 points [-]

Lets see: Data and implications, assuming Quirrelmort is keeping up his habit of only rarely telling direct lies: Dark and sacrificial magic tends to kill you in the end, and neither the original Voldemort, nor Quirrelmort had a fix for this. The horcrux spell forks your identity, imperfectly, and also carries wholly unacceptable costs to anyone moral. So, you know, nothing voldy cares about.

Theory: Facing his own inevitable demise from accumulated sacrifice damage, Voldy attempted to fix the flaws in the horcrux process - First he attempted to bypass the loss of knowledge by targeting a strong wizard as the possession target - heck, that might have been part of the point of the campaign of terror - to draw out wizards with real power from obscurity. And so he ended up fighting both sides of that war, because he took Monroe's body while still remaining Voldemort full time. The personality divergence from imprinting himself on a mind that strong, however, was more than Voldemort considered acceptable, and thus he targeted Harry. At a guess, he worked out how to remove the carrier object from the spell so that the death of Harry's mother would copy him directly into the mind of baby Harry - who being a baby, would have very little in the way of a personality. The change to the rite also involved torching his then-current body. Heck, maybe all he did was use himself as the horcrux- but this was acceptable, because it was falling apart from sacrifice damage anyway. All of which worked fine, except babies forget just about everything that happens before the fifth year of life so the immaculate transfer of Voldemort's entire mind got wiped by infant amnesia.

Lets see: Stone theories: "True power isn't what people say it is". Gold is not wealth - that is a wizard and goblin misconception, and youth isn't a mystical quality, it is a body functioning correctly.

I am sticking with my theory that the alchemist stone is simply the second level version of the Reparo spell. The one that works on people. - It grants great wealth because it works on everything, which turns second hand and broken magical items, art, ect, into a trivial source of income, and it makes you immortal because age is just damage. Heck, it will likely raise the dead as long as their remains are still recognizably "a broken person".

Comment author: [deleted] 27 July 2014 09:34:28AM 6 points [-]

All of which worked fine, except babies forget just about everything that happens before the fifth year of life so the immaculate transfer of Voldemort's entire mind got wiped by infant amnesia.

I assumed that babies just didn't store long-term memories in the first place, but I've looked it up on Wikipedia and it sounds like I was mistaken. Huh.

Comment author: DanielLC 26 July 2014 10:47:48PM 2 points [-]

If the philosopher's stone is nearly as good at healing as you suggest, then it's a source of income because it's good at healing. What else do you need?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 July 2014 01:13:11AM *  5 points [-]

What else do you need?

A source of income you can use without attracting attention to your only source of income. (Otherwise, you risk losing it.) Such as, repairing objects when no one else is looking. If you buy a broken or damaged object from one person, fix it, and sell it to another person, no one needs to know you repaired it. But even if they know you repaired it, they don't have to know you repaired it using a magical artifact.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 04:49:14AM *  1 point [-]

Dark and sacrificial magic tends to kill you in the end, and neither the original Voldemort, nor Quirrelmort had a fix for this.

I'd say that it tends to kill your host meat sack. Not a problem if you can hop to a new one.

The horcrux spell forks your identity

The problem being the lack of continuity,

No continuity of ... sself, you would go on thinking after making the horcrux, then sself with new memoriess diess and iss not resstored -

Which would be avoided if your current host body dies in the transfer.

First he attempted to bypass the loss of knowledge by targeting a strong wizard as the possession target

I don't think that is necessary:

Alsso Merlin'ss Interdict preventss powerful sspells from passing through ssuch a device, ssince it iss not truly alive.

If the burst is channeled into a living person instead of a device, then Merlin's Interdict is avoided.

He transfers to a powerful wizard because that's the good place to be. Better than a rat.

And so he ended up fighting both sides of that war, because he took Monroe's body while still remaining Voldemort full time.

I think that's true. The war was not about taking over as the Dark Lord, it was about taking over as the Savior from the Dark Lord, as it is planned to be again with Harry.

See my top level post for a more fleshed out version of how I think Quirrell is preparing to upload to Harry.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 10:15:57PM *  16 points [-]

I think we're seeing the set up of the end game of the upload of Quirrellmort to Harry.

David Monroe, last descendant of a Noble House, family killed by Voldemort, the great champion to save Magical Britain against Voldemort. But instead of having the mass of Magical Britain rally around him, they generally make his difficult. When that plan of being a savior fails.

He then disappears. Poof.

Where is our champion now?

And poof! Harry Potter, last descendant of a Noble House, family killed by Voldemort, miraculously ends Voldemort rampage.

Years later, Monroe reappears as Quirrell, just in time to be the Defense Professor and mentor for this miraculous Harry Potter, who in fact is miraculous, for his age, or really any age. With a secret Dark Side that gives him great power. With so many similarities to Quirrell in personality and intelligence. With such a natural bond.

Perssonalitiess change, mix with victim'ss. Death iss not truly gainssaid. Real sself is losst, as you ssay. Not to my pressent tasste.

But if the victim is already very similar, perhaps more to his taste?

David Monroe, 2.0. Prepared as a baby to be a host. Prepared with a better history to be Savior of Magical Britain, prepared to be so similar to Quirrell.

We've got Harry bringing up Horcruxes, Quirrell going beyond his usual psycho smirk to burst out laughing, Quirrell explaining that a Horcrux is a ritual that transfers intelligence to an object, but woe is me,

Merlin'ss Interdict preventss powerful sspells from passing through ssuch a device, ssince it iss not truly alive.

If only there were objects that weren't not alive that the intelligence can pass into, then they'd get all the powerful spells too.

Oh, and by the way, I was going to teach you all my powerful spells, but you never asked, and now there is no time, no time.

If only there were a quick way to pass all my knowledge to you, but alas,...

Quirrell has Harry begging for this lost knowledge. Perhaps he'd also be begging to be part of a ritual to pass Quirrell's intelligence into him?

Other things.

Why forbid Harry from bringing him unicorns? For that matter, why didn't Quirrell feast on unicorns again and again to keep his strength up? Why doesn't he have a herd of them up in a ranch in the mountains somewhere?

Harry turned, stared at the surrounding trees. "Have a herd of unicorns at St. Mungos. Floo the patients there, or use portkeys."

"Yes, that would work."

The Sense of Doom is diminishing. Perhaps this is what would allow their magic to interact, and thereby complete the ritual? Perhaps that's why Quirrell isn't more effectively fighting his failing health. Or is that only to motivate Harry to look into methods or fighting death with some desperation?

EDIT
On the "uploading to a new body" idea, see Quirrell rubbing their noses in their ignorance:

The smile that the Auror gave had absolutely no mirth in it. “So where’s the real Quirinus Quirrell, eh? Under an Imperius in the bottom of a trunk somewheree, while you take a hair now and then for your illegal Polyjuice?”
"You are making highly questionable assumptions," the Defense Professor said with an edged voice. "What makes you think I did not steal his body outright using incredibly Dark magic?"

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 05:54:09PM 3 points [-]

For that matter, why didn't Quirrell feast on unicorns again and again to keep his strength up? Why doesn't he have a herd of them up in a ranch in the mountains somewhere?

Quirrell is too smart not to do this. I think he's pretending to be weaker than he really is, in order to manipulate Harry.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 July 2014 11:53:48PM *  3 points [-]

That's a good possibility I hadn't thought of. Too busy confirming my pet theory.

Quirrell's apparent weakness, feigned or actual, serves to manipulate Harry.

His actual weakness weakens the Sense of Doom, and thereby may allow their magic to interact. This is why I think actual weakness is still likely, despite the manifest downside. My pet theory is some variation on Quirrell uploading into Harry, and this is supported by a bunch of evidence I won't go into again. But if this is the goal, being able to interact with Harry, magically or physically, would be an important enabling factor.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 02:31:39AM 2 points [-]

Do not try to obtain Sstone yoursself. I forbid.

This was said by Quirrell in Parseltongue. If you can only tell the truth in Parseltongue, then Quirrell was really forbidding Harry from obtaining the stone himself.

Comment author: mjr 29 July 2014 11:24:21PM 3 points [-]

Well. Technically the statement only describes the act of speaking itself. There is no explicit information conveyed about Quirrell actually wishing or intending Harry to follow his injunction.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 July 2014 03:39:49PM 3 points [-]

Harry trying to obtain the stone by himself would be like Harry sneaking into Akazaban by himself. Harry developing a plan, and coming to Quirrel for assistance OTOH...

Comment author: jaime2000 26 July 2014 02:19:09PM *  16 points [-]

This chapter confirms earlier speculations that horcruxes work by making backup copies of brain states (with the caveat that actually using the horcrux will merge its memories and personality with those of its host body, resulting in a hybrid entity). The theory that Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres is an instance of Tom Riddle (or, rather, a hybrid of Tom Riddle and the original Harry Potter) now seems very, very probable. It explains why Harry is as smart as Tom's other instances (the original Riddle/Monroe/Voldemort and the Quirrell/Riddle hybrid), and why the remember-ball glowed like the sun (Harry forgot Riddle's memories because he was too young to remember them).

I learned of the horcrux sspell ssince long ago.

Parseltongue has a word for "horcrux"?

Death iss not truly gainssaid. Real sself is losst, as you ssay. Not to my pressent tasste. Admit I conssidered it, long ago.

Voldemort used horcruxes, obviously (that's what the five hidden items in the elemental pattern are), but between the missing memories and the hybridization Quirrellmort doesn't consider them to be worth the trouble. Keep in mind that there is a nice theory about not being able to lie in parseltongue.

Not like certain people living in certain countries, who were, it was said, as human as anyone else; who were said to be sapient beings, worth more than any mere unicorn. But who nonetheless wouldn't be allowed to live in Muggle Britain. On that score, at least, no Muggle had the right to look a wizard in the eye. Magical Britain might discriminate against Muggleborns, but at least it allowed them inside so they could be spat upon in person.

I suppose open borders and unrestricted immigration are in-keeping with Harry's character as a utilitarian who tries to assign equal value to each and every human life.

Also, won't Quirrell die of transfiguration sickness if he drinks the blood of transfigured Rarity?

Comment author: Xachariah 27 July 2014 12:56:58AM *  9 points [-]

Death iss not truly gainssaid. Real sself is losst, as you ssay. Not to my pressent tasste. Admit I conssidered it, long ago.

It's still not a lie.

He considered it long ago and then he did it. He doesn't want to try it again because he's already got some and/or they wouldn't fix his current situation. Literally truthful but appropriately misleading.

Comment author: NoSuchPlace 26 July 2014 02:33:31PM 8 points [-]

Also, won't Quirrell die of transfiguration sickness if he drinks the blood of transfigured Rarity?

No, the unicorn will, but by the time Quirrell drinks it blood it won't be transfigured any more, so he will be fine.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 July 2014 07:27:12AM *  1 point [-]

From chapter 100:

the blood must come from a live unicorn and the unicorn must die in the drinking

Quirrell doesn't have a very large window in which to drink the blood.

More to the point, wouldn't particulate matter, other fluids, other bits of the unicorn pollute the blood as a result of the transfiguration? I could see the blood itself fixing that issue, but in the case of another fluid in a similar situation, I could see the drinker getting sick (if not to the degree that the animal did).

I may not be understanding how transfiguration sickness works exactly.

EDIT: formatting

Comment author: NoSuchPlace 27 July 2014 05:52:07PM *  7 points [-]

Quirrell doesn't have a very large window in which to drink the blood.

According to this he should have plenty of time:

"Is it possible to Transfigure a living subject into a target that is static, such as a coin - no, excuse me, I'm terribly sorry, let's just say a steel ball."

Professor McGonagall shook her head. "Mr. Potter, even inanimate objects undergo small internal changes over time. There would be no visible changes to your body afterwards, and for the first minute, you would notice nothing wrong. But in an hour you would be sick, and in a day you would be dead."

I could see the drinker getting sick

From the transfiguration rules:

"I will never Transfigure anything that looks like food or anything else that goes inside a human body."

This presumably means don't transfigure anything into food. However it could also be interpreted to mean, don't transfigure food into anything. I am somewhat disappointed in McGonagall for not catching that ambiguity.

Also Quirrell is not a recognized transfiguration authority:

"If I am not sure whether a Transfiguration is safe, I will not try it until I have asked Professor McGonagall or Professor Flitwick or Professor Snape or the Headmaster, who are the only recognised authorities on Transfiguration at Hogwarts. Asking another student is not acceptable, even if they say that they remember asking the same question."

"Even if the current Defence Professor at Hogwarts tells me that a Transfiguration is safe, and even if I see the Defence Professor do it and nothing bad seems to happen, I will not try it myself."

However since Quirrells past is unknown (as far as Hogwarts is concerned) he could be one of the best transfigures in the world and he wouldn't be recognized as an authority. Also I don't see Quirrell neglecting something as useful and versatile as transfiguration, so I would expect him to know how dangerous eating formerly transfigured food is.

Comment author: Benquo 27 July 2014 11:06:32PM 8 points [-]

I think McGonagall doubts Quirrell's goodness more than his knowledge.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 02 August 2014 02:51:07AM 2 points [-]

That, and "the current Defence Professor" refers to a different person each year. She's giving the students a whitelist of people who are an authority, and drawing a bright line of no one being an authority unless explicitly being on the list.

Comment author: Xachariah 27 July 2014 10:27:12PM 4 points [-]

Transfiguration sickness isn't because things turn into poison. Your body goes into a transfigured state, minor changes occur, and when you come back from that state things are different. It'd be tiny things. Huge problems would cause you to die instantly, but little transcription errors would kill you in the timeframe described.

Eg, your veins wouldn't match up right. The DNA in your cells would be just a little bit off and you'd get spontaneous cancer in your entire body. Some small percent of neurotransmitters and hormones would be transformed into slightly different ones... etc. None of that would be contagious or even harmful to somebody consuming it. But to the animal itself it'd be devastating.

Also remember that once the transfiguration reverts and you're back to yourself, you're in a stable state. The only issue is that you're not back together perfectly. Quirrell would only get sick if he drank the blood while it was transfigured and then it changed form while inside of him.

Comment author: MathiasZaman 26 July 2014 03:30:00PM 4 points [-]

Parseltongue has a word for "horcrux"?

If Salazar Slytherin did indeed created Parseltongue, it's not that unlikely. Slytherin knew various powerful Dark Magics.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 26 July 2014 09:42:06PM 10 points [-]

Other words you wouldn't expect snakes to use: ritual, schoolmaster, spell, sacrifice, world, meaningless, murder, obscuration, device, continuity, Merlin's freaking Interdict...

yeah.

Comment author: MathiasZaman 27 July 2014 01:07:09PM 3 points [-]

But most of those you'd expect Salazar Slytherin to use when talking to, say, an ancient snake guarding all his dark secrets.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 27 July 2014 01:27:19PM 3 points [-]

Right. These are further evidence that the language was constructed or at least heavily influenced by humans, and is not snakes' original natural language.

Comment author: Velorien 26 July 2014 10:56:27PM 3 points [-]

Voldemort used horcruxes, obviously (that's what the five hidden items in the elemental pattern are)

I would hesitate to call this "obviously". Certainly, there's the Pioneer plaque, but as for the elemental pattern, all we actually have is Quirrell remarking on the fact that Harry's ideas have an elemental pattern, and Harry himself failing to realise it. There's nary a hint that Harry's guesses correspond to anything that actually happened.

Comment author: DanArmak 26 July 2014 06:27:24PM *  3 points [-]

Keep in mind that there is a nice theory about not being able to lie in parseltongue.

What's that theory?

I suppose open borders and unrestricted immigration are in-keeping with Harry's character as a utilitarian who tries to assign equal value to each and every human life.

And yet, Hogwarts won't take in Muggleborn from outside Britain. And an early chapter mentioned "lands where Muggleborn children received no letters" (quoting from memory).

Comment author: jaime2000 26 July 2014 06:46:35PM *  3 points [-]

What's that theory?

These threads. At this point I'm pretty much convinced that the theory is correct.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 02 August 2014 03:11:31AM 2 points [-]

There would have to be a very narrow definition of "lie" for this to not qualify:

"Correct lessson iss to follow ssteps laid down for you by older and wisser Sslytherin, tame your wild impulssess.”

Also, besides doubling the s's, EY denotes Parseltongue with violations of English grammar. This sentence is missing "the" at the beginning, the sentence "Will not sspeak of planss beyond thiss" lacks a subject, etc. If the "no lies" rules depends on precise parsing, it's odd that the grammar is so lax. If this is supposed to represent just a loose translation into English, and the "no lies" rules applies to the precise wording, rather than the general meaning, then we can't really know what's true.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 05:23:08PM *  2 points [-]

Parseltongue has a word for "horcrux"?

In reference to:

It iss called -" and Harry stopped, as he realized that he did know how to say the word in Parseltongue. "Horcrux.

If you wondered why the book explicitly calls out that Harry knows the word Horcrux in Parseltongue, here's some background.

Harry has not learned the English word for Horcrux. He knows that unnamed Horcrux-like things exist, and he has heard the word "Horcrux" and made a mental note to look it up, but he hasn't connected the concept to the English name.

How can you write about Horcruxes in third person limited if Harry does not know the word? If you just use the raw word Horcrux without explanation, persnickety readers will concoct elaborate theories about Harry researching Horcruxes off-camera. Calling out that Harry knows the word Horcrux in parseltongue -- and by implication not in English -- may keep persnickety readers at bay.

Comment author: gwern 28 July 2014 06:15:20PM 1 point [-]

That doesn't make any sense. If Harry didn't think he knew the word in English, he wouldn't start 'It is called...' and then break off as the Parseltongue word comes to mind and he doesn't have to lapse back into English. He would say something like 'I'm not sure what exactly the ritual is called -'

If you just use the raw word Horcrux without explanation, persnickety readers will concoct elaborate theories about Harry researching Horcruxes off-camera.

Yes, elaborate theories based on Harry doing what he said he would do in chapter 86:

Harry mentally noted down the word 'horcrux' for future research

Hardly a stretch that he encountered a few hints in books and went 'oh, the dark ritual which confers immortality and something bad Moody thinks Voldemort made while he was alive are the same thing', even if he'd never read about Koschei the Deathless or D&D's liches.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 02 August 2014 02:56:44AM 1 point [-]

One interpretation is that his language production module generated the sentence "It is called Horcrux", and his conscious mind, in the midst of him saying this sentence, became aware of the fact that he knows the Parseltongue word.

Comment author: solipsist 29 July 2014 12:55:03PM 1 point [-]

There are few ways the word Horcrux could come out of Harry's mouth that I would not take as evidence for Harry doing outside research. It would take non-trivial circumlocutions to indicate that Harry doesn't know what the English word Horcrux means. Such circumlocutions appear in the text. The best reason I can think of for those circumlocutions to appear in the text is to prevent people like me from inferring too much from Harry's vocabulary choice. There are alternatives explanations, like hinting that Salazar invented Horcruxes, but they seem less likely to me.

Comment author: gwern 29 July 2014 04:03:33PM 1 point [-]

It would take non-trivial circumlocutions to indicate that Harry doesn't know what the English word Horcrux means.

And what circumlocutions are those, exactly? Because in the passage quoted, I see a straightforward explanation of the ritual and a naming in English (with the unexpected result that he knew the English word's equivalent in Parseltongue too).

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 10:30:51PM 1 point [-]

but between the missing memories and the hybridization Quirrellmort doesn't consider them to be worth the trouble. Keep in mind that there is a nice theory about not being able to lie in parseltongue.

I'm not convinced of the theory. Very tenuous and circumstantial, and not part of canon, AFAIK.

I expect anything Quirrell says to be a mix of half truths.

Missdirection to hide true ssecret.

That much seems true.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 29 July 2014 01:00:43AM 11 points [-]

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Oh, I guess I can post this then: V jnf ng n jrqqvat cnegl guvat n srj lrnef onpx jurer Ryvrmre pbasvezrq gung lbh pna'g yvr va Cnefrygbathr; gur engvbanyr tvira jnf gung Fnynmne jvfurq gb sbfgre pbbeqvangvba orgjrra uvf urvef. V'z abg 100% fher V'z erzrzorevat pbeerpgyl ohg V'z cerggl fher.

Comment author: cousin_it 28 July 2014 02:18:04PM *  10 points [-]

Any ideas on what the Philosopher's Stone does? My favorite idea so far, seen in the fanfiction.net reviews, is that it's a device for making transfiguration permanent. That would account for both gold and healing powers.

Comment author: shminux 27 July 2014 01:47:21AM 10 points [-]

So this is why this forum is dying, EY casting AK v2.0.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 July 2014 12:28:28PM *  7 points [-]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? (Besides being a joke, obviously.) Is it Eliezer's public duty to keep writing new Sequences for the rest of his life? Or what other specific duties on LW is he neglecting?

Eliezer is not a superhuman Friendly AI. He is merely trying to build one. Most of things that Eliezer could do here, someone else could do, too. Or we can all choose to sit and eat popcorn, and complain when we are bored.

EDIT: I guess you already heard something about reinforcement. From that perspective, is this a helpful reaction to publishing a new chapter of HP? It's as if someone gives you a cookie, and you spit on him, and then you complain about why he doesn't bring you cookies more often.

RETRACTED FOR DERAILING THE THREAD.

Comment author: DanArmak 27 July 2014 12:44:49PM 9 points [-]

Eliezer is not a superhuman Friendly AI. He is merely trying to build one.

A true EY fact!

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 July 2014 03:47:48PM 2 points [-]

Eliezer recently deleted posts from LW but on the other hand doesn't write very much on LW. That's behavior that's not healthy for this community.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 July 2014 08:08:02AM *  7 points [-]

If this community depends on Eliezer writing, that would be a huge failure. I think we were supposed to become stronger, try harder, and cooperate. We had enough time to do that. If a group of people cannot replace one person, then either we don't care enough, or we failed to learn our lessons.

But actually, I think we are doing it quite well. (By "we" I mean the whole community; I specifically haven't contributed an article yet.) When Eliezer was writing the Sequences, he wrote one article per day. We have on average maybe three articles per day. If this is not enough, then how much would be enough? Five? Ten? Twenty? Are we trying to replace Reddit's output? I know I would like to see twenty new articles on LW every day, but that's just my inner procrastinator speaking. If I were more effective in real life and spent less time on internet, I would be barely able to read three articles (and their discussions) every day.

Having more content on LW can be a lost purpose. To some degree it reflects the health of the community. For example, if we were doing many cool things, and writing reports about them on LW, there would be many cool articles on LW. I'd like to see us being more awesome. But it doesn't work the other way round: by increasing the number of articles we can't increase our awesomeness in the real life.

I didn't mind the deleted article, but I also didn't mind that it was deleted. It was a shiny thing for procrastination, with no other value besides signalling author's smartness and contrarianism -- something this specific author does very frequently. This is a thing we shouldn't reward. I certainly would hate if other people started writing similar stuff. Or if the same author started doing it more often. (And unfortunately, this specific author seems to have some creepy mind-controlling powers he's using to get a lot of upvotes here, so the standard moderation fails. I don't fully understand his strategy, but it includes writing obscure comments which seem as if the author has something very interesting to say, but he just never says it. And then he rewards people for trying to guess what he meant, or simply for giving him attention. Everything he writes serves the ultimate purpose of drawing attention to his person, and he is doing it quite well. It's trolling 2.0 optimized for LessWrong. E.g. read this, although he lost a lot of karma there.)

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 10:32:17AM 1 point [-]

I didn't mind the deleted article, but I also didn't mind that it was deleted.

It was more than one article. There are events that are more recent than the Will_Newsome episode.

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 01:07:28PM 4 points [-]

I know I'm not the first person to say this, but in case any of the moderators and people generally in charge are listening: as a peripheral member of Less Wrong at best, this is a significant factor in my reluctance to become further involved with the site and its community. When I come here and see extremely typical forum drama like the Will_Newsome debacle, it greatly reduces my confidence that this is a good place to learn rationality and find suitable role models for its practice.

I realise that's an irrational judgment in many ways, but that's sort of the point. I come here to learn to think rationally, I see poor behaviour from the people who are supposed to possess the fruits of that learning effort, and my gut instinct is to go away again (rather than learn the skills that would allow me to override that gut instinct and seek maximum benefit from Less Wrong in spite of its flaws).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 July 2014 01:41:40PM *  3 points [-]

This is reminding me of Heinlein's "Gulf", which describes intelligence/rationality training, and then testing it under stress.

There are also the teams in HPMOR.

However, (aside from that I'm citing fictional evidence) there may be an important difference between maintaining rationality under physical stress vs. maintaining rationality while sitting comfortably at a keyboard under social stress.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 28 July 2014 01:40:26PM 1 point [-]

What were the more recent events?

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 01:54:45PM *  7 points [-]

To cite a facebook post from last Wednesday by XiXiDu (LW-name):

Yudkowsky is again going all nuts over Roko's basilisk. All posts pertaining Roko's basilisk have been deleted from the LessWrong Facebook group, and several people who participated in the discussions appear to have been banned .

Also: old posts on LessWrong critical of him or MIRI are now being silently banned. See e.g. the first post here: http://lesswrong.com/user/Dmytry/overview/?count=20&after=t1_6c8z

Comment author: Alsadius 28 July 2014 05:12:09PM 3 points [-]

1) I think we can hardly criticize him for not writing enough, given that he's about to spend a month writing a book for free for all of us.

2) It'd be pretty sad if having a moderator in place of a member was an active harm to the community.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 10:05:28PM 1 point [-]

2) It'd be pretty sad if having a moderator in place of a member was an active harm to the community.

Moderation is about leadership. If you do it from the shadows it's not as effective.

Comment author: Alsadius 29 July 2014 04:22:29AM 1 point [-]

Leadership is not the essential purpose of moderation. The purpose is to raise the tone of the debate and make the community adhere to norms. If the active membership is pretty good at adhering to norms, and you just need to take out occasional trash, shadowy moderation works fine. LW has a dedicated core with extremely strong norms, and I suspect that even if Eliezer went into a coma for the next year and the site was completely unmoderated that wouldn't change.

Comment author: shminux 28 July 2014 03:45:16PM 1 point [-]

Uh, this was meant as a half-joke, and apparently it wasn't very successful. Anyway, this is a wrong thread to discuss the health of the forum. And no, I don't think that Eliezer has any public duty to the forum readers, if you were wondering. I was simply commenting on his disengagement, quite likely for very good reasons (like that he has a lot more useful feedback on FB).

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 29 July 2014 06:48:19AM 1 point [-]

I apologize for my too strong reaction and for derailing the thread.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 July 2014 12:26:29PM *  9 points [-]

Not like certain people living in certain countries, who were, it was said, as human as anyone else; who were said to be sapient beings, worth more than any mere unicorn. But who nonetheless wouldn't be allowed to live in Muggle Britain. On that score, at least, no Muggle had the right to look a wizard in the eye.

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of this part - its not like Britain has immigration policies that ban certain races or religions, so I can only assume EY is arguing in favour of totally unrestricted immigration. But the UK has only a certain amount of room, and there are non-xenophobic economic arguments against unrestricted immigration, e.g. putting too much strain on the NHS. But regardless of the arguments for and against, arguing against immigration is not the same as being indifferent to the lives of everyone who lives in a different country.

I did enjoy the rest of the chapter however. Quirrel's statements about horcruxes were initially surprising - if he is telling the truth, then how is he still alive? If not, then wouldn't he want Harry experimenting with horcruxes in order to turn him to the dark side?

The most plausible possibility is that he wants Harry's help to get the philosopher's stone, and his initial prohibition is reverse psychology. This does help turn Harry against Dumbledoor, but no more than experimenting with horcruxes. Given this, it seems likely that he needs Harry's invisibility cloak / planning ability / human patronus / possibly partial transfiguration to capture the stone.

Still, Quirrel seems to be leaving this too late. Surely it would have been better to move against the stone very soon after the unicorn incident - by which time, Harry's anti-death ideology was very obvious, and emotionally driving. Moving against the stone when comparitivly healthy must increase the chances of success, and if it all goes wrong Quirrel could still have tried to fight his way out...

Unless Quirrel isn't actually as ill as he looks. He seems to have got a lot worse between May 13th and June 3rd.

Edit: I am not arguing that all immigration is bad and everyone should live in neoreactionary ethno-nationalist states. I'm saying that its possible to want to prevent certain people who e.g. have a record of violent criminal behaviour from immigrating to where you live, while still recognising that these people are still human.

Comment author: knb 26 July 2014 01:40:10PM *  18 points [-]

Not like certain people living in certain countries, who were, it was said, as human as anyone else; who were said to be sapient beings, worth more than any mere unicorn. But who nonetheless wouldn't be allowed to live in Muggle Britain. On that score, at least, no Muggle had the right to look a wizard in the eye.

I was surprised by that passage. If anything, it seems magical Britain is more exclusivist. Magical Britain only invited Hermione in because she's a British witch. The 99.9% of people who are born muggle are excluded completely. I also don't get the impression that foreign born wizards/witches are automatically invited to Hogwarts. So they are magic-nationalists as well.

They even forbid beneficial muggle-wizard trade, which probably results in the deaths of millions of muggles.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 07:43:01PM 4 points [-]

If anything, it seems magical Britain is more exclusivist.

I found it surprising because magical Britain seems much less utilitarian, in terms of excluding people from their moral concern - being indifferent. That's surely more of the fundamental issue than border control.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 01:14:09PM *  1 point [-]

They even forbid beneficial muggle-wizard trade, which probably results in the deaths of millions of muggles.

Insofar as everyone dies eventually, and thus the purpose of medicine in general may be thought of as life extension rather than death prevention, and magical healing vastly increases wizard lifespans, it may be said that forbidding beneficial muggle-wizard trade results in the deaths of billions of muggles. Every single muggle who dies of old age, magically-treatable illness or non-instantly-fatal injury is a muggle who would have lived significantly longer if not for the ban.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 July 2014 10:18:28AM 16 points [-]

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of this part -

I'm not either. It lands with such a clunk. Maybe Magical Britain lets anyone in, but it's clear that muggles have few rights that Wizards feel they need to respect.

And that last line - ugh:

On that score, at least, no Muggle had the right to look a wizard in the eye.

It doesn't even make sense. You "have a right to look someone in the eye" based on the totality of who you are versus what they are. Selecting out one point on which you are in error and they aren't really invalidates the metaphor.

Given all that Harry finds objectionable and even barbaric about Magical Britain, how much indifference they have to the suffering of others, and how his allegiance is more to a scientific culture with rule of law, that last line seems largely just false to Harry's character. Whatever faults he sees in muggle Britain, he sees as many of more in Magical Britain.

And why is universalist Harry all of a sudden in a twist over muggle Britain, especially?

It seems much more like the line is a gratuitous crack of the riding crop to one of the author's favorite hobby horses. All pissed off about UKIP's recent strong showing in elections?

I find open borders consistent with Harry in general, but making that a particular outrage, and particularly aimed at Muggle Britain as compared to Wizards, really doesn't work for the story or for making the moral point.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 03:18:12PM *  7 points [-]

Agreed - it's a complete non-sequitur, crowbarred in with a tenuous link. And the wizards are far more intolerant.

I doubt Muggle Britain lets everyone in - for one thing, it has approximately the same ethnic composition as muggle Britain, for another, I seem to remember that Hogwarts is one of the best magic schools in the world, in which case parents would move to Britain, increasing class sizes until Hogwarts was approximately the same standard as other schools.

Incidentally, do Wizards in third-world countries have the same standard of living as first-world wizards? If so, they see no problem in letting muggles starve on their doorsteps.

All pissed off about UKIP's recent strong showing in elections?

This may be a slight tangent but I'm amazed (edit: amazed is the wrong word. I'm disappointed) at how the UKIP's performance has made many people lose all sense of proportion, and become thoroughly mindkilled. About half the discussion seems to be 'one UKIP supporter said something rasist/sexist/homophobic'. UKIP has 37 000 members. This isn't just an adhomen attack, its an utterly statistically insignificant adhomen attack.

Worse, a friend of mine who is a lecturer in sociology endorsed a plan to send bricks to the UKIP's freepost address, thus wasting their money. But if the UKIP supporters then send bricks to the left-wing parties, then all parties lose money and the postal system slows down. I would have thought a lecturer in sociology would understand about not defecting and keeping the moral high ground, but apparently I was wrong.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 August 2014 06:57:09AM 5 points [-]

I doubt magical Britain lets everyone in - for one thing, it has approximately the same ethnic composition as Muggle Britain

This should be false(r) in HPMOR, given the number of cameos from readers all around the planet. I worried that I was making Hogwarts seem unrealistically multiethnic, and then decided, hey, wizards have had Apparition and portkeys for centuries, it's a wonder they even still have national cultures.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 08 August 2014 07:52:33AM *  1 point [-]

HPMOR is more ethnic (and gender) balanced than canon, and IMO does seem to have a realistic ethnic composition given teleportation (as you mentioned) and border controls. But its nowhere near 50% Asian as one might expect if there were no borders.

BTW I hope I don't sound too critical. I have hugely enjoyed the rest of HPMOR and I just think that comparing real-world politics to Voldemort's indifference is unnecessary mindkilling.

Comment author: Azathoth123 28 July 2014 03:40:19AM 5 points [-]

'one UKIP supporter said something rasist/sexist/homophobic'.

It's interesting, especially given that no one seems to care that the current EU head is a not-quite-repentant former soviet apologist.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 12:42:10AM *  3 points [-]

I'm amazed at how the UKIP's performance has made many people lose all sense of proportion, and become thoroughly mindkilled...

I bet the mindkilling predated UKIP's victory, and only afforded an impetus to action for those already mindkilled.

About half the discussion seems to be 'one UKIP supporter said something rasist/sexist/homophobic'.

Why do you find this surprising? That's the standard attack. It's simply background music.

Worse, a friend of mine who is a lecturer in sociology endorsed a plan to send bricks to the UKIP's freepost address, thus wasting their money.

In Western democracies, the Left fights for power and is serious about it. Any means available.

But if the UKIP supporters then send bricks to the left-wing parties, then all parties lose money and the postal system slows down.

When does the opposition to the Left ever respond with a little tit for tat? In the US, there are all sorts of people mouthing off big words about fighting government tyranny, while meekly standing by while their children are sexually assaulted by the TSA purportedly looking for nuclear weapons in their underwear.

I would have thought a lecturer in sociology would understand about not defecting and keeping the moral high ground, but apparently I was wrong.

What he understands that you don't is that his enemies won't fight back. If your enemies are fundamentally pacifists toward your aggression, why ever stop?

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 July 2014 01:48:11AM *  3 points [-]

I bet the mindkilling predated UKIP's victory, and only afforded an impetus to action for those already mindkilled.

I'd agree, it has at most increased the mindkill.

Why do you find this surprising? That's the standard attack. It's simply background music.

"Amazed" was the wrong word, used in a sloppy rhetorical sense. 'Disappointed' might be better.

When does the opposition to the Left ever respond with a little tit for tat?

Well, of course UKIP didn't respond in kind, including when the prank escalated to sending blood and shit. And of course, it's UKIP who are the fascists, so let's hit them with sticks!

What he understands that you don't is that his enemies won't fight back. If your enemies are fundamentally pacifists toward your aggression, why ever stop?

Thing is, I do understand this, but maybe I've haven't fully internalised the fact an intelligent person can think that they are 'fighting the power' (he argues that UKIP are extremely similar to Nazis) while crushing anyone who dares to utter a contradictory opinion. I would say I can't understand this behaviour, but that would be purely rhetorical, because I do know what compartmentalisation is.

And when you have an iron grip on the moral high ground because anyone who disagrees with you is racist, then I suppose you can afford to defect constantly.

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 September 2014 04:55:13PM 2 points [-]

When does the opposition to the Left ever respond with a little tit for tat? In the US, there are all sorts of people mouthing off big words about fighting government tyranny, while meekly standing by while their children are sexually assaulted by the TSA purportedly looking for nuclear weapons in their underwear.

Ah, I'm no expert in US politics, but I thought that was a Right-supported program? With what little of the Overton Window that covers "this is an absurd overreaction" lying on the metaphorical left-hand side?

Comment author: Azathoth123 06 September 2014 03:37:23AM *  3 points [-]

Well the right wing talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh opposed it from day 1.

Also I remember a left wing political cartoon from shortly after 9/11 implying that Republicans were in bed with the corporate sector for not wanting to nationalize airport security (which was then provided by private contractors).

Comment author: Lumifer 05 September 2014 05:22:08PM 3 points [-]

I thought that was a Right-supported program?

Unfortunately, it was (and is) a universally supported program. A pretty good example of Yvain's Moloch, too -- no serious political group can afford to be tarred with the "leave America defenseless before the terrorists" brush...

Comment author: Azathoth123 06 September 2014 02:53:11AM 3 points [-]

I'm not sure about that. At least I have a hard time finding anyone on the internet, in either political camp, who supports it.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 September 2014 01:40:39AM 1 point [-]

Look at it from the other side -- which serious political group loudly opposes TSA?

Comment author: Azathoth123 08 September 2014 05:18:38AM 3 points [-]

I remember a story about Rick Perry trying to pass a law limiting the kinds of things the TSA could do in Texas airports before relenting after the FAA threatened to ban flights to Texas airports if the law passed.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 08 September 2014 02:02:45AM 2 points [-]

Both left and right support the screenings, but it's fair enough that while this made for an instance of government tyranny that people might oppose but don't, it wasn't a good instance of one pushed predominantly by the Left.

Comment author: hairyfigment 31 July 2014 07:01:25AM 1 point [-]

What are you talking about? (I couldn't find the one where a neo-reactionary asks Scott how many people he wants to kill.) Is this meant to imply some self-refuting statement about the LW community?

Comment author: gwern 26 July 2014 08:03:19PM 12 points [-]

I did enjoy the rest of the chapter however. Quirrel's statements about horcruxes were initially surprising - if he is telling the truth, then how is he still alive? If not, then wouldn't he want Harry experimenting with horcruxes in order to turn him to the dark side?

Perhaps he is a Horcrux transfer (as long speculated) but a failed one; introspecting about how different he is from his memories of 'himself', he would realize 'he' hadn't survived and all that was left was a weird mishmash of Monroe's personality and Voldemort's memories, and this was entirely worthless as immortality.

What argument could be more convincing to Quirrel than personally embodying the failure of horcruxes as an immortality strategy?

Comment author: lfghjkl 26 July 2014 10:13:10PM *  5 points [-]

I've also been thinking along these lines, anyone remember this part from the opening ceremony?

The young, thin, nervous man who Harry had first met in the Leaky Cauldron slowly made his way up to the podium, glancing fearfully around in all directions. Harry caught a glimpse of the back of his head, and it looked like Professor Quirrell might already be going bald, despite his seeming youth.

"Wonder what's wrong with him," whispered the older-looking student sitting next to Harry. Similar hushed comments were being exchanged elsewhere along the table.

Professor Quirrell made his way up to the podium and stood there, blinking. "Ah..." he said. "Ah..." Then his courage seemed to fail him utterly, and he stood there in silence, occasionally twitching.

"Oh, great," whispered the older student, "looks like another long year in Defence class -"

"Salutations, my young apprentices," Professor Quirrell said in a dry, confident tone.

It seems to imply that becoming the second victim of a Horcrux might not necessarily create a mishmash of personalities, but instead have them competing as separate (maybe "partially mixed"?) identities. This would also explain why Harry consider his "dark side" different from himself.

Comment author: gwern 27 July 2014 05:59:13PM 5 points [-]

Yes, that often came up in past discussions. The problem is that the dual persona part seemed to get dropped early on and it changed to one of energy - Quirrel going into zombie-mode, not shy-Quirinius-mode. Presumably when he was up there on the podium, he was trying to summon up the energy for his speech.

Comment author: Benito 30 July 2014 07:40:08PM *  2 points [-]

This lack of a definite personhood may be related to the answer that Quirrell gave when Harry asked him why he wasn't like the other children.

[Emphasis added]

I will say this much, Mr. Potter: You are already an Occlumens, and I think you will become a perfect Occlumens before long. Identity does not mean, to such as us, what it means to other people. Anyone we can imagine, we can be; and the true difference about you, Mr. Potter, is that you have an unusually good imagination. A playwright must contain his characters, he must be larger than them in order to enact them within his mind. To an actor or spy or politician, the limit of his own diameter is the limit of who he can pretend to be, the limit of which face he may wear as a mask. But for such as you and I, anyone we can imagine, we can be, in reality and not pretense. While you imagined yourself a child, Mr. Potter, you were a child. Yet there are other existences you could support, larger existences, if you wished. Why are you so free, and so great in your circumference, when other children your age are small and constrained? Why can you imagine and become selves more adult than a mere child of a playwright should be able to compose? That I do not know, and I must not say what I guess. But what you have, Mr. Potter, is freedom.

Comment author: drethelin 28 July 2014 04:19:01PM 4 points [-]

The argument isn't about immigration to Britain, it's about a trade embargo between the whole Wizarding World and everyone else. There's one drinking fountain for wizards and another for muggles, only instead of both having water the wizarding one is full of healing potions.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 07:38:18PM 3 points [-]

EY is arguing in favour of totally unrestricted immigration.

I don't find it surprising from a combination of EY's libertarianism and utilitarianism. Many libertarians are this way, and utilitarianism only adds more support for the argument.

Comment author: Azathoth123 26 July 2014 08:15:49PM *  5 points [-]

I'm not convinced utilitarianism actually adds support. At the very least Bryan Caplan's arguments rely on freely switching between deontology and consequentialism, frequently in the same argument, to work.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 11:05:38PM 4 points [-]

How many billion people would be better off if allowed to immigrate to GB?

Utilitarianism is about counting everyone's utility the same. "Shut up and multiply" - where multiply is the number of people, not a weighting factor for how much you give a shit about them. That weighting factor should be 1 for all.

Not that I'm a utilitarian. But a libertarian utilitarian would have his work cut out for him to overcome the basic tenets of non initiation of force and weighing everyone's utility equally to justify limiting immigration.

Comment author: Azathoth123 27 July 2014 12:05:15AM *  4 points [-]

How many billion people would be better off if allowed to immigrate to GB?

This is just another version of the utilitarian argument for redistributive taxation and has a similar problem. Hint: consider what it is about GB that makes it such a more desirable place then the immigrants' home countries and how that difference comes about.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 July 2014 10:23:14AM 2 points [-]

This is just another version of the utilitarian argument...

Yes, that's my point. Open borders in general is supported by utilitarianism.

No need to try to convince me that utilitarianism has it's failings, I've been on board that ship for a long time.

Comment author: Azathoth123 28 July 2014 03:20:33AM 6 points [-]

My point is that a libertarian utilitarian can see the flaws in the naive utilitarian argument for redistribution. The naive utilitarian argument for open borders has similar flaws.

Comment author: Jiro 26 July 2014 11:50:25PM *  3 points [-]

It's just the flip side of the utilitarian idea that you have to give everything you own to charity (except for the money you need to keep making more money to give to charity). Pretty much nobody actually does this, but utilitarianism demands it.

Except in this case, it's not about reducing your utility to increase other people's utility by a greater amount, it's about reducing the utility of everyone in the country to increase other people's utility by a greater amount. It's always easier robbing Peter to pay Paul if you are not Peter.

Or for another comparison, taxation. We could let in lots of immigrants, decreasing the utility of people already in the country for a greater increase in the utility of other people. We could also tax people in the country and use it to buy foreigners a whole series of things starting with malaria nets, again reducing the utility of people already in the country for a greater increase in the utility of other people. Yet taxing locals for the benefit of outsiders is something we only do to a very limited extent, and mostly when giving things to outsiders also brings us some benefit.

(And before you say libertarians don't believe in initiation of force, most libertarians are not anarchocapitalists and do think there is some role for government.)

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 July 2014 01:38:54AM 7 points [-]

Just wondering, why not do it the other way round? Make the immigrants pay higher taxes. (Only the first generation; because their children are already born in this country.) For the immigrants, it is presumably still a big improvement over living in their country of origin. For the local people, it removes the "but we would have to pay higher taxes" argument.

Comment author: Plasmon 27 July 2014 12:37:34PM 5 points [-]
Comment author: Jiro 28 July 2014 04:30:43AM 5 points [-]

The biggest problem with the headline is that it assumes "immigrants" are a homogenous group. There could be some groups that are good for the country and some which are not, in which case you could still justify keeping the second group out. If you read the article it even says "However the report highlights that not all groups of migrants make a positive fiscal contribution to the UK and in some cases migrants can represent a burden for public finances."

Also, this doesn't count losses in utility that happen to locals because of immigrants but don't involve collecting benefits, such as increases in crime rates or unemployment rates.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 02:34:43PM 1 point [-]

That's quite interesting, and does refute a lot of the people who argue against all immigration. But the UK does have some forms of boarder control.

Comment author: Jiro 27 July 2014 01:59:44AM 3 points [-]

In order to do that the immigrants would have to pay enough in taxes to make up for the loss in utility by the preexisting residents. Some groups of immigrants, such as immigrants resembling the current Mexican illegals, may not be able to pay that. Furthermore, the same political groups who want more immigrants would oppose such a plan to the point where it won't be feasible.

And the fact that they have children in this country is part of what decreases utility for the people already in the country.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 July 2014 10:01:33AM 1 point [-]

it's about reducing the utility of everyone in the country

What? If an employer is willing to hire the immigrant, this means that his labour is more valuable to her than her money, and if a grocer is willing to sell him food, this means that his money is more valuable to her than her food, so it'd seem like the immigrant is providing positive net value to the original population of the country, isn't him?

Comment author: Jiro 27 July 2014 04:42:23PM 4 points [-]

It means the immigrant is producing positive net value to a member of the country, but it can still reduce the average utility for every member of the country.

Comment author: Alsadius 28 July 2014 04:50:12PM 2 points [-]

But if it reduces the averages by raising every individual's utility and simply moving people from the "outside" group to the "inside" group who started with low utility, we can hardly call that bad.

Comment author: [deleted] 28 July 2014 06:29:56PM 2 points [-]

(This is known as Will Rogers phenomenon BTW.)

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 27 July 2014 10:16:50AM 2 points [-]

If immigrants generally reduce utility for everyone in the country, would the same apply for the children of citizens?

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 02:26:08PM 2 points [-]

There is a middle ground between 'all immigration is generally bad' and 'there should be no boarder controls whatsoever'.

Comment author: bramflakes 27 July 2014 11:55:17AM 1 point [-]

People intrinsically care about their children.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 02:22:53PM *  1 point [-]

The UK, like pretty much every other country in the world, does not run on a pure capitalist economy.

Comment author: Dentin 28 July 2014 11:20:53PM 2 points [-]

People would only immigrate to GB until there was no further utility involved in doing so. It's highly unlikely you'd end up with even one billion people there, even assuming that they could all fit.

Perhaps the phrase should not be 'shut up and multiply', but rather 'shut up and integrate'.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 July 2014 12:29:31AM 5 points [-]

People would only immigrate to GB until there was no further utility involved in doing so.

That was expressed better in Snow Crash:

"...once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity..."

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 02:11:25PM *  2 points [-]

How many billion people would be better off if allowed to immigrate to GB?

...

You can't fit billions of people in the UK. ( I guess that's not what you meant, but that's what it sounds like)

But a libertarian utilitarian would have his work cut out for him to overcome the basic tenets of non initiation of force and weighing everyone's utility equally to justify limiting immigration.

Well, an absolute libertarian could of course not justify the state doing anything. And a utilitarian could come up with arguments against unrestricted immigration - for one thing, perhaps it would be better to maintain at least some border controls but increase foreign aid? I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, it just doesn't seem immediatly ridiculous.

Comment author: jbay 29 July 2014 07:33:23AM 3 points [-]

You can't fit billions of people in the UK. ( I guess that's not what you meant, but that's what it sounds like)

The gain in quality of life from moving to the UK would gradually diminish as the island became overcrowded, until there was no net utility gain from people moving there anymore. Unrestricted immigration is not the same thing as inviting all seven billion humans to the UK. People will only keep immigrating until the average quality of life is the same in the UK as it is anywhere else; then there will be an equilibrium.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 29 July 2014 07:50:31AM 3 points [-]

People will only keep immigrating until the average quality of life is the same in the UK as it is anywhere else; then there will be an equilibrium.

That quality will be substantially less than it is in the UK right now. That is why the current population of the UK, and any other developed country (i.e. any country with a standard of living much higher than the world average), does not want unrestricted immigration.

Comment author: jbay 29 July 2014 11:44:28AM *  2 points [-]

Yes, of course. But the net average quality of life is increased overall. Please examine the posts that I'm replying to here, for the context of the point I am making. For convenience I've copied it below:

How many billion people would be better off if allowed to immigrate to GB? Utilitarianism is about counting everyone's utility the same...

You can't fit billions of people in the UK.

If you are entering the argument with a claim that the UK's current inhabitants can be utilitarian and simultaneously weigh their own utility higher than those of other humans, then you should be directing your argument toward buybuydanddavis' post, since ze's the one who said "That weighting factor should be 1 for all". I am merely noting that not being able to fit billions of people in the UK is not a valid counterargument; net utility will still be increased by such a policy no matter what the UK's population carrying capacity is.

Comment author: Illano 29 July 2014 01:31:37PM 3 points [-]

But the net average quality of life is increased overall.

I'm not sure this necessarily holds true. In very broad strokes, if the quality of life is increased by X for a single immigrant, but having that immigrant present in the country decreases the quality of life for the existing population by more than X/population, then even if a specific immigrants quality of life is improved, it doesn't mean that the net average quality of life is increased overall.

Comment author: MugaSofer 05 September 2014 05:05:19PM 2 points [-]

You can't fit billions of people in the UK.

You can, actually. It's called "the British Empire".

It was widely considered a bad idea the last time it was tried, but it is possible. The United Kingdom is not defined by it's current set of borders or locations.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 12:26:29AM 2 points [-]

it just doesn't seem immediatly ridiculous.

But it cuts against the grain of the fundamental premises of both ideologies. That's what I'm saying. The zero order application of both ideologies leads to open borders.

an absolute libertarian could of course not justify the state doing anything.

Not true. A state could always justly protect people willing to be protected from initiation of force.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 July 2014 12:59:23AM 2 points [-]

Not true. A state could always justly protect people willing to be protected from initiation of force.

Fair enough.

But it cuts against the grain of the fundamental premises of both ideologies. That's what I'm saying. The zero order application of both ideologies leads to open borders.

Yes, I agree that open boarders is the most obvious policy for a libertarian utilitarian, although more from the libertarian POV. Utilitarianism requires thinking long-term - redistribution of wealth by tax is clearly a utilitarian good in the short term, but in the longer term it might become harder to incentivise useful work and so the issue is not so clear cut. This is why its possible to be libertarian utilitarian, rather than a communist utilitarian.

In the same manner, the long-term effects of absolute open boarders might be quite negative.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 July 2014 10:16:10PM *  1 point [-]

That EY is in favour of unrestricted immigration I don't find too surprising, or objectionable, not that I would take his word on this - he's not an economist.

Magical Britain might discriminate against Muggleborns, but at least it allowed them inside so they could be spat upon in person.

What I object to is the implication that British people think foreigners are not even worth spitting on.

And incidentally, don't people get banned from LW? Even people who mass downvote are, it was said, as human as anyone else; who were said to be sapient beings, worth more than any mere unicorn. But who nonetheless wouldn't be allowed to post in LW.

Edit: On more sober reflection, the last paragraph is not the most intelligent thing I have ever written. It seems to equate banning/exile with preventing immigration in the first place, and I suppose there are reasons why you might want a website to have powers a nation-state doesn't anyway.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 26 July 2014 10:40:04PM 3 points [-]

And incidentally, don't people get banned from LW?

... so? The only ways I see that this provides an argument at all are so strained I feel like I have to be not grasping the reason you mentioned it.

Comment author: Azathoth123 28 July 2014 03:33:12AM 5 points [-]

Any community, whether a website or a country, requires people with a shared set of norms (I probably what a more general word but I can't think of one). To maintain this it needs some combination of training/indoctrination of newcomers and excluding people who don't, won't, or can't accept them.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 27 July 2014 05:19:04AM 2 points [-]

Hmm, you might be right - I was unsure about this sentence when I posted it, but, well, politics is the mindkiller. Edited. The reason I mentioned it is because it seems to me that there are perfectly good utilitarian reasons for banning people from places without denying their worth as a person.

Comment author: William_Quixote 28 July 2014 07:20:51PM *  6 points [-]

We learn a number of very interesting things in this chapter. I'll focus on one area

-Like with horcrux sspell, abssurdity [of the stone] hidess true ssecret. -True Sstone iss not what that legend ssayss. -True power iss not what sstoriess claim. -Sstone iss powerful healing device in truth.

So it's confirmed it exists and that it isn't what people think and that it's power / mechanism isn't what people think.

This is important because thinking back to Harry's early experiments with Hermione, he discovered that if you don't know what a spell does or have been told something completely in the wrong space the spell doesn't work at all. If you know generally what it does, it still works as long as you pronounce it correctly. (The later is also confirmed by the 'for enemies' spell).

In the library Hermione told Harry that the spell is published but no one has been able to actually perform it (nominally due to difficulty). If they all think it does something other than what it actually does, that explains it and is consistent with the book's theory of magic.

Also worth noting, Hermione was killed shortly after she began looking into the stone in earnest.

-Sstone's ssuppossed maker wass not one who made it. -One who holdss it now, wass not born to name now ussed. -One who holdss Sstone iss repossitory of much lore. -Taught sschoolmasster many ssecretss.

This part also seems very important. We get a new "major player". This player is powerful enough that QQ couldn't just take the stone and also powerful enough to have taught Dumbeldore many things (and Dumbeldore is thought to be the most powerful wizard in centuries). So here is a behind the scenes power on par or stronger than either major player in the last war.

Nick Flamel seems to just be the most recent alias for this other player, who has probably been around for a long time. For my money, I predict NF is really Baba Yaga ("the undying"). She's been named dropped too often to not make an appearance, and her being NF allows her to have been around all along instead of being an unsatisfying last chapter walk on.

Comment author: Velorien 28 July 2014 07:56:21PM 5 points [-]

In the library Hermione told Harry that the spell is published but no one has been able to actually perform it (nominally due to difficulty). If they all think it does something other than what it actually does, that explains it and is consistent with the book's theory of magic.

This depends very much on how people conceptualise the philosopher's stone. If they go "by following these instructions, I will create a stone that produces the elixir of life and is also capable of permanently transmuting base metal into gold", and the philosopher's stone does not in fact do these things, then yes, they will fail.

On the other hand, if the wizard in question is aware that they have no idea how such an artefact is supposed to produce the elixir of life (or indeed what the elixir of life is beyond its expected function), or how it's supposed to transmute things, then their thought will surely be more like "by following these instructions, I will create an artefact that will deliver great benefits unto me, its possessor". Which ought to be sufficient to succeed if "for enemies" is.

If so, surely at least one of the many wizards to attempt the philosopher's stone ritual(?) must have been contemplating a sufficiently broad possibility space to succeed. And yet this does not appear to have been the case.

For further evidence, consider how frequently people learn and cast the Patronus Charm despite the fact that they are completely ignorant of how it really works.

Comment author: William_Quixote 28 July 2014 11:18:20PM 2 points [-]

Although people are ignorant of why it works, people casting the patronus charm know exactly what it does. It makes a silver colored animal that makes fear go away and can chase dementors.

As to conceptualization, you may well be right that it could be done without understanding the mechanism but with correct conceptualization. But, I bet most wizards don't have the right conceptualization. And worse, I bet most wizards investigating the philosophers stone have a Theory. And their theory is probably directly wrong which blocks them from being able to do it.

Comment author: Hyphen-ated 29 July 2014 06:31:07AM *  1 point [-]

-One who holdss it now, wass not born to name now ussed. -One who holdss Sstone iss repossitory of much lore. -Taught sschoolmasster many ssecretss.

I've been under the impression through the whole story that Harry's father's rock is the philosopher's stone. Is Quirrel just referring to Harry here?

The Harry we know wasn't "born to the name now used", or really born at all, because his current self comes from a merger of the original Harry and Voldemort.

Harry is the repository of much lore about science.

Harry has taught Dumbledore many "secrets" about muggle science and rationality. (hasn't he? I can't remember any specifics because I haven't done a reread in a long time)

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:27:08AM 2 points [-]

Even assuming that all this is accurate, why would Quirrell give Harry a third-person description of Harry, framed as if he was describing a third party?

Apart from the standalone ridiculousness of such behaviour, if Quirrell believed that Harry already had the stone, and knew that Harry was willing to use the stone for his benefit, then this sort of obfuscation would be the last thing he'd do.

Comment author: BloodyShrimp 29 July 2014 03:40:01PM 1 point [-]

Unless Quirrell isn't interested in the stone primarily here, but in tricking Harry into doing something else trying to get the stone.

Comment author: William_Quixote 29 July 2014 04:06:36PM 1 point [-]

Hmm I hadn't thought the rock was the stone. That would be a great twist, but I doubt it because Dumbeldore said it was not magical to his knowledge when Harry asked him.

Also even if it is the stone, I don't think QQ knows this.

Comment author: ChristianKl 29 July 2014 12:45:59PM 1 point [-]

I've been under the impression through the whole story that Harry's father's rock is the philosopher's stone. Is Quirrel just referring to Harry here?

No. It would be stupid for Dumbledore to hand out the philosopher's stone that way. It doesn't make it protected.

Comment author: solipsist 28 July 2014 02:39:13AM 5 points [-]

"One thing," whispered Professor Quirrell. "One thing... that might do it... or it might not... but to obtain it... is beyond your power, or mine..."

Oh, it was just the setup for a subquest, said Harry's Inner Critic.

All the other parts screamed for that part to shut up. Life didn't work like that. Ancient artifacts could be found, but not in a month, not when you couldn't leave Hogwarts and were still in your first year.

Of course, that rule does not apply if the artifact was hidden by a man who thinks in story plots.

Chapter 12:

“Additionally, I must tell you that this year, the third-floor corridor on the right-hand side is out of bounds to everyone who does not wish to die a very painful death. It is guarded by an elaborate series of dangerous and potentially lethal traps, and you cannot possibly get past all of them, especially if you are only in your first year."

Chapter 17:

“One last thing then, Harry. You are not to attempt the forbidden door on the third-floor corridor. There's no possible way you could get through all the traps, and I wouldn't want to hear that you'd been hurt trying. Why, I doubt that you could so much as open the first door, since it's locked and you don't know the spell Alohomora -”

Chapter 27:

“..meanwhile Dumbledore had happened to sneeze while passing them in the hallway, and a small package had accidentally dropped out of his pockets, and inside had been two matched wardbreaker's monocles of incredible quality. The Weasley twins had tested their new monocles on the "forbidden" third-floor corridor, making a quick trip to the magic mirror and back, and they hadn't been able to see all the detection webs clearly, but the monocles had shown a lot more than they'd seen the first time.

Of course they would have to be very careful never to get caught with the monocles in their possession, or they would end up in the Headmaster's office getting a stern lecture and maybe even threats of expulsion.

Comment author: buural 20 August 2014 05:58:28AM 4 points [-]

Has anyone compiled a list of Chekhov's guns that haven't been fired yet in the story so far? Off the top of my head, I have:

  • Bacon's diary
  • Bellatrix Black
  • Sirius Black (incidentally a candidate for the Cloak and Hat, who possibly knows limitations of the Marauders' map)
  • Traps on the third floor
  • Significance of Dumbledore writing in Lily Potter's potion's book
  • Lesath Lestrange
  • Harry's 'shopping list' given to Gred and Forge
  • The missed glint in the Godric's Hollow graveyard
  • Chamber of Secrets / Salazar's snake?
  • Secrets of spell creation (which Quirrel is so keen on keeping away from Harry)

Anything else?

Comment author: gjm 27 August 2014 01:08:44AM *  3 points [-]

Many of these don't exactly count as Chekhov's guns, but they have this in common with your Chekhov's guns: They seem like substantial unresolved things and I will be disappointed if the end of HPMOR leaves a lot of them unresolved:

  • Prophecies about Harry and the end of the world (for some values of "end" and "world").
  • How magic works (e.g., why you have to say "Wingardium Leviosa" to make things float; resolving this may be more or less equivalent to resolving spell creation).
  • Harry's intention of defeating death, perhaps in some fashion that involves the Deathly Hallows.
  • The list of locations discussed by Harry and Quirrell, which may or may not correspond to Horcrux hiding places or something.
  • Harry's "power that the Dark Lord knows not"; probably not either Science or partial transfiguration, but unlikely to be "love" as in Rowling.
  • What's wrong (and how genuinely) with Quirrell.
  • The interaction between Harry's and Quirrell's magic (kinda the same as in Rowling? maybe, or maybe not).
  • Harry's vow to do away with Azkaban and the use of Dementors to guard human beings.
  • Harry's debt to Lucius Malfoy. (Or -- I forget -- did that get cancelled somehow when Hermione got killed?)
  • What, if anything, Harry was doing after Hermione's death; e.g., is he carrying her transfigured corpse around or something?
  • Harry's "father's rock" (just transfiguration practice? actually some powerful magical artefact in disguise? etc.)
  • What really happened in Godric's Hollow when Harry was a baby.
  • Exactly what Quirrell's plans really are. (On some plausible theories, closely related to what happened in Godric's Hollow.)
Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 08:04:27PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure the missed glint in the Godric's Hollow graveyard was a Chekhov's gun. I took it as the final resting place of one or more of the Peverell brothers, which responded to Harry's declaration against death. In other words I think its relevance was fully explained in the context of that chapter, and wasn't left expecting any more from it.

Comment author: buural 15 August 2014 08:24:52AM 4 points [-]

Hypothesis:

  • The prophesied 'end of the world' will involve meddling with Time.

Some semi-random observations/conjectures supporting the hypothesis:

  • The 6-hour information transfer limit is tied to the Interdict of Merlin. A 6-hour timeframe seems rather arbitrary in terms of describing a purely natural constraint of the underlying physical reality. It makes perfect sense, on the other hand, as a human-designed complementary measure of enforcing the Interdict as otherwise wizards would be traveling back in time to learn from old masters before their deaths, thereby negating the Interdict.

  • The whole plot generally revolves around paradoxes and uses of Time. Atlantis is supposedly 'erased from Time' (not destroyed). Hogwarts castle's random changes have time patterns (certain years and days in the week). References to students getting lost and coming back as old men or going higher than the castle's highest level (implying shifting passageways transporting people into Hogwarts castles in some alternative times/realities?).

  • Repeated allusions to Harry destroying stars is unlikely to be referring to a literal physical annihilation of all visible stars. I would place a much higher probability on the possibility that the current time/reality in which Hermione is irrevocably dead will be destroyed as a result of Harry deciding to change the fact.

  • What spells are most likely to be declared so dangerous to warrant the Interdict? No magic (aside from Time travel), no matter how destructive, comes even close in my mind to justify Merlin sacrificing himself to impose this rather oppressive restriction that limits indirect information exchange of ALL wizards in ALL of time, present AND future!

  • The first time we hear Quirrelmort's inner monologue is when we learn that he is honestly afraid of what Harry will do. I cannot think realistically what Harry can do to threaten his 'modified' interstellar probe at present time unless he can prevent it being modified (horcruxed?) to start with, i.e. go back in time.

  • Time paradoxes are ruled out. Why? Because reality is somehow ensuring consistency? But then, how could Atlantis 'erase' itself from Time? I assign much higher probability that this restriction is designed as part of the Interdict again rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Thoughts?

Comment author: 75th 18 August 2014 08:31:30AM *  2 points [-]

the current time/reality in which Hermione is irrevocably dead will be destroyed as a result of Harry deciding to change the fact.

Harry himself appears to be pretty firmly set against that:

"And while I hate to get all PHILOSOPHICAL," Harry desperately tried to lower his voice to something under a shriek, "has anyone thought about the IMPLICATIONS of going back six hours and doing something that changes time which would pretty much DELETE ALL THE PEOPLE AFFECTED and REPLACE THEM WITH DIFFERENT VERSIONS -"

So I wouldn't say never, but I think it would take something extraordinary, considerably more so even than Hermione's death, to drive him to that.


I cannot think realistically what Harry can do to threaten his 'modified' interstellar probe at present time unless he can prevent it being modified (horcruxed?) to start with, i.e. go back in time.

At the time Quirrell begins his freakout, he doesn't know what form it will take, either. He just heard that "HE IS THE END OF THE WORLD" and that's all he needs to know. He may get clued in a bit more later on, when he overhears Firenze talking to Harry. Clearly, Harry is going to acquire a massive amount of power he doesn't already have, but I don't see any particular reason to promote the option of super-duper-time-travel to the fore.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 August 2014 07:42:58PM 1 point [-]

I thought "destroying stars" was pretty simple: Dyson spheres. That's not actual destruction per se, but from a Centaur's perspective...

Comment author: cousin_it 28 July 2014 12:09:19AM *  4 points [-]

So here's an obvious way to fix all known problems of the horcrux spell. You need a variant that kills the caster and moves their ghost into the victim's body. To avoid personality conflicts, the victim should be a baby who doesn't have much of a personality yet. And since the spell doesn't use an intermediate item, knowledge is not lost. Sounds like what happened to baby Harry, right?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 05:29:04AM 2 points [-]

Almost. Harry still grew up as a baby/child, and not as a genius wizard.

The first horcrux was off of Lily's death burst, passing some personality traits of Quirrell into Harry. The next death burst will be Quirrell's, which will transfer his intelligence into Harry.

Quirrell casts his own death burst into Harry?

Comment author: JTHM 27 July 2014 04:51:51PM 4 points [-]

Harry seems to have neglected the possibility that the Philosopher's Stone is a general-purpose transmutation device, thus explaining why it would be able to produce both gold and the elixir of life.

And since Fullmetal Alchemist was plagiarized from wizard lore, you'd think this would be a reasonably common hypothesis.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 26 July 2014 04:12:23PM 4 points [-]

I don't know where else to post this, but I've been entertaining a hypothesis about HPMOR's version of magic. Has anyone already made the connection between magic and Outcome Pumps? During the first chapters in Hogwarts, Harry talks a lot about expectations, and about magic being able to match them, and it ocurred to me that HPMOR's magic was a mechanism to force your universe to branch into one that matches your expectation. Then I read somewhere, in old threads, that EY was at one point in the past planning to write a story about a device to "squeeze the future," and I realized that HPMOR was it. Your wand is the device that squeezes the future and ensures you end up in the world you expected. Has this been discussed already?

Comment author: Benito 26 July 2014 06:28:03PM *  5 points [-]

If this is the case, I imagine that the story will be darn-near not understandable towards the end, when Harry finds this out.

I mean, what do you expect to happen when you expect reality to fit your expectations? When the territory starts to match to the map?!

Edit: a Added the words 'you expect' and changed nearby words to be grammatically appropriate.

Comment author: Larks 28 July 2014 09:27:46AM 4 points [-]

Well, if the "expects" operator starts acting like a "proves" operator, that sounds like Lob's theorem.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 July 2014 06:39:05PM 4 points [-]

I mean, what do you expect to happen when reality fits your expectations? When the territory starts to match to the map?!

I've been writing a story based on this premise. Spoiler: crazy shit happens.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 26 July 2014 09:04:15PM 1 point [-]

Sounds like the ending of Anathem.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 26 July 2014 11:55:30PM *  2 points [-]

It also reminds me of Friedman's Coldfire books.

Comment author: falenas108 26 July 2014 04:20:26PM 3 points [-]

The first experiments Harry did, where he told Hermione what the spells did but gave her wrong pronunciations, tested for this theory. If your idea is correct, the spells should have worked anyway. But they didn't.

Comment author: Coscott 26 July 2014 04:49:30PM 1 point [-]

If Harry did not expect them to work, that might have been enough to make them not work. Was this study double blind?

e.g. Harry should have written down two pronunciations, left the room, and let Hermione randomly choose and cast one.

Comment author: philh 27 July 2014 11:41:43AM 13 points [-]

Harry totally expected them to work. The idea that the universe should actually care about the way you pronounce oogely-boogely is absurd. He planned out a nice long series of experiments, and then had to scrap them after the first one falsified his theory.

Comment author: Jurily 26 July 2014 11:39:08AM 4 points [-]

What's the deal with spells and age? If Harry is really so far ahead of his class and can already cast spells nobody else can, why is it just now that he can cast "second-year" spells effortlessly?

Canon or not, this reminds me too much of the public school system of a certain country where kids are verboten to use words "they shouldn't know yet".

Comment author: NoSuchPlace 26 July 2014 01:52:12PM *  14 points [-]

These seem to be the relevant quotes:

"For some reason or other," said the amused voice of Professor Quirrell, "it seems that the scion of Malfoy is able to cast surprisingly strong magic for a first-year student. Due to the purity of his blood, of course. Certainly the good Lord Malfoy would not have openly flouted the underage magic laws by arranging for his son to receive a wand before his acceptance into Hogwarts."

and

Only there was a reason why they usually didn't bother giving wands to nine-year-olds. Age counted too, it wasn't just how long you'd held a wand. Granger's birthday had been only a few days into the year, when Harry had bought her that pouch. That meant she was twelve now, that she'd been twelve almost since the start of Hogwarts. And the truth was, Draco hadn't been practicing much outside of class, probably not nearly as much as Hermione Granger of Ravenclaw. Draco hadn't thought he needed any more practice to stay ahead...

-both hpmor ch.78

So from this it seems magic power increases with age, spells cast and time since first getting your wand (though the third could simply be due to the second)

So the reason Harry can only just now cast second year spells, is that he has only recently become sufficiently powerful. His partial transfiguration and patronous v2.0 don't actually require a lot of spell power they only require you to do clever things.

Comment author: redlizard 26 July 2014 09:17:16PM 11 points [-]

I've always modeled it as a physiological "mana capacity" aspect akin to muscle mass -- something that grows both naturally as a developing body matures, and as a result of exercise.

Comment author: Skeeve 26 July 2014 11:54:01AM 3 points [-]

I would speculate that there's some physiological component involved in spellcasting ability that grows with age, in much the same way that older children are often more coordinated and stronger than younger children. I have no evidence to back this up other than the repeated mentions of 'age matters with spells', however.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 July 2014 12:42:14PM 1 point [-]

Harry completely started using magic when he went to Hogwarts. If he has basically learned year one and year two in one year I think that's okay.

Canon or not, this reminds me too much of the public school system of a certain country where kids are verboten to use words "they shouldn't know yet".

Link?

Comment author: knb 26 July 2014 01:24:23PM 5 points [-]

Not a public school, but in 5th grade I wrote a short paper about Ferdinand Magellan and used the word "circumnavigate." My teacher accused me of copying, and I had to rewrite the paper using smaller words.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 26 July 2014 04:05:14PM 6 points [-]

There's a stupid teacher.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 July 2014 04:52:54PM *  3 points [-]

In this case it seems very much like the decision of an individual teacher and not broad educational policy.

Every strategy for plagiarism detection is also going to have false positives.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 07:25:38PM 5 points [-]

The word "circumnavigate" is always used with Magellan - it may as well be his middle name. It's used in the first two sentences on Magellan's page at La Wik.

My guess is the teacher didn't know know the word, found out it was a real one, and found it emotionally satisfying to punish a child for assaulting his status by demonstrating his ignorance, however unintentionally.

Some people feel very threatened by "big words" they don't know, and see use of language as a status play.

Years ago, one guy at work, who I actually consider very sharp, if not educated to the degree his intelligence allowed, stormed off in a huff with a parting shot saying I was "using big words to show I was better than he was." ?????

That was a very poor reading of me, but a huge window into his own motivations and insecurities. I think that weirdness is actually common in some poorer and less educated subcultures.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 July 2014 07:45:33PM 5 points [-]

The word "circumnavigate" is always used with Magellan - it may as well be his middle name. It's used in the first two sentences on Magellan's page at La Wik.

If the student in question uses the word not because it was in his usual vocabulary but because it appeared in the article about Magellan, the teacher has a valid point. A five grade student who reads an article about Magellan might copy the word without understanding it.

A teacher who wants to check whether the students actually understand is going to want that the student expresses his ideas within their own vocabulary and not simply copy words of an article they read.

I personally had teachers not understand a point I made because of not understanding that strategy and tactics are two different words with different meaning but I hadn't an issue with teacher complaining that I'm not speaking in my own vocabulary when writing essays.

Comment author: knb 26 July 2014 11:26:45PM 6 points [-]

If the student in question uses the word not because it was in his usual vocabulary but because it appeared in the article about Magellan, the teacher has a valid point.

Not really. I'm sure "circumnavigate" wasn't in my usual vocabulary but its meaning is simple enough to determine from context. I don't think its reasonable to penalize someone for using a word they would pretty much have to pick up when learning about a topic.

Comment author: Velorien 27 July 2014 09:32:04AM 3 points [-]

The other thing about this educational strategy is that, all other effects aside, it discourages students from using more sophisticated vocabulary. If you try to use a complicated word and get it wrong, you will be punished. If you get it right but the teacher doesn't believe you did so deliberately, you will also be punished. That's a terrible lesson to teach children (or anyone else).

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 July 2014 11:14:13PM *  5 points [-]

If the student in question uses the word not because it was in his usual vocabulary but because it appeared in the article about Magellan, the teacher has a valid point.

One of the points of being a student is to expand your vocabulary. You see a word used, you use it yourself. "Circumnavigation" is not a complicated concept. If you use it incorrectly, then the teacher should correct you. But don't tell a student to stay away from the big scary word.

but I hadn't an issue with teacher complaining that I'm not speaking in my own vocabulary when writing essays.

??? Words become your vocabulary by you using them, and that's all the more true when you're young and still developing your vocabulary.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 July 2014 11:40:19PM 4 points [-]

There such a thing as "guessing the teachers" password. It's a failure condition.

It's a frequent exercise to read a text and rephrase it in your own words to show that you understood the text. It creates mental connections between the new information to which you are exposed and to what you already know. Essay writing is about "transfer" at least it was what I was taught in school.

Comment author: TylerJay 13 August 2014 05:25:05AM 3 points [-]

Not related to CH102, but I just realized that "Slytherin System" messages are a physical implementation of Tor. Entry node who knows only the sender and the middle node, middle node who knows only the entry and exit nodes, exit node who knows only the middle node and the receiver.

Comment author: gwern 19 August 2014 01:02:52AM 1 point [-]

Yep. I enjoyed seeing a mix net in MoR. Incidentally, can you see any weaknesses in the Slytherin System as described?

Comment author: pushcx 19 August 2014 03:26:16PM 2 points [-]

Sure: there's no indication of delivery, so you don't even know if one of the hops in your message opened all the envelopes, took all the money, read your private note, and trashed it.

Comment author: 75th 09 January 2015 10:35:48PM 1 point [-]

I think there's a bonus feature to having two hops in the middle. If the sender finds that the recipient never received the message, he immediately distrusts his first hop and perhaps publishes the knowledge. If the first hop wasn't the culprit, he either publishes the second hop's unreliability or takes horrible devious Slytheriny vengeance on them.

So, due to mutually assured destruction, neither hop wants to defect and risk losing a nice income source permanently.

Comment author: gwern 19 August 2014 05:13:18PM 1 point [-]

Yes, without public-key crypto or at least crypto of some sort, you easily lose any secrecy to any bad actors in the mix net. But the absence of dummy messages or very high traffic also means you don't necessarily get anonymity either: just observe everyone in the System.

Comment author: 75th 29 July 2014 08:50:30PM *  3 points [-]

/u/solipsist, in another comment on this thread:

Do not try to obtain Sstone yoursself. I forbid.

This was said by Quirrell in Parseltongue. If you can only tell the truth in Parseltongue, then Quirrell was really forbidding Harry from obtaining the stone himself.

If Quirrell can't lie in Parseltongue (and not just Harry, since Harry's speaking as a standard Parselmouth but Quirrell is speaking as a sentient snake), and if that prohibition enforces the sincerity of imperative commands and not just declarative statements, then clearly what Quirrell is saying is that Harry should try to make his own Philosopher's Stone.

"It's not a secret." Hermione flipped the page, showing Harry the diagrams. "The instructions are right on the next page. It's just so difficult that only Nicholas Flamel's done it."


"Well, it can't work," Hermione said. She'd flown across the library to look up the only book on alchemy that wasn't in the Restricted Section. And then - she remembered the crushing letdown, all the sudden hope dissipating like mist. "Because all alchemical circles have to be drawn 'to the fineness of a child's hair', it isn't any finer for some alchemies than others. And wizards have Omnioculars, and I haven't heard of any spells where you use Omnioculars to magnify things and do them exactly.

So the first thing Hermione mentions as a limitation of doing alchemy is the insane precision of the circle you have to draw. But what if there were already an acceptable, permanent alchemy setup just lying around somewhere where Harry could get to it?

The three of them stood within the Headmaster's private Transfiguration workroom, where the shining phoenix of Dumbledore's Patronus had told her to bring Harry, moments after her own Patronus had reached him. Light shone down through the skylights and illuminated the great seven-pointed alchemical diagram drawn in the center of the circular room, showing it to be a little dusty, which saddened Minerva. Transfiguration research was one of Dumbledore's great enjoyments, and she'd known how pressed for time he'd been lately, but not that he was this pressed.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 30 July 2014 09:12:30AM 3 points [-]

So the first thing Hermione mentions as a limitation of doing alchemy is the insane precision of the circle you have to draw.

I guess I know what Harry told Fred/George to buy him in Chapter 98. The greatest alchemist tool ever! :D

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 09:36:46PM 3 points [-]

On the other hand,

"Because all alchemical circles have to be drawn 'to the fineness of a child's hair', it isn't any finer for some alchemies than others.

strongly implies that different alchemical procedures require different circles. What are the odds that Dumbledore just happens to have the right circle for philosopher's stone creation ready, given that he has no desire for immortality, no special need for gold, and access to an existing philosopher's stone anyway?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 July 2014 12:48:44PM 3 points [-]

This problem could be fixed, in principle:

Merlin'ss Interdict preventss powerful sspells from passing through ssuch a device, ssince it iss not truly alive. Dark Wizardss who think to return thuss are weaker, eassily disspatched.

You need two cooperating Dark Wizards. (I know, much easier said than done.) They share knowledge of all spells. One of them makes a horcrux, the other teaches him all the spells again. Then the other makes a horcrux, and the former teaches him.

Or maybe you just need one Dark Wizard, and one loyal servant, willing to make the Unbreakable Vow. Servant makes a vow to teach the reborn Dark Wizard all his spells, but never use them for himself or tell them to anyone else.

Comment author: Velorien 29 July 2014 12:53:18PM 3 points [-]

Or maybe you just need one Dark Wizard, and one loyal servant, willing to make the Unbreakable Vow. Servant makes a vow to teach the reborn Dark Wizard all his spells, but never use them for himself or tell them to anyone else.

Bellatrix?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 05:21:47AM *  2 points [-]

Or Quirrell focuses Quirrell's death burst into Harry?

Harry think's he's gaining knowledge, but it's actually Quirrell uploading into Harry and taking over.

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 02 August 2014 05:04:25AM 2 points [-]

Anyone else find the stuff about indifference to be rather deepish? Indifference has no power at all, it's the absence of power.

And now we learn that to cast Avada Kevada, you have to either want the person dead, or not care whether they live or die? So, I guess that means the only condition in which you can't cast is if you want the person to live, in which case you wouldn't want to cast it anyway.

Comment author: Velorien 02 August 2014 08:31:37AM 7 points [-]

Anyone else find the stuff about indifference to be rather deepish? Indifference has no power at all, it's the absence of power.

You're going to have to define "power" for that statement to be meaningful.

And now we learn that to cast Avada Kevada, you have to either want the person dead, or not care whether they live or die? So, I guess that means the only condition in which you can't cast is if you want the person to live, in which case you wouldn't want to cast it anyway.

I thought the point was that by default, a psychologically healthy human being assigns others' lives a value above zero, even strangers, and for Avada Kedavra you have to either overcome this with hatred (by assigning them a value below zero) or by indifference (by assigning them a value of zero). Both achieve the goal of expressing a preference for death (zero or below) over life (positive value), but the former requires an increasing amount of effort (because you're deliberately making yourself feel something) while the latter is "always on" and theferore doesn't.

I still don't see why repeat castings with hatred would require higher amounts of effort each time, but otherwise the concept is not incoherent.

Comment author: Philip_W 05 August 2014 10:08:22AM *  1 point [-]

I still don't see why repeat castings with hatred would require higher amounts of effort each time,

This is weird: In many cases hatred would peter out into indifference, rather than positive value, which ought to make AK easier. In fact, the idea that killing gets easier with time because of building indifference is a recognised trope. It's even weirder that the next few paragraphs are an author tract on how baseline humans let people die out of apathy all the time, so it's not like Yudkowski is unfamiliar with the ease with which people kill.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 July 2014 01:59:27PM 2 points [-]

The burning sensation was back in Harry's throat. "No continuity of -" there wasn't a snake word for consciousness "- sself, you would go on thinking after making the horcrux, then sself with new memoriess diess and iss not resstored -"

That's an interesting reflection of our recent discussion about the value of the term consciousness (http://lesswrong.com/lw/ki1/confused_as_to_usefulness_of_consciousness_as_a/) and how some languages probably don't have it.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 26 July 2014 10:43:35PM *  2 points [-]

Rereading chapter 100 reminds me of the Twilight Sparkle lookalike among the unicorns.

it added nothing but confusion and awkwardness. If it were cut, no one who hadn't been told would ever realize that something had once been there. And now with this chapter we've got some pretty good confirmation that they're not sapient, so any inferences one might have drawn from it were false.

Comment author: Azathoth123 27 July 2014 12:13:27AM *  11 points [-]

I was under the impression the unicorn was Alicorn's cameo. Alicorn asked for a cameo as a unicorn, Eliezer agreed and even promised to make it plot relevant. I'm not sure what actually happened was quite what Alicorn had in mind.

Comment author: philh 27 July 2014 12:20:41PM 1 point [-]

There were two, one was Alicorn and the other was Twilight Sparkle (unnamed).

Comment author: luser 16 January 2015 09:54:11PM 1 point [-]

As horcruxes were explained they are quite substantial evidence that quirrel is not voldermort.

If voldermort could use them then he would take over world in year, He would first kidnap two wizards to make copy of himself which would be loyal to him and would quickly relearn all spells and kindap four other wizards and grow exponentially.

So likely explanation is as Quirrel said personality is completely different and after first forking to quirrel decided to fight voldermort and they do not try copy himself again.

Comment author: Velorien 17 January 2015 12:17:44PM 1 point [-]

Why would Voldemort's copies be loyal to him? If they share Voldemort's personality, then they also share his desire to dominate, and the original was never known for willingness to share power.