I'm watching this dialogue now, I'm 45 (of 73) minutes in. I'd just like to remark that:
Aside: what is the LW policy on commenting on old threads? All good? Frowned upon?
Some of us enjoy the challenge of finding rationalist ideas in unlikely places - or fitting ideas from non-rational sources into a rationalist framework. In this case, it seems fairly easy to do so. As Markus already points out, it is important to keep your mind from becoming infected with bad stuff.
Indeed it is. But the way you fight "memetic infection" in the real world is to take a look at the bad stuff and see where it goes wrong, not to isolate yourself from harmful ideas.
And they'll be beaten in turn by people who were in the right place at the right time, or won the genetic lottery. A little luck can make up for a lot of laziness, and working hard and learning things can just leave you digging ditches and able to quote every Simpsons episode verbatim.
Thankfully for Mr. Pratchett, you can't influence the genetic lottery or the luck fairy, so his is still valid advice. In fact, one could see "trust in yourself" et al. as invitations to "do or do not, there is no try", whereas "work hard, learn hard and don't be lazy" supports the virtue of scholarship as well as that of "know when to give up". Miss Tick is being eminently practical, and "do or do not", while also an important virtue, requires way more explanation before the student can understand it.
Hello LessWrong,
I've been reading the website for at least the past two years. I like the site, I admire the community, and I figured I should start commenting.
I like to think of myself as a rationalist. LW, along with other sources (Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins) has contributed heavily (and positively) to my mental models. Still, I have a lot of work to do.
I like to learn. I like to discuss. I used to like to engage in heated debates, but this seems to have lost some of its appeal recently--either someone is wrong or isn't, and I prefer to figure out which it is (and how much), point out the error in either my or his thoughts, and move on.
Procrastination is a major problem for me. Risk-aversion too. I've lost many dollars to them. I'm working on it, although not as hard as I should (read: desperately hard). I've been having a lot of fun, in fact, ever since I realised that just because you're aware of your biases doesn't mean you're no longer subject to them. :-|
There are a few areas where, after I do my due diligence, I will ask the LW community for help. How to properly learn (spaced repetition and (memorising better) [http://lesswrong.com/lw/52x/i_want_a_better_memory/] are of particular interest to me) and how to convince others of your perspective are two topics of particular concern.
In closing, I'd like to say I was very glad there was a Zurich LW meetup recently (even though I couldn't attend) and there should be more Europe meet-ups. Preferably on the mainland because trains are moar better than planes.
Apteris
View more: Prev
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Aside from the problem that higher intelligence doesn't lead necessarily to convergent moral goals, in this context, I'd hope that a superintelligence didn't see it that way. Since the main argument for a difference in moral standing between humans and most animals rests on the difference in cognitive capacity, a superintelligence that took that argument seriously would by the same token be able to put its own preferences above humans and claim a moral highground in the process.
I think it would be difficult to construct an ethical system where you give no consideration to cognitive capacity. Is there a practical reason for said superintelligence to not take into account humans' cognitive capacity? Is there a logical reason for same?
Not to make light of a serious question, but, "Equal rights for bacteria!"? I think not.
Aside: I am puzzled as to the most likely reason Esar's comment was downvoted. Was it perhaps considered insufficiently sophisticated, or implying that its poster was insufficiently well-read, for LW?