= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Whatever doubt or doctrinal Atheism you and your friends may have, don't fall into moral atheism.
-Charles Kingsley
In response to
Rationality Quotes June 2012
Explain?
Why would being good make you unsafe?
Caledonian hasn't posted anything since 2009, if you said that in hopes of him responding.
Wrong input > no input? I'm not so sure.
Depends on if you're hallucinating everything or your vision has at least some bearing in the real world. I mean, I'd rather see spiders crawling on everything than be blind, since I could still see what they were crawling on.
Do you mean:
1) Because journals are really careful about proof-reading and there are no errors in journal articles?
2) Because journals are really careful about proof-reading, they delete every sentence where a scientist says that "I've been wrong in the past"?
3) Some other way in which careful proof-reading removes the possibility that "I've been wrong in the past" appears in a journal article?
It was grammar nitpicking. "The authors where wrong".
Last I checked that was a fallacy...
I mean what about truth of the matter? Accuracy? Is there no difference between possible definitions in how well they carve reality, or how deep an understanding they reflect?
Or is it that anything goes, and we can define it however we please and might as well choose whatever is most beneficial.
Unless you expect some factual, objective truth to arise about how one should define oneself, it seems fair game for defining in the most beneficial way. It's physics all the way down, so I don't see a factual reason not to define yourself down to nothing, nor do I see a factual reason to do so.
I'm talking about you. And you're starting to repeat yourself.
Does that mean it is time to stop feeding him?
I had decided when I finished my hiatus recently that the account in question had already crossed the threshold where I could reply to him without predicting that I was just causing more noise.
I do think that 'sizable majority' hypothesis has not been ruled out, to say the least. SI is working to help build benevolent ruler bot, to save the world from malevolent bot. That sounds as crazy as things can be. Prior track record doing anything relevant? None. Reasons for SI to think they can make any progress? None.
I think most of sceptically minded people do see that kind of stuff in pretty negative light, but of course that's my opinion, you can disagree. Actually, who cares, SI should just go on 'fix' what Holden pointed out, increase visibility, and get listed on crackpot/pseudoscience pages.
I'm not talking about SI (which I've never donated money to), I'm talking about you. And you're starting to repeat yourself.
You guys are only being supposedly 'accurate' when it feels good. I have not said, 'all outsiders', that's your interpretation which you can subsequently disagree with.
SI generalized from the agreement of self selected participants, onto opinions of outsiders, like Holden, subsequently approaching him and getting back the same critique they've been hearing from rare 'contrarians' here for ages but assumed to be some sorta fringe views and such. I don't really care what you guys do with this, you can continue as is and be debunked big time as cranks, your choice. edit: actually, you can see Eliezer himself said that most AI researchers are lunatics. What did SI do to distinguish themselves from what you guys call 'lunatics'? What is here that can shift probabilities from the priors? Absolutely nothing. The focus on safety with made up fears is no indication of sanity what so ever.
You guys are only being supposedly 'accurate' when it feels good. I have not said, 'all outsiders', that's your interpretation which you can subsequently disagree with.
You're misusing language by not realizing that most people treat "members of group A think X" as "a sizable majority of members of group A think X", or not caring and blaming the reader when they parse it the standard way. We don't say "LWers are religious" or even "US citizens vote Democrat", even though there's certainly more than one religious person on this site or Democrat voter in the US.
And if you did intend to say that, you're putting words into Manfred's mouth by assuming he's talking about 'all' instead.
Dispel all their illusions, including the one that assigned negative utility to unavoidable dying. There are better things to do with 2 minutes than expecting fun you won't receive.
If you know of any illusions that give inevitably ceasing to exist negative utility to someone leading a positive-utility life, I would love to have them dispelled for me.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Ahh, hypocrisy and double standards then :(
I figured it was because it was a surprising and more-or-less unsupported statement of fact (that turned out to be, according to the only authority anyone cited, false). When I read 'poor people are better long-term planners than rich people due to necessity' I kind of expect the writer to back it up. I would have considered downvoting if it wasn't already downvoted, and my preferences are much closer to socialist than libertarian.
I don't have an explanation for the parent getting upvoted beyond a 'planning is important' moral and some ideological wiggle room for being a quote, so I guess it could still be hypocrisy. Of course, as of the 2011 survey LW is 32% libertarian (compared to 26% socialist and 34% liberal), so if there is ideological bias it's of the 'vocal minority' kind.