In response to comment by Biophile on Mere Messiahs
Comment author: gwern 07 May 2013 03:05:56AM *  1 point [-]

the Temptations show him actively refusing to use his supernatural abilities for selfish purposes, even harmless ones like feeding himself.

How about harmful purposes, like cursing the fig tree?

In response to comment by gwern on Mere Messiahs
Comment author: Biophile 08 May 2013 12:56:12AM 0 points [-]

According to that article, there seem to be two commonly used explanations for why he did that. One of them is that he was showing that he could, and the other is that he was warning his listeners to be like that tree. I'm definitely not the most qualified person to say which is right, but I would lean towards the second because in addition to it fitting better with the rest of what I remember the New Testament saying about him, he also apparently told a parable that was almost exactly the same and pretty much always interpreted interpreted that way, so he seemed to like that metaphor.

In response to Mere Messiahs
Comment author: Biophile 07 May 2013 02:50:24AM *  2 points [-]

As the Christians tell the story, Jesus Christ could walk on water, calm storms, drive out demons with a word. It must have made for a comfortable life: Starvation a problem? Xerox some bread. Don't like a tree? Curse it. Romans a problem? Sic your Dad on them.

In fairness to Christianity, I feel like I ought to point out that according to the Gospels, Jesus didn't use those powers to make his life more comfortable. Not only do we not see any instances of him doing this (at least, I don't recall any, and it doesn't fit with my understanding of the New Testament; if anyone does have a counterexample, then that would be welcome), the Temptations show him actively refusing to use his supernatural abilities for selfish purposes, even harmless ones like feeding himself. (To clarify, I don't believe he had any supernatural abilities to begin with, but I feel like it's worth mentioning).

In response to Mere Messiahs
Comment author: Ben_Jones 05 December 2007 05:31:05PM 1 point [-]

Is that vitriol I can smell? Tough to say. However, I definitely enjoyed this:

"There is only one superpower that exists in this universe, and those who seek to master it are called Bayesians."

I would *love* to read a thousand words on this Eliezer, and I say that with no hint of sarcasm or challenge. I understand Bayes, I'd just like to get my head around your "religion".

Regarding your most recent response above, Eliezer, I can assure you (as one who had his Catechism drummed in from an early age) that nothing so theoretically *interesting* could be allowed in Christianity. The virtue displayed by defying God's will to do what you know is, by God's own terms, the *right* thing would be tantamount to a one way ticket to heaven. If you refused to kill your firstborn, you wouldn't be smitten with a thunderbolt, you'd be told you had passed the test, and were truly worthy. This isn't an inconsistency in the nature of God, it's the nature of human-written scripture.

For the most part, the major religions had the obvious moral dilemmas tied up centuries ago. If they were anything but self-contained, they'd either have changed their dogma or been taken to bits by rationality. The only rational weapon we have against them is the fact that they are all almost certainly superstitious hogwash.

In response to comment by Ben_Jones on Mere Messiahs
Comment author: Biophile 07 May 2013 01:48:42AM *  2 points [-]

If you refused to kill your firstborn, you wouldn't be smitten with a thunderbolt, you'd be told you had passed the test, and were truly worthy.

If this is so, then I have to question why Abraham got the same response for not refusing to kill the first child resulting from his marriage.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 October 2012 11:02:22PM *  2 points [-]

I'm Eliezer Yudkowsky! Do you have any idea how many distinct versions of me there are in Tegmark Levels I through III?

37. Precisely 37. If you disagree then your conception of the identity "Eliezer Yudkowsky" is either too broad or too narrow. (So there!?)

Comment author: Biophile 05 October 2012 11:53:23PM 1 point [-]

I just want to say that it was hilariously confusing to see "I'm Eliezer Yudkowsky!" coming from you out of context in the Recent Comments Bar.

Comment author: NickiH 04 April 2011 08:17:16PM 3 points [-]

Given that people who believe in god tend to really believe in god, and people who trust governments do so usually with a number of reservations, does that mean that the bomber has more justification than the soldier?

Comment author: Biophile 05 October 2012 10:33:48PM *  1 point [-]

Do people who believe in God tend to really believe in God?

In response to Correspondence Bias
Comment author: TGGP3 27 June 2007 07:59:12PM 0 points [-]

Nick, are Hindus and other polytheists/animists/what-have-you atheists?

Nick Tarleton may change in many ways, but his DNA will not. As our genes are selfish, they cause us to single out the carrier of those genes (ourselves) as special and distinct from others and generally favor ourselves over others. This does remind me a bit of Lachmann vs Nozick on how far reductionism should go.

Matthew C, why does "Awareness" get a capital "A" and what do you mean by its "fundamental unity"?

In response to comment by TGGP3 on Correspondence Bias
Comment author: Biophile 05 October 2012 09:29:24PM 0 points [-]

I would just like to point out that Nick's "definition of an atheist" was to "n[o]t believe in God. Polytheists do believe in a god, and another god, and then some more, so of course that isn't atheism. As for animism, that's completely compatible with belief in God, but I'd say it's also compatible with atheism. It's not rational, but there are certainly atheists in the world who aren't rational. I'm often annoyed at all the connotations that go along with atheism; really, it's hardly a category at all. It's like the article here about selling nonapples: http://lesswrong.com/lw/vs/selling_nonapples/.(Incidentally, I didn't see anything in that particular quote from Samuel Harris that seemed irrational, either, although I fully admit that I know very little about him, so for all I know, he might be).

Comment author: Jonathan_Falk 13 March 2007 09:43:46PM 0 points [-]

But, by thew same token, wouldn't then being told that the reactor is more likely to meltdown lead people to think it produces more waste. If I multiply the true effects of everything by 10, wy will tht affet the binary choice?

Comment author: Biophile 05 October 2012 08:23:15PM 0 points [-]

Perhaps it wouldn't affect the choice. For instance, if you have two reactors, and the only thing you've been told about them is which is more likely to melt down, then (assuming you don't want waste or nuclear meltdowns), you'll prefer the one that produces less waste regardless of whether you draw any illogical conclusions from the data you have, because the conclusions will be based on the emotions you have already. However, unless I am mistaken, this blog is about rationality in general, not just in decision-making. Many of the people here (including myself) probably want their information to be accurate just for the sake of accuracy, not just because of its influence on decisions. For them, this is important whether or not it will affect their decisions.

Comment author: mat33 04 October 2011 07:14:12AM 0 points [-]

  1. Politics, social intercourse, public relationships were the major factors in our mind's evolution. Look up "HarryPotterandtheMethodsofRationality".

  2. The concept bundling in politics (sky color, taxes, etc). You see, the political views "evolved" more, than were invented, thought over, whatever. Sometimes mammals seem to evolve something that seems more usefull to insects, fishes, or birds. And sometimes it really is (more usefull). And nowdays we may try to test it experimentally (genetic engenearing). But before making actual experiments, it isn't all that bright to jump to conclusions. And even after we'll prove the point, it isn't wise to criticize evolution in just the same way as any other disigner job.

The way our cultures with their law systems work isn't all that logical - from our viewpoint. They have all kind of odd evolutionary artifacts from the past - and from all the past attempts to "evolve future". But these evolved sets of roules (quiddich with Snitch) - actually do work. And we don't have good enoug models (as yet) to test more logical sets of roules without actual risk of bludshed. Currently, western (greece-roman) culture may dye our (low birthrate) just "for" its "test run" of granting rights to woman and childreen.

  1. We aren't individually sentient beings, sorry. Our subcultures are sentient. We may support our part of some subculture's immage for years and even to try to improove it a bit... and that's it. And our collective minds (repeat) evolved politically...
Comment author: Biophile 05 October 2012 02:14:17AM 0 points [-]

Evolution favors the attitudes that make us most likely to produce viable offspring. If this is one's own main goal, then I suppose logical fallacies should be accepted if they have a clear evolutionary basis and still seem likely to contribute to that goal. However, whether or not it's efficient to place reproduction as one's top priority depends on various circumstances, including emotions. From what I've read by Eliezer Yudkowsky, it seems like being accurate in his ideas is more important to him. In that situation, just because a belief helps us survive long enough to reproduce does not mean that it is "useful," and "criticizing evolution" isn't really what he's doing. Evolution /isn't/ a designer, and it /isn't/ always completely efficient (not that any designer is), but even if it is completely efficient in this case, the efficiency is towards a goal he does not share, so it isn't necessarily relevant to him.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit