In response to comment by Larks on Don't Get Offended
Comment author: Eliut 07 March 2013 07:52:00PM -7 points [-]

This is why living in an advanced society is highly desirable.

I will always admire the Norwegians at how they responded to Breiviks actions.

In response to comment by Eliut on Don't Get Offended
Comment author: Eliut 07 March 2013 09:45:01PM *  -9 points [-]

-3!

nOw i aM oFfenDed!

I am against this, I think it is overused, but there are times when it is justified... ROLF!

No I was not calling my cousin Rolf I meant ROFL...

Question at how many negative points do I get banned?

In response to comment by [deleted] on Don't Get Offended
Comment author: Larks 07 March 2013 05:53:11PM 2 points [-]

You're only taking examples from one side. What about when the husband is offended his wife won't sleep with him, the bullies are offended by the gay kid, and the racists by the black people moving in?

In response to comment by Larks on Don't Get Offended
Comment author: Eliut 07 March 2013 07:52:00PM -7 points [-]

This is why living in an advanced society is highly desirable.

I will always admire the Norwegians at how they responded to Breiviks actions.

In response to Don't Get Offended
Comment author: Eliut 07 March 2013 04:56:02PM *  5 points [-]

Very nice, I see your point, this is a skill that benefits (actually allows) most cognitive processes (or would make you a fantastic chess player).

I would like you to elaborate more on this idea:

Humans are gregarious, in ancient times it was our greatest asset against most predators, (ironically it made us the most terrifying) therefore it was (is) of utmost importance to be part of the tribe. Apparently we are genetically programmed to follow this tribal behavior.

Many times when I witness human interaction I see “power play” (I am sorry to say this but the first thing that comes to mind is apes throwing feces at each other) eventually this leads one of the participants to be offended.

I wonder if the “loser” is overwhelmed with emotion since being degraded in status means the possibility of becoming a cast out, with the unpleasant effect of being devoured by the tiger. Also without sexual partners there is zero chance of passing your (precious) genetic information.

Cheers!

Comment author: Ben_Welchner 06 March 2013 04:30:08PM *  0 points [-]

We encourage you to downvote any comment that you'd rather not see more of - please don't feel that this requires being able to give an elaborate justification. -LW Wiki Deletion Policy

Folks are encouraged to downvote liberally on LW, but the flip-side of that is that people will downvote where they might otherwise just move on for fear of offending someone or getting into an argument that doesn't interest them. You might want to be less sensitive if someone brings one of your posts to -1 - it's not really an act of aggression.

Comment author: Eliut 06 March 2013 09:02:58PM 0 points [-]

This is fun! To tell you the truth (my thruth not the absolute one) I dont care. I am having a blast trying to unravel what (and how) most people write here.

Cheers!

Comment author: Desrtopa 28 February 2013 02:21:34AM 8 points [-]

The Solomon story has always bugged me as being the sort of thing a not-wise person would come up with as an example of wisdom. There are too many ways it could have gone wrong.

I have my own preferred take on the story, and what else that sort of solution might imply. In that version, it ends with

And because he was the king, beheld by his subjects with awe and terror, the women did not protest his judgment.

And nobody ever bothered the king with domestic disputes again.

Comment author: Eliut 06 March 2013 08:51:24PM 0 points [-]

I think it is remarkable how obviously childish the style of the “bible” quotes is when compared to the deliberately arcane “wording” of the OP.

I agree with you, I also fail to see any level of sophistication in the bible. If anything it is at the same level of “Go god Go” (Must add a disclaimer here: English is not my native language so if I say something stupid it is because I am Mexican)

In response to comment by [deleted] on Why Bayes? A Wise Ruling
Comment author: [deleted] 06 March 2013 05:30:34PM *  1 point [-]

People often use 'sentient' to mean 'sapient', and it may be that Eliezer intends the latter. It's at least pretty plausible that animals and very young infants are not sapient, namely not capable of judgement, and that this capacity is what would endow one with a certain autonomy.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Why Bayes? A Wise Ruling
Comment author: Eliut 06 March 2013 07:36:29PM -1 points [-]

I respectfully disagree, sapience is an acquired subjective quality, therefore it is trivial to disregard. Now sentience is orders of magnitude more complex. I was going to say “inherent” to the species, but is it? Now this is supposed to be “the easy problem” go figure that.

Comment author: Eliut 04 March 2013 09:06:58PM *  -1 points [-]

Hello, I think that Zeno paradox of Achilles and the tortoise fits perfectly here...

Comment author: Eliut 06 March 2013 04:08:00PM -1 points [-]

-1!

OK, I take that back. The idea that a tortoise is faster than a runner is preposterous and counterintuitive.

Therefore humans can become Minds

Provided that knowledge is not infinite

But of course that is a preposterous idea too, so I take that one back too, I don’t want to provoke the anger of my anonymous friend and get another wedgie.

Comment author: Eliut 05 March 2013 03:51:33PM 0 points [-]

"Torah loses knowledge in every generation. Science gains knowledge with every generation. No matter where they started out, sooner or later science must surpass Torah."

Mazel Tov!

Comment author: Robin_Hanson2 29 December 2008 11:20:04PM 4 points [-]

I agree with Unknown. It seems that Eliezer's intuitions about desirable futures differ greatly from many of the rest of us here at this blog, and mostly likely even more from the rest of humanity today. I see little evidence that we should explain this divergence as mainly due to his "having moved further toward reflective equilibrium." Without a reason to think he will have vastly disproportionate influence, I'm having trouble seeing much point in all these posts that simply state Eliezer's intuitions. It might be more interesting if he argued for those intuitions, engaging with existing relevant literatures, such as in moral philosophy. But what is the point of just hearing his wish lists?

Comment author: Eliut 04 March 2013 09:58:21PM *  0 points [-]

"...and mostly likely even more from the rest of humanity today. "

True, 90% of humanity, in this age, believe in ominpotent beings that look over our wellfare.

To me what Eliezer says is that it would be boring to have a god around serving all our needs. But perhaps "it" exists and it is benevolent by not ruining our existence, simply by not existing...

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 December 2008 06:41:36PM 6 points [-]

Zubon, I thought of that possibility, and one possible singleton-imposed solution is "Who says that subjective time has to run at the same rate for everyone?" You could then do things fast or slow, as you preferred, without worrying about being left behind, or for that matter, worrying about pulling ahead. To look at it another way, if people can increase in power arbitrarily fast on your own playing field, you may have to increase in power faster than you prefer, to keep up with them; this is a coordination/competition problem, and two singleton solutions are to fence off people who grow too fast, or to slow down their subjective time rates so that the competence growth rate per tick of sidereal time is coordinated.

Ramarren, Banks added on that part later, and it renders a lot of the earlier books nonsensical - why didn't the Culture or the Idarans increase their intelligence to win their war, if it was that easy? I refuse to regard Excession as canon; it never happened.

Unknown, the question is how much of this divergence is due to (a) having moved further toward reflective equilibrium, (b) unusual mistakes in answering a common question, (c) being an evil mutant, (d) falling into an uncommon but self-consistent attractor.

Comment author: Eliut 04 March 2013 09:06:58PM *  -1 points [-]

Hello, I think that Zeno paradox of Achilles and the tortoise fits perfectly here...

View more: Next