= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my housemates would still flee if I told them I was inviting the Bayesian Conspiracy to dinner.
I suppose that you could joke about the Weird Ideas and signal you didn't take yourself too seriously to them, which might put them at ease if it convinces them that you aren't implying you're better than they are, and so their status isn't being threatened... but that might kind of defeat the purpose by not doing anything to reduce the bias against non-conventional ideas, I'm not very good at modeling people.
Ah, good point. Using someone else's moral lapses to his advantage without getting his own hands dirty would be very much in character for MoR Dumbledore.
Either way, I suspect that Harry and Draco's attempt to uncover the truth, and Harry having to consider Dumbledore's position at the time, will be a major story arc at some point.
I'd imagine that the Death Eater's own activities would be brought into the lime-light as well, if it were a major arc.
Actually, I just had a chilling realization in regards to that. From chapter 62:
'"No," said the old wizard's voice. "I do not think so. The Death Eaters learned, toward the end of the war, not to attack the Order's families. And if Voldemort is now acting without his former companions, he still knows that it is I who make the decisions for now, and he knows that I would give him nothing for any threat to your family. I have taught him that I do not give in to blackmail, and so he will not try."
Harry turned back then, and saw a coldness on the old wizard's face to match the shift in his voice, Dumbledore's blue eyes grown hard as steel behind the glasses, it didn't match the person but it matched the formal black robes.'
I strongly suspect that Dumbledore burned Narcissa Malfoy so that the death eaters would stop targeting the families of Order members. Judging by his tone of voice and body language in this excerpt, this is probably the one action during the war that Dumbledore most regrets having had to do.
If I'm right, Harry will be in a difficult moral situation when he learns the truth. Was what Dumbledore did justified? On the one hand, torturing a mostly innocent person to death is deplorable no matter how you slice it. On the other, if that was the only way to stop many other innocents from being tortured to death...
Another thought which occurred, is that Amelia Bones killed Narcissa in revenge for the Death Eater's killing of her family members, then Dumbledore claimed responsibility in order to send a message to the Death Eater's and Malfoy to discourage further attacks on the Order's families, and prevent Lucius from finding any evidence of Amelia's responsibility, which might have allowed him to remove one of Dumbledore's more powerful allies. He probably would have had to have been careful to give the impression that he would be willing to do so 'again' to the other Death Eaters if he wanted them to stop, though, unless Lucius cares a lot more about his allies than shown so far, or at least made some threat against Draco, who Lucius seems to care about.
EDIT: I was wondering how killing Lucius' wife would provide leverage over the other Death Eaters when I realised something rather obvious in retrospect, Dumbledore is the Headmaster of Hogwarts. He already has plenty of leverage, doesn't he? If need be he can hold all the school age children of Death Eaters and their allies hostage, or expell them, denying them good education and potentially giving them a bad reputation. If the parents withdrew the children and sent them abroad though, they could grow up without the knowledge of local politics provided by a hogwarts education (including personal knowledge of everyone important in your age group, which in such a small society, not-having would likely be a big disadvantage.)
In response to
Other Useful Sites LWers Read
I'm quite fond of this for quick statistics for my Economics course; http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ Although the CIA World Factbook; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ is my favourite if I have to supply a reference without checking back to government or private statistic sources.
In response to
If we're in a sim...
If our universe was an artificial construct, then the potential scenarios spin out of control as we consider the possible motivations of the 'creators'. Although the assumption may not apply in universes with different physical laws, I'll operate on the premise that their computing power is finite.
In the first scenario, the one that normally shows up in popular science programmes referring to science fiction to entertain the audience, this is a game. If we were directly created by the 'creators', then we must be beings that they can conceive of, and reflect some side of their psyche. I don't think this planet is the most interesting setting for a game I could imagine, so assuming we can reflect our creators psyches with our own biases, the only data we'll ever get in this scenario, there are probably more perfect games for them to play. This implies they would only spend limited resources on this particular universe, and running a fully 'rendered' universe, minds and all, when a player isn't in the area would probably increase costs. I know I can think, feel, and, to a degree, comprehend the universe. You know you can think, feel, and, to a degree, comprehend the universe. Everyone reading this knows they can think, feel, and comprehend the universe, although none of us know for sure the others can, at least when we aren't interacting with them. If you're reading this while alone, we can probably say we do it even when another character isn't present, this implies we're more than just NPCs. If it's a game, then you, or someone you know, are probably one of the players. (Ask your dad straight out for a joke if he's playing a ridiculously complicated RPG.) An extension of this possibility is that this is simply a psychology experiment writ large, and I, or you, am actually a member of the creator species planted in this environment for the purposes of the experimenters. If you were the player, however, do you think you would be happy with the 'game' your playing now as pure recreation?
Therefore I think that if you, or me, are self-aware in a game, then we're either doing this as a psychology experiment, or we're side-characters for someone with a more engaging life. (Although the utility functions of any PC races are unknown.) They could be cleaners, sociopaths, or leaders, but we'd be looking primarily for people who show some degree of motivation.
The second possibility is that 'they' have the capabilities to generate an entire universe, or at least one solar system, down to the last atom, in cyber-space. If so, then we can only hope that we're very much a valued experiment, and won't be killed off like a lab rat once our immediate purpose if fulfilled.
Either way, if this is a simulation, we have no power over it, and won't be able to gain information on it. If it's a game, the servers could be reset, and if it's an experiment in such detail we all exist as we think we do, but in a simulation, we could likely be programmed to forget if it suited the programmers.
Besides, if this were a simulation, then we're presumably worthless or insane by the standards of the wider universe. Our actions have the greatest effect in a situation where our universe exists in full, and is a 'physical' universe, while they are all but worthless in a situation where the universe is a game. So to give the best chance of our actions mattering, we should operate under the assumption we, and everyone around us, exists.
Also, 'Well Done. Progress to Level 2!'
OK. I'll follow up. They might want to, but what events would that trigger? The benefits might be clear, but for what costs?
Firstly, you would add another person to the population pool. That addition, in and of itself, is probably a negligible effect. Humans do this with some regularity. It is unlikely that the addition of one specific historical figure would push us over some theoretical tipping point.
What would be a greater cost would be one of rights: does the resurrected "owe" anything for being plucked from history, financially or metaphorically? What psychological toll might be exacted on an 200's era Roman slave when he shows up in Chicago in 2023? Assuming he could even grasp what had happened and learn a modern language, how is he to provide for himself? If he cannot, who? The historian, perhaps. What a decidedly high-risk research proposal: what if your resurrection is a boring fool?
Sure, I think it'd be neat to interview Hannibal or Twain or any number of folks from the past, I just think it might be a bad idea.
Probably reading into the idea a bit much at this point...
Presumably the capital investment everyone frozen gives to the Cryonics Institute would pay for their revival, or perhaps just for the revival and re-education of some of the more interesting people, who would then, hopefully feeling some empathy for the remaining popsicles, pay to have them reanimated later.
I'll just try to be interesting, and somewhat self-sacrificing so someone who reads any of my work might feel guilty enough to have me reanimated.
Or we might just be reanimated to serve as soldiers in a future war as our coping mechanisms leave us just the right type of crazy to stay mostly sane in harsh environments. Who knows?
he
Who?
(I am a she.)
Ah, edited. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the assumption.
In Edinburgh, I was taking three classes: philosophy of language (we discussed Superman a lot), moral and political philosophy (I most clearly remember covering Rawls), and philosophy of mind (philosophers of mind love pain). I took one course my entire academic career that was entirely about something Greek (a graduate course on the Republic). We read it in English.
And lo, she did answer the question concisely and effectively! I doubt Bayesianism is available in any of the universities I might be going to though, so I think Economics, minoring in Sociology and Psychology would suit me best.
Does the Less Wrong movement suffer from not having enough "people people"? I would guess that getting the ability to influence people (as opposed to basic social skills) is something that takes a lot of work.
I think so. The people most given to the introspection that leads to an interest in this philosophy seem to be those somehow marginalized by society, and they typically aren't very socially adept. Which is a pity, given how supportive a background in rationalist literature could be for a psychology student.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Really, that's what people are objecting to? For goodness' sake, I'm not a deontologist or anything, I'm just referring to what was described as "condition three":
It wouldn't be a difficult moral situation on Harry's part because he specifically thought of this exact circumstance in advance.
I can't remember whether it was Dumbledore specifically who was named in that pledge, making it invalid if someone else did it (technically, at least, Draco would probably consider it a betrayal if Harry found out who did it but didn't help him get revenge) but if Amelia did it, then Hermione could be dragged into the situation as well, as a friend of Susan's, and we could have a fascinating obligation tug-of-war for Harry.