Comment author: RichardKennaway 17 January 2016 11:05:06AM 1 point [-]

Anyone have a better procedure for fixing this than the following?

When the implications of the situation are clearly perceived, the right action is effortless.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 17 January 2016 08:01:46PM 0 points [-]

I agree, for a certain sense of the word "clearly". The procedure is to make you clearly understand the implications of the situation, which can be harder for some instantiations of the situation.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 16 January 2016 06:33:38PM 4 points [-]

Anyone have a better procedure for fixing this than the following?

  1. Notice the feeling.
  2. Treat it as a signal that your S1 wants you to search for cheaper ways to figure out which option is right than continuing to drive. Search for cheaper ways and execute them. Make it a thorough search and show your S1 the thoroughness of your search. Acknowledge the awfulness of "drive back and forth in an expensive search pattern" and only choose that as a last resort.
  3. If you don't immediately become much more certain of which way the hotel is in, and the "go 30mph" feeling does not go away, treat it as a signal that your S1 thinks the thought process by which you chose (under evidence-starvation) is wrong, which does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong.
  4. List the ways your S1 thinks you're biased which are screwing up your evidenced-starved reasoning.
  5. Perform sanity-inducing rituals to counter those biases. (Think about your actual goal of getting to the hotel as soon as possible, forgive yourself for maybe driving past it, imagine all 4 outcomes (60mph forward, 60mph backward) x (get to hotel on next try after this, don't get to hotel on next try after this) and how you would feel about them)
  6. If the feeling is still there, this procedure has failed.
Comment author: shminux 24 March 2015 05:20:51AM 6 points [-]

I went down the rabbit hole of researching the question "what is truth?" soon after I joined LW almost 3 years ago, and ended up with a rather unpopular anti-Platonic ontology of the term "truth" being worse than useless in most cases. The correspondence theory of truth stopped making sense to me because there is nothing for it to correspond to. So, it's somewhat more radical than William James's pragmatic theory of truth. But I guess this is probably not what you are interested in.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 30 March 2015 12:22:24PM -1 points [-]

"There is nothing for the correspondence theory of truth to correspond to" is a feature, not a bug. Because this is one of those philosophical debates which is really just a choice of definition. "Something is true if it corresponds to reality" is just a definition, and definitions don't have truth* value.

*truth defined in a way that I think is pretty useful to define it, which is what we're usually looking for when we pick definitions.

Comment author: fractalman 03 March 2015 03:06:59AM 1 point [-]

Something of the real voldemort was leaking through-and the part that was leaking through was, essentially, his gibbering fear of death.

Which really, really won't help in trying to cast a True Patronus.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 03 March 2015 01:50:22PM 1 point [-]

Casting a true Patronus is not about the absence of fear of death. It's about "The will to defeat death, not just for yourself but for everyone, through your own strength".

The Mirror's desire detection is unfoolable. Which means that the Confundus made Voldemort-Dumbledore actually want to see Dumbledore's family in the afterlife. Voldemort's thought-patterns leaked through, which started unraveling things the Confundus made him believe/want, but before that he did actually believe/want them.

If the Confundus can make someone really want that, it can make them really want to defeat death not just for themself but for everyone through their own strength.

Comment author: Leonhart 01 March 2015 12:52:28PM 31 points [-]

Here is my best attempt at a delaying tactic, after sleeping on it. Please tear apart/suggest better ways in which LV might tear apart, to replace the poor placeholder responses he has here.

--

"Agree that I musst die, if it ssavess world. But thiss iss not besst way to kill me. Ssee how you can benefit more, given your goalss."

"Explain."

"Believe power you know not doess refer to power to desstroy life-eaterss. Life-eaterss will find you eventually, teacher. Know you. Will hunt you down, ssomeday. Eat all of you, all of world and magic, in the end."

"Sso you will give that magic to me, now."

"You can never reach needed sstate of mind - incompatible with deadly indifference. Sschoolmasster could never casst - incompatible with acceptance of death. Majority cannot casst, and in the tessting, sstandard defence againsst life-eaterss iss ssacrificed. Will weaken your alliess greatly, should I randomly try to teach."

"What do you proposse, then?"

"Take me to life-eater prisson. Allow me to pour out my life and magic there, eradicate them wholly. How I wisshed to do sso, during the resscue! You called me back, then."

"..."

"Many advantagess to you in thiss. Can decimate your final enemy, wipe out their greatesst colony, certainly buy you yearss. Removess them before Wizengamot'ss death throess can releasse them againsst you. Freess your remaining alliess, ass thosse here failed to do. And I am utterly desstroyed - can leave no ghosst behind me. Nothing to fuel ssecret devices of Sschoolmasster's. Presumably, reduced rissk that your great creation will recognisse my spirit - for I doubt you have tessted that."

"You will not desstroy all of them, and sso I will have to find another ssolution anyway."

"Ssolution iss girl-child. Sshe iss closse to learning sspell, and now immortal. My death could drive her to hunt life-eaterss forever; thiss iss not beyond your sskillss at manipulation. You know sshe wantss to be a hero."

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 01 March 2015 10:19:27PM 4 points [-]

If a Confundus can fool the Mirror, it can fool the true Patronus charm. If Hermione can eventually kill any Dementors, she can eventually kill all of them. Finding more people who can cast the true Patronus, and letting them handle an eventual end of the world scenario is a much smaller problem than a prophecy of doom.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 23 February 2015 01:37:33AM 0 points [-]

Apologies if someone else has suggested this before. I'm not going to read enough comments to find out. But why doesn't Harry just say in Parseltongue, "If you let me conquer the world, you will be more happy, and have more fun." Harry can totally deliver with his transhumanist future by uplifting normal people so they aren't "idiots" that bore Voldemort, and giving him the kind of rivals he wants to fight with. Like, worst case he has to leave a planet or whatever of shitty conditions where Voldemort personally fucks people up, because that's the only thing that will satisfy him. But it's still worth it for the improved chance to get the rest of the universe.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 16 February 2015 02:59:59PM *  7 points [-]

Things I notice I'm confused by: If Quirrel needs Harry's help to get the stone, why didn't he just ask? (Edit: okay, he did ask. But why didn't just ask earlier? And why is he playing all these tricky games?) I mean, it already worked for freeing Bellatrix. If there's a disturbance which Dumbledore suspects is a distraction, why did he send only Snape, rather than several aurors/coming himself?

What could Quirrel need Harry for? In canon, Harry could get the stone because he wanted to find it, not to use it, or something like that? But this Harry definitely wants to use it.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 04 January 2015 08:06:01PM 7 points [-]

Most of the time what we see is developers trying to minmax, micro-optimize and balance their designs, but when addressing metrics as a tool to achieve that goal, they acknowledge the relevance of the tool and at the same time their eyes wander, looking for someone else to talk to. I believe it is a human trait: when we don't know exactly how to do something, we will do anything else, procrastinating the blurry task indefinitely.

Nicholas Francis

Comment author: polymathwannabe 11 November 2014 03:52:27AM *  1 point [-]

overcome your disgust with all things economic

I will acknowledge there's a huge component of pride in this. I don't want to give my family an opportunity to tell me they were right in their choices all along. When I joined the publishing company after three years in various call centers, my brother described it as "finally seeing sense."

pull out from professional life

You've no idea how much I envy backpackers, but the prospect of not having a secure paycheck terrifies me.

Live cheaply and just start writing

I live cheaply already; it's just that I let previous roommates leech off me for too long and I'm still catching up with the effects of my misguided helpfulness.

plenty of frustrations and stuff to write about

Indeed, enough stuff for a thirty-season soap opera. But that's not the kind of stories I'm interested in exploring, at least not too overtly. My story ideas have other questions to answer.

you may simply not be able to be a writer

I can write. I may never get published. I need to figure out how to use the former to fix the latter.

taking care of your life

True, I'm not getting enough sleep these days, which should be fixed next month after I deliver a huge assignment at the office and my final exams for this semester. I'm a non-smoking vegetarian teetotaler who has to walk a kilometer between home and the bus stop. I hope that counts.

[edited to fix spelling]

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 16 November 2014 10:01:03PM 7 points [-]

I will acknowledge there's a huge component of pride in this. I don't want to give my family an opportunity to tell me they were right in their choices all along. When I joined the publishing company after three years in various call centers, my brother described it as "finally seeing sense."

Your family was already either right or wrong. If you are choosing in order to not follow their advice, instead of choosing in accordance with what you think is the best way to achieve your goals, they are controlling you just as surely as if they were picking a career for you that wasn't the best way to achieve your goals.

Being free of your parents means that you don't worry about what they say.

Comment author: Anomylous 04 November 2014 09:49:15PM 2 points [-]

I'm 21, in college studying to be a professional musician. Through my teenage years, I would intentionally deceive myself, and act from emotion rather than logic. Luckily for me, I figured out that this was non-optimal before any serious harm was done, and have chosen the path of rationality. It was difficult at first. Although I don't remember for sure, I think I found this site through a late-night Google search, looking for anything that might help me in my quest to vanquish emotion.

I may be a bit of a misfit here. I'm neither a hard scientist, nor particularly excited about AI or transhumanism; I also believe that death is simply the price you pay for getting to live, rather than something to be feared and avoided. However, as mentioned, I'm very interested in learning to live rationally, and in the pursuit of perfection both as a musician and as a person.

One question that I'm pondering right now is this: What is the relative value of the pursuit of rationality and intellectual honesty, versus protecting the happiness of your family and closest friends? It turns out that, when religion gets involved, this is a real choice individuals may have to make. I can give details if anybody is interested.

Comment author: Jack_LaSota 04 November 2014 10:49:48PM 1 point [-]

Rationality doesn't have to be opposed to emotion. Most rationalists I know see emotion as playing a similar role in humans as a utility function plays in an agent. The other stuff decides what you believe, but emotion helps you decide what to do about it. Of course, there is stoic-style rationality, but that's a minority position here. Also the real people I have known to advocate it don't recommend getting rid of all emotions, just harmful ones. Also see this.

There can be epistemic risks to emotion; you can't wishfully think if you wish for nothing, for example. But if you wish for nothing, why would you care whether your beliefs were accurate? Anyway, I think it's possible to learn to cut down on wishful thinking a lot by practice in being suspicious of your thoughts in general, and by internalizing the idea here. Even though it's only partly true.

If you think of rationality of a fight you have with yourself, and your emotions as enemies to be vanquished, you will make becoming rational much harder than if you think of them as misguided friends to be guided to accomplish your shared goals better. See this.

My friends and family, even if they think I'm weird, don't seem to be really bothered by the fact that I'm weird, so your dilemma is outside of my experience. But one thing I can tell you is that I used to de-emphasize my weirdness around them, and then I stopped, and found that being unapologetically weird is a lot more fun.

View more: Next