Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

In response to Questions on Theism
Comment author: Lila 14 October 2014 02:31:41PM 4 points [-]

LW article Excluding the Supernatural worked for me. I didn't want it to work! I didn't read it as an attempt to change my mind. I just read it because it seemed interesting, and then realized in horror that there probably aren't any deities. Losing my belief in theism was an upsetting experience, though I can't bring myself to regret it.

Comment author: Lila 04 August 2011 01:24:33AM 1 point [-]

No vote, because I don't typically vote unless something sticks out.

I thought the article was pretty ok. I liked reading your story of personal development. :) The short sections with clearly labelled points were effective. I don't have too much objection to the specific advice you mentioned, except: there were certain ones that apply to, yes, a nice large portion of people, but an individual might find that they are more compatible with people outside that portion (eg. people who appreciate math jokes as flirtation) and I think it's worth looking for that compatibility even if it's not as common.

Comment author: Alexei 25 July 2011 03:46:54AM 0 points [-]

From all the SC2 games I've played and watched, there is very little anticipation and prepared counter. In other words, yes, your opponent might think you'll do X, but there is a small chance they'll actually prepare to counter X. (Unless it's something really really basic, like seeing a fast rash from your opponent and reacting by building more defenses.) Most of the time you can reliably predict that your opponents will do what they've always done.

Comment author: Lila 25 July 2011 05:46:16AM *  0 points [-]

[A discussion between Troi and Data about Riker's possible tactics in a battle simulation.]

DATA: Only twenty-one percent of the time does he rely upon traditional tactics. So, the Captain must be prepared for unusual cunning. Counsellor, Commander Riker will assume we have made this analysis, and knowing that we know his methods, he will alter them. But, knowing that he knows that we know that he knows, he might choose to return to his usual pattern.
TROI: Wait, wait. You're over-analysing, Data. One cannot deny human nature. What kind of a man is Commander Riker?
DATA: A fighter?
TROI: Yes.
DATA: The weaker his position, the more aggressive will be his posture.
TROI: And he won't give up.
DATA: Then despite whatever options he is given, he must be--
TROI: The man that he is, exactly.
DATA: Is that a failing in humans?
TROI: You'll have to decide that for yourself.

-Star Trek: The Next Generation
Season 2, Episode 21: "Peak Performance"

Comment author: Lila 05 July 2011 02:19:49PM 0 points [-]

I don't intuit any particular correlation between suffering and intelligence. I am not on board with Bentham's idea that capacity for suffering is what counts, morally speaking. It's not intelligence but sapience that I find morally significant.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 June 2011 03:06:27PM 0 points [-]

I'm less squeamish than I used to be, too.

For example, I'm willing to eat cooked fish with the head on-- this was intolerable for me when I was a kid.

I wonder if becoming less squeamish over time is typical.

Comment author: Lila 21 June 2011 04:57:25AM 1 point [-]

If it's typical, then I'm atypical. I'm much more squeamish than when I was a kid. As an 8 or 9-year-old I played with live worms and caterpillars and various bugs, and was equally fascinated by the dead ones, even sometimes cutting them open to see the insides. I thought it would be cool to take an anatomy class and dissect cadavers.

Now I cannot bear the sight of bugs. Just looking at them gives me a visceral feeling of horror. Touching them freaks me right out. And I'm pretty sure if I had to dissect a cadaver I'd scream and vomit.

In response to Why No Wireheading?
Comment author: Lila 19 June 2011 05:02:22PM 0 points [-]

So you want to wirehead. Do you think you'll have access to that technology in your lifetime?

Comment author: lionhearted 14 June 2011 05:39:19AM 2 points [-]

In fairness, you did some raise some good points as well, and I'll address those -

The OP describes a phenomenon that everyone knows about.

Indeed. And yet, one many people can't explain. Which is why it's worth thinking about.

The OP then suggests that "stupidity" (a word left undefined) and "malice" aren't good explanations.

I defined stupidity in the post as "impl[ying] poor judgment," meaning going through a conscious faulty thought process. I could have been more explicit about this definition at the expense of pace and brevity, by making the post more heavy and harder for casual readers to digest, without adding significantly more clarity. I suppose it could have been defined explicitly, but I don't think the piece becomes stronger if I do. Rather, I think it becomes weaker for the vast majority of potential readers.

(How did "malice" ever seem like a good explanation in the first place?)

Some of this behavior certainly seems mean-spirited and malicious to people. Many examples available if you honestly can't think of any.

A single word is never a good explanation for an aspect of human psychology.

True, yes, but you must consider audience. There's a reason, unfortunately, why popular magazines are more popular than science journals. Style does matter, which always must be a consideration if you're tackling a complex theme and want your piece to be accessible to a wide variety of people.

The OP then suggests that the "egalitarian instinct" is an explanation. The OP gives little explanation for this explanation,

It has been written about extensively. Again, this wasn't a PhD thesis. In fact, it's been written about extensively here on LessWrong before, notably "Tsuyoku vs. the Egalitarian Instinct" by Eliezer. I suppose I did assume some familiarity with the material that other readers might not have, and could have cited that as relevant prerequisite reading.

no mention of other possible explanations (no acknowledgment of the existence of other possible explanations),

Again, because I was formulating a hypothesis, not writing a thesis.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply and elaborate on your thoughts, but there might be a difference in goals and expectations here. I've attempted to write a series of observations, reason through them, and come up for one explanation for a not-fully-understood phenomenon.

It's already stimulated some good discussion. I'm happy with that result and it has, thus far, done what I intended. I think a longer, weightier, more formal post would have been less effective at the intended goal of putting out observations, a hypothesis, and stimulating some discussion.

Comment author: Lila 14 June 2011 10:28:38AM 1 point [-]

I didn't pick up that the article was "formulating a hypothesis". Did the article indicate that this is what it was doing? Perhaps I missed it.

Now that I do know, from your comment, that the article was doing that, I have to say I'm a bit surprised; I didn't expect to see that sort of article in the main section. Then again, I'm no expert on Less Wrong so maybe that sort of thing is not so uncommon.

Comment author: Lila 20 May 2011 05:41:03AM 4 points [-]

My chief complaint is that almost none of the other articles here are as engaging, compelling, or fun as Eliezer's sequences. Which I have finished reading. :(

Comment author: Alicorn 14 May 2011 06:13:33AM *  6 points [-]

I was kind of surprised that, when I was a Fellow, Anna told me "maybe you should go make friends with this person" exactly twice. Because if it turned out to be a bad idea, or if I turned out to be an unsuitable person to perform this sort of task, she should have done it only once (or foreseen this unsuitability and never done it at all). But it seemed unlikely that there were only two people for whom this was a good idea.

Comment author: Lila 15 May 2011 04:44:14PM 0 points [-]

Only 2 out of how many?

Comment author: Dorikka 13 May 2011 04:50:09PM *  13 points [-]

Hmm. I assign an exceedingly low probability to the proposition that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists and has existed for as long as the universe has existed, but I don't disagree with your anticipations. I don't see how your anticipations are very connected to this proposition.

I can easily imagine you gaining a sense of mental clarity from the act of prayer and procuring certain benefits from the lifestyle choices that you mention. I'm not sure what probability I would assign to these predictions, but I think that they would range from around .15->.6 In my eyes, your anticipations have a considerable of probability of being true regardless of whether or not a being which I described in my first paragraph exists.

I agree with hegemonicon in that (at least in this context), we're more interested in your anticipations that are related to the above proposition rather than those regarding the effects of certain lifestyle choices.

Comment author: Lila 15 May 2011 04:40:56PM 1 point [-]

we're more interested in your anticipations that are related to the above proposition

calcsam, did you not realize this? If not, why?

View more: Next