without a body the brain won't 'work', the brain is very much linked to the rest of the body, the fiction that we only need the head to 'reanimate' a person back to normal is just that, fiction.
wei Dai:"rebuilding/simulating the body to the level of detail needed to support cognition" yes,but how complex is the nervous system? which wire connects to which, or is that not important? seems to me that you're oversimplifying..
One marker to watch out for is a kind of selection effect.
In some fields, only 'true believers' have any motivation to spend their entire careers studying the subject in the first place, and so the 'mainstream' in that field is absolutely nutty.
Case examples include philosophy of religion, New Testament studies, Historical Jesus studies, and Quranic studies. These fields differ from, say, cryptozoology in that the biggest names in the field, and the biggest papers, are published by very smart people in leading journals and look all very normal and impressive but those entire fields are so incredibly screwed by the selection effect that it's only "radicals" who say things like, "Um, you realize that the 'gospel of Mark' is written in the genre of fiction, right?"
I have to ask, how much do you know of 'Quranic studies'? as far as I know, the new testament and quran are structured quite differently, hence research-which I'm not aware of-would be different as well?
More specifically it is completely rational to use that argument against theists, because one of their arguments for god is that the world is too complex not to have been designed; so in that circumstance you are just pointing out that their claim is just pushing the complexity back one step. If the world is so complex that it needs a designer, then so is god.
I think tighter definitions are needed here, some theistic traditions consider all existence to be 'god' etc.
If they can't stop students from using Wikipedia, pretty soon schools will be reduced from teaching how to gather facts, to teaching how to think!
I'm curious, have you used Wikipedia for non-scientific/technical stuff? it can be quite a biased source there..
Well, I'm not sure how far that advances things, but a possible failure mode -- or is it? -- of a Friendly AI occurs to me. In fact, I foresee opinions being divided about whether this would be a failure or a success.
Someone makes an AI, and intends it to be Friendly, but the following happens when it takes off.
It decides to create as many humans as it can, all living excellent lives, far better than what even the most fortunate existing human has. And these will be real lives, no tricks with simulations, no mere tickling of pleasure centres out of a mistaken idea of real utility. It's the paradise we wanted. The only catch is, we won't be in it. None of these people will be descendants or copies of us. We, it decides, just aren't good enough at being the humans we want to be. It's going to build a new race from scratch. We can hang around if we like, it's not going to disassemble us for raw material, but we won't be able to participate in the paradise it will build. We're just not up to it, any more than a chimp can be a human.
It could transform us little by little into fully functional members of the new civilisation, maintaining continuity of identity. However, it assures us, and our proof of Friendliness assures us that we can believe it, the people that we would then be would not credit our present selves as having made any significant contribution to their identity.
Is this a good outcome, or a failure?
it's good ..
you seem to be saying-implying?- that continuity of identity should be very important for minds greater than ours, see http://www.goertzel.org/new_essays/IllusionOfImmortality.htm
I 'knew' the idea presented in the link for a couple of years, but it simply clicked when I read the article, probably the writing style plus time did it for me.
regardless of dis/agreement, guy has a really cool voice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS6DKeGvBW8&feature=related
Should I read Luminosity if I disliked Twilight? Does it matter why I dislike Twilight? Can I read it if I never finish Twilight?
(I tried reading Twilight this week. Got halfway through it. The writing style is very workmanlike - good at describing the surroundings, and just enough other important details to move quickly from point A to point B in the plot. Descriptions of Edward are limited to monotonous repetitions of "perfect" and "beautiful", and descriptions of Bella are absent. None of the dialogue is clever. All the boys fall for Bella, who is not interesting; and her reaction (only wants what she can't have) is repellent. The central love story is unconvincing, but is a little interesting because Edward is unpredictable. So far, it is an efficient vehicle for romance-novel cliches. I may finish it, but will feel guilty if I do.)
I've sometimes read romance novels, more a function of my reading appetite at the time, plus no books remained in the house except those, I've also read a couple of -video-game stories, including some vampire ones to be relevant for your example, I agree that they have mildly interesting twists, enough for guilt pleasure level.
I can't put a name to it, but it doesn't require such a leap to see the relation between reading things like tvtropes and then to an extent Twilight? on that note, what do you read for fiction generally?
I'm a bit uncomfortable with calling this a "dark art" (perhaps because teaching dark arts seems to be such a dangerous occupation). But there is a "rainbow art" consisting of equal parts of attention-grabbing and persuasion; an art which is necessary even if it is a good argument that you are trying to propagate. I would like to learn something about that art. Ideally, by means of an online class.
I can think of at least 5 different persuasion media that I would like to become skillful at.
I'd bet lots of other people would like to become skillful at these things too.
I'd bet we have people here who are good enough at these things that they could lead a kind of online study group focused on learning and/or improving skills like these.
sounds like a good idea (though I'm not giving up on the Dark Arts class/sequence yet ..), given that OP does "encourage you to post your skills here anyway" I think bringing this up in the open thread or as a general call to candidates should be worthwhile, this can effectively and depending on the instructions make short work of most barriers to publishing an LW top level post, given relevant and interesting topics of course.
we have been experiencing a slump of late, I think this potentially helps in overcoming the slow stagnation that happens in all forums after the early 'glory days' are over.
I am somewhat afraid of the fact that convincing can be tought seperate from reasoned arguing, that not the best reason wins, but the most enthusiastic speaker, and the one who can best make his point in the eyes of the people.
Fear of a fact is not a good reason to ignore a fact.
... but I do not wish to persuade unreasoned.
A good argument, like a good novel, can work on several levels.
ok, so I'm considering that a discussion post at least should be made, any thoughts?
it could potentially be part of the sequences, although Eliezer and others do cover the Dark Arts I don't recall a dedicated thread. I found some good examples from a quick googling, like Yvain's Defense Against The Dark Arts: Case Study #1 or The Power of Positivist Thinking
what makes an irrational argument convincing is human biases, but what I think lacks is more focused treatment of things like good writing or effective signaling, I haven't read all of LW though so it might just be a simple task of collecting articles, but I don't feel that's the case, or is it?
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
That's an easy one. I value humans, I don't value paperclips.
According to EY's CEV document, CEV does this. It lets/makes our values drift in the way we would want them to drift.
very smart people have issues with CEV, example: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2b7/hacking_the_cev_for_fun_and_profit/
and as far as I remember CEV was sort of abandoned a while ago by the community.
and yes, you value humans, others in the not so distant future might not given the possibility of body/brain modification. anyway, the gist of my argument is that CEV doesn't seem to work if there is not going to be much coherence of all of humanity's extrapolated volition's-a point that's already been made clear in previous threads by many people-what I'm trying to add to that is to point out the overwhelming possibility of there being 'alien minds' among us before a FAI could be built.
I also raised the question that If body modification is widely available, is it ok to prevent people from acquiring an 'alien' set of morals, one that would later on be a possible hindrance to CEV-like proposals? how can we tell if its alien or not in the first place?