Comment author: lockeandkeynes 31 July 2010 01:28:06AM 1 point [-]

Wait, but how did they fire photons one at a time in the first experiment?

In response to Complex Novelty
Comment author: lockeandkeynes 28 July 2010 02:26:04AM 0 points [-]

hehehe what's BB(3^^^3)

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 23 July 2010 03:29:09AM 0 points [-]

Seems to me like these two are running circles around opposite sides of the wrong coin...

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 20 July 2010 04:40:13AM 1 point [-]

Inspired by this article http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/news-mainmenu-2/1-latest/5517-higher-intelligence-associated-with-liberalism-atheism.html I think one way of doing it might be to show directionality in terms of evolutionary novelty. That is, look at what parts of our evolutionary psychology we have rationally worked against as a culture, and why we came to those more intellectual conclusions. That way, the measure of our progress could be in how we learn to fix the mistakes of the stupid natural selection.

However, that sounds a lot to me like reversed stupidity, which I now know to be a false means of winning, but I do think it at least explains our perception of moral progress, if not progress as an absolute. If we somehow discover that when cultures step away from their evolutionary psychology that it is always for the sake of positive rational morality, then the concept might hold more weight in terms of a holistic moral progress.

In response to Feeling Rational
Comment author: lockeandkeynes 09 July 2010 12:47:12AM 0 points [-]

Someone who takes rationality-as-attire (like Roddenberry's Spock) would avoid strong emotions because they are superficially irrational.

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 07 July 2010 07:31:12PM 0 points [-]

I'd gladly get a speck of dust in my eye as many times as I can, and I'm sure those 3^^^3 people would join me, to keep one guy from being tortured for 50 years.

Comment author: Tom_McCabe2 30 October 2007 03:25:11AM 6 points [-]

Does this analysis focus on pure, monotone utility, or does it include the huge ripple effect putting dust specks into so many people's eyes would have? Are these people with normal lives, or created specifically for this one experience?

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 07 July 2010 07:29:59PM 0 points [-]

I think you can be allowed to imagine that any ripple effect caused by someone getting a barely-noticeable dust speck in their eyes (perhaps it makes someone mad enough to beat his dog) would be about the same as that of the torture (perhaps the torturers go home and beat their dogs because they're so desensitized to torturing).

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 07 July 2010 07:36:50AM 3 points [-]

This reminds me of when I was trying to see if it would be a good idea to buy a lottery ticket. Surely, I thought, I wouldn't miss the weekly dollar for a chance at living a life free of having to worry about what I do for money.

But then I thought to visualize for myself the silliness of spending even one dollar a week on the chances of the lottery. Would you ever expect, even in a hundred years, the lottery numbers of one week to be the exact same as the last week's? Then you should expect no different of your own ticket. I realized then that I would much rather have a definite candy bar instead.

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 06 July 2010 07:09:53AM 0 points [-]

Eliezer i so much younger than I expected!

Comment author: Daniel_Franke 18 October 2008 12:20:23AM 46 points [-]

The most dangerous dark side meme I can think of is the idea of sinful thoughts: that questioning one's faith is itself a sin even if not acted upon. A close second is "don't try to argue with the devil -- he has more experience at it than you".

Comment author: lockeandkeynes 06 July 2010 07:05:36AM 12 points [-]

Especially when it's explicitly enforced, a la death penalty for leaving Islam in Islamic countries.

View more: Prev | Next