This is like saying that anyone who takes the singularity seriously should be dedicating every waking moment to FAI theory.

You are wrong.

It's just naive

Of course it is "naive". That's the word you use for when people take far mode beliefs literally rather than as verbal symbols used to signal group affiliation.

Evangelical Christians have put more thought into how to keep people out of hell than you have.

No they haven't. I was an Evangelical Christian for 22 years and did far more thinking about such things than the mean, median and mode Evangelical Christian. I am also more than passably familiar with the kind of reasoning used by Evangelical Christian leaders of various levels of shrewdness. I can assure you that next to none of them are naive enough to base their decision making on literal min-maxing of near infinite positive and negative utilities in heaven and hell. This isn't surprising---Christianity isn't based upon consequentialism in the first place.

TL;DR stop concern trolling Christians!

Avoid inflationary use of terms.

One problem with this system is that it can violate the "non-dictatorship" criteria for fairness, since a single voter (or small group of allied voters) could strategically withhold votes during potential landslide elections and spend them during close elections. With the right maneuvering among a well-organized block of voters, I could imagine a situation where the system becomes a perpetual minority rule.

Why is it an evolutionary advantage to betray our lies with behavioural clues?

I notice that when mammals hide from predators, or stealthily approach prey, they frequently betray their location and presence. For example, they frequently vibrate the air, radiate heat, and exude various chemicals, which some animals can sense.

To ask why it's an evolutionary advantage to betray our location with such cues is to ask a question so wrong that the attempt to answer it will systematically lead me away from understanding what's going on.

Now, it may be that lying is not analogous; that there really is a selected-for predisposition to be caught out in our lies, as you imply with your question. And if so, asking where that selection pressure comes from is a useful question.

But that's a significant "if."

I am finding it difficult to communicate with matabele. Expected payoff is low in this tangent. I will stop attempting.

This is an excellent quote ... I downvoted it here ...

Please elaborate.

See the second set of ellipsis? Find the part that went there. That is all.

Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.

– James Baldwin

The obscure language was likely due to the political context of the original; try substituting 'identified' for 'faced'.

I have based this assumption on my perhaps mistaken impression that many LW users appear to have a bias toward Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation of QM. If you have rational arguments to defend this position, please feel free to defend your position below.

I doubt the QM reference has anything to do with the reaction to your comment. It was downvoted for persistent confusion in the thread and smug irrelevance.

As for QM interpretations, that is boring and has been argued to death and is completely of-topic here. Look here for a list of subjects that have been thoroughly covered (the QM sequence) and if you must argue argue in the "the winner is many worlds" post that you'll see there. A few people will agree with you. Some may argue. Most will ignore you because it is not their responsibility.

And there you have it: symbols (or strings of symbols) have different sense in different contexts.

One of the contexts in which I found this aphorism insightful, was in certain interpretations of quantum physics.

Not to say that everyone is a heathen ;-) but as for those who missed out on the subtlety of my original Goethe post ... if they wish to further advertise their lack of sophistication ... diss this post.

Please ignore this, unless you are a hydrophobic Canis antarcticus, barking up the wrong tree. Its only purpose is to provide a pissing post to discourage the great unwashed from otherwise fouling the streets. With any luck the post, complete with its surrounding territory, will soon disappear completely off the bottom of the map. There, unfettered by the strictures of reason, the pack can feel free to bark and scratch, whilst attending to their compulsions to lick the sweat off each others balls.

Oh! That makes a lot more sense. It doesn't seem like the most reliable technique, but this particular term is now a lot clearer. Thanks!

Of course, this seems to me like 'Love' is then merely a general "Interface Method", to be implemented depending on the Class in whatever manner, in context, will go against strife and/or promote well-being of cared-for others.

Which is indeed not something real, but a simple part of a larger utility function, in a sense.