Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 11 February 2009 03:26:53PM 0 points [-]

we have X because it increased inclusive genetic fitness, full stop.

if evolutionary psychologists actually believe this it is a good example of why they aren't taken very seriously. what about spandrels?

Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 10 February 2009 08:46:45PM 0 points [-]

yes, the easiest way to spot scientism is to look for value statements being conflated with factual statements. This is done unintentionally in many cases, the persuaders can't help it because they can't distinguish between the two. 1) you falsify the data that someone thought was factual that they used to support their values. They take this as an attack on said values. 2) you point out errors in the train of logic between factual statements and values, and/or point out that there *is* no valid logic train between their values and facts. 3) you make a factual statements and it is confused for a value statement. This happens because we're taught to value truth and this valuation occasionally glitches. People assume that because you say something is true that you are also saying that it is good. 4) vice-versa of the above. you make a value statement and people take it as a factual statement. this is the goal of a persuader.

I'm sure there are other common examples.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 09 February 2009 05:57:37PM 0 points [-]

three worlds collide would make a decent movie...just have to make the reasoning of the characters more explicit for people unfamiliar with concepts involved.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 09 February 2009 01:58:13AM 4 points [-]

scientists fight over the division of money that has been block-allocated by governments and foundations. I should write about this later.

yes you should. this is a very serious issue. in art the artist caters to his patron. the more I see of the world of research in the U.S. the more I am disturbed by the common source of the vast majority of funding. science is being tailored and politicized.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 05 February 2009 09:41:33PM 0 points [-]

if the SHs find humans via another colony world blowing up earth is still an option. I don't believe the SHs could have been bargained with. They showed no inclination towards compromise in any other sense than whichever one they have calculated as optimal based on their understanding of humans and babyeaters. Because the SHs don't seem to value the freedom to make sub-optimal choices (free will) they may also worry much less about making incorrect choices based on imperfect information (this is the only rational reason I can come up with for them wanting to make a snap decision when a flaw in their data could lead to more of what they don't want: suffering). It is probably the norm for SHs to make snap decisions based on all available data rather than take no action while waiting for more data. They must have had a weird scientific revolution.

In response to OB Status Update
Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 28 January 2009 11:21:58PM 0 points [-]

keeping the signal to noise ratio in a community is easy. Just make sure to wright long detailed posts about obtuse subjects (we have that covered) and don't respond to trolls. Any commoner that stumbles upon it will get bored and leave. This seems to have worked with Hacker News so far.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 28 January 2009 11:19:38PM 2 points [-]

with regards to the Steve Jobs Quote: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken

Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 26 January 2009 06:17:17AM 6 points [-]

but an eden with a reversible escape option is surely better than an eden with a non-reversible escape option yes?

In response to Failed Utopia #4-2
Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 21 January 2009 05:58:52PM 4 points [-]

ZM: I'm not saying that the outcome wouldn't be bad from the perspective of current values, I'm saying that it would serve to lessen the blow of sudden transition. The knowledge that they can get back together again in a couple decades seems like it would placate most. And I disagree that people would cease wanting to see each other. They might *prefer* their new environment, but they would still want to visit each other. Even if Food A tastes better in *every dimension* to Food B I'll probably want to eat Food B every once in awhile.

James: Considering the fact that the number of possible futures that are horrible beyond imagining is far far greater than the number of even somewhat desirable futures I would be content with a weirdtopia. Weirdtopia is the penumbra of the future light cone of desirable futures.

In response to Failed Utopia #4-2
Comment author: nazgulnarsil3 21 January 2009 03:33:21PM 8 points [-]

am I missing something here? What is bad about this scenario? the genie himself said it will only be a few decades before women and men can be reunited if they choose. what's a few decades?

View more: Prev | Next