I feel this should not be in featured posts, as amusing as it was at the time

I don't think anyone denies that brain states have a strong influence on conscious experience, which is the only thing that Phineas Gage proved. The real question is how mechanistic matter can create subjective experience. For example, someone who was completely colorblind from birth could never understand what it felt like to see the color green, no matter how much neuroscience that person knew, i.e., you could never convey the sensation of "green" through a layout of a connectome or listing wavelengths of light.

However, this doesn't mean that there must be some magical substance which produces experience, and it does not mean that Whole Brain Emulation and AGI is impossible, which is the hasty conclusion reached by many non-materialists. Rather, it only poses problems for those who say that brain states are the same thing as conscious experience.

I am very comfortable with everything you said. It saddens me slightly that you are not? Thank you for this feedback.

Lately I've noticed, both here and the wider LW-sphere, a trend towards rationalizing the status quo. For example, pointing out how seemingly irrational behavior might actually be rational when taking into account various factors. Has anyone else noticed the same?

At any rate I'm not sure if this represents an evolution (taking into account more subtleties) or regression (genuine change is too hard so let's rationalize) in the discourse.

A Christian proverb says: “The Church is not a country club for saints, but a hospital for sinners”. Likewise, the rationalist community is not an ivory tower for people with no biases or strong emotional reactions, it’s a dojo for people learning to resist them.

SlateStarCodex

I find it takes a great deal of luminosity in order to be honest with someone. If I am in a bad mood, I might feel that its my honest opinion that they are annoying when in fact what is going on in my brain has nothing to do with their actions. I might have been able to like the play in other circumstances, but was having a bad day so flaws I might have been otherwise able to overlook were magnified in my mind. etc.

This is my main fear with radical honesty, since it seems to promote thinking that negative thoughts are true just because they are negative. The reasoning going 'I would not say this if I were being polite, but I am thinking it, therefore it is true' without realizing that your brain can make your thoughts be more negative from the truth just as easily as it can make them more positive than the truth.

In fact, saying you enjoyed something you didnt enjoy, and signalling enjoyment with appropriate facial muscles (smiling etc) can improve your mood by itself, especially if it makes the other person smile.

Many intelligent people get lots of practice pointing out flaws, and it is possible that this trains the brain into a mode where one's first thoughts on a topic will be critical regardless of the 'true' reaction. If your brain automatically looks for flaws in something and then a friend asks your honest opinion you would tell them the flaws; but if you look for things to compliment your 'honest' opinion might be different.

tl;dr honesty is harder than many naively think, because our brains are not perfect reporters of their state, and even if they were good luck explaining your inner feelings about something across the inferential distance. Better to just adjust all your reactions slightly in the positive direction to reap the benefits of happier interactions (but only slightly, don't say you liked activities you loathed otherwise you'll be asked back, say they were ok but not your cup of tea etc)

he puts 2.72 on the table, and you put 13.28 on the table.

I'm confused...if the prediction does not come true (which you estimated as being 33 percent likely) you only gain $2.72? and if the most probable outcome does come true you lose 13.28?

I am looking forward to your discussion post, however. Hopefully, I'll finally get to see some solid arguments for theism in there !

Sorry to disappoint you there. As I've said, I have no hope of convincing all of you and I'm not going to try; I wouldn't stand a chance in a formal debate against a dozen of you.

I was thinking more along the lines of why I think it's best to take the conclusions of a certain way of thinking with a grain of salt no matter how right its members think they are. Being skeptical of skepticism, one could say. So yes, it's likely going to seem like a long criticism of Less Wrong's fundamental philosophy, and chances are it won't be too popular—but you never know. I think it's a very good practice in life, not to accept any philosophy too fully.

What gives me the authority to say such things? An outside perspective.

I don't see the analogy. Paperclipping doesn't have to be an ineffable value for a paperclipper, and paperclippers don't have to be motivated by anything qualia-like.

I honestly haven't gotten much of a sense of altruism or care for others. (You were serious, right?) I mean, yes, there's the whole optimizing charity thing, but that's often (not always) for personal gratification as much as sincere altruism. I suppose people here think that their own cryonic freezing is actually doing the world a huge favor.

And care for others...that's something Mormons definitely have on you guys.

But I like this environment anyways. Because people here are smart and educated, and some of them are even honest. :)