All of DoubleReed's Comments + Replies

I disagree. All the scam artist has to know is your method of coming to your conclusions. Once he knows that then he can probably exploit you depending on his cleverness (and then it becomes an arms race). If anything, trying to defend yourself from being manipulated in that way would probably be extremely difficult in of itself. Either way, my initial guess is that your methodology would still be superficial pattern-matching, but it would just be a deeper, more complex level of it.

This seems to be what Eliezer is doing with all the various scenarios. He's... (read more)

But wouldn't you just be suckered by sufficiently smart and attentive scam artists?

Isn't this more of social recognition of a scam?

While there are decision-theoretic issues with the Original Pascal's Wager, one of the main problems is that it is a scam ("You can't afford not to do it! It's an offer you can't refuse!"). It seems to me that you can construct plenty of arguments like you just did, and many people wouldn't take you up on the offer because they'd recognize it as a scam. Once something has a high chance of being a scam (like taking the form of Pascal's Wager), it won't get much more of your attention until you lower ... (read more)

One way to save face in socially painful situations is to try to appear as though you are doing it all on purpose, to present yourself, for example, as a 'free spirit' rather than a 'loser.' I know for sure that I did this a lot as a child, and even now I have a tendency to emphasize the 'weird' things that I do, to look like I do them confidently and deliberately.

I always associated this behavior more with machismo. The idea that "acting like you know what you're doing" is more important than "knowing what you're doing." Certainly i... (read more)

Mathematicians - along with scientists - discover new things (what is a proof other than a discovery of a new mathematical property). That's what their job is. In order for Ethicists to be comparable, wouldn't they need to discover new ethics?

Yea, Konkvistador supplied well.

What would be an example of a "Normative human essential"?

Re-reading Greenberg's article makes me want to compose some classical dubstep.

Just wanted to clarify before I let this go.

I am skeptical about your model of aesthetics. I think the model that allows you to compare so easily cross-genre is not the actual model that you use for your aesthetics. All I'm asking is that you double-check to make sure that the model you use actually fits, and you often are able to make these cross-genre comparisons (not comparing genres but comparing songs within different genres).

It is your comparison that baffles me, not the result of the comparison.

The second of the above quotes is something I have claimed. The first one is a response to something I have not claimed. There is a straw man at play.

Well yes, I was using an incorrect model of you.

Valuing Weird Al over classical does not make me less intelligent. It speaks more about my general aesthetic preference for melding a conceptual meaning in closely with the melody, rhythm, tone, etc. For me the concepts themselves seem to be a part of music to a far greater extent than for most people I have compared myself to. I do not consider this to be

No, you can't. If you can make distinctions like that then they are in the same model! And your whole point was based around the fact that I was making such a distinction anyway!

What? Of course you can. If model allows for time and purpose, then you can just say "Weird Al is superior for the current time and purpose to all of classical music." Bam. Done. Everything can be in multiple models but the comparison operator is different.

So in order for Weird Al to be strictly superior to classical music then it must be superior for all times and pur... (read more)

No, I don't think minimalists are inaccessible. You suggested that there is "increasing musical complexity," and I was merely pointing out there doesn't necessarily have to be "increasing musical complexity."

My model of the universe is kinda big but I don't actively try to compartmentalize it because it then I could not answer the question "Hey wedrifid, do you want me to play my Weird Al playlist or the my classical music playlist?". That would be strictly inferior.

Not really. You can have different models and still be able to make strict decisions like that.

Especially with Weird Al, considering part of the aesthetic is the fact that it's hilarious. Do you use the same model with Weird Al and Queen? Iron Maiden? Elvis? Do you put those on a stric... (read more)

One just cannot expect everyone to be able to keep up indefinitely with increasing musical complexity.

I like to point out this line in particular, and then point to minimalist (and post-minimalist) composers.

Music doesn't have to get necessarily more complex. Composers, like any large group of people, don't agree on anything.

I would agree partially with komponisto.

Except that there were a lot French and Western Europe composers at this time. They were using a different model entirely however (Schenkerian Analysis only covers the German model). It didn't put as much emphasis on the bass as german music does. The German model just seems better (from my standpoint, it seems to actually focus on what the ear naturally focuses on), which made their music better, so they lasted the test of time. The German model then spread to the Western Europe and subsumed everything because their stuff was better.

Were those tons of composers like Greenberg doing that sort of work at age 14?

That's not necessarily fair. As I was taught, "nobody composes in a vacuum." Art and Science constantly evolve so you need to learn what came before, which means it will take longer and longer for prodigies to flourish.

But not all modern music is inaccessible. In fact a lot of is more accessible than the old masters (I mean come on, The Firebird isn't hard to understand at all). People seem to act as if once serialism came around all composers immediately threw out all ideas of tonality and harmony and that's not true. Many people openly rejected ideas of atonality.

I don't really have anything against serial music. Some of it is pretty cool. But that's not what "modern music" is.

Again, there are Neoclassical works that "the public" love just like "the public" love the old masters. Pulcinella Suite is a direct example that "competes," but really anything from that era of Stravinsky is a great example. Francis Poulenc's work is immensely popular (his clarinet duet and clarinet concerto are particularly good). In fact, directly after WWI is when all this stuff came out because europe couldn't afford large orchestras.

This idea that modern classical music can't be fun and entertaining is just plain strange... (read more)

Do you really use the same model for judging Genius in France and judging the Waldstein Piano Sonata?

Oh well then NancyLebovitz's line:

Europe before WWI produced classical music so good that no one has been able to compete with it (for classical music, not music in general) since then.

is not correct.

Do we just ignore Neoclassical works? Or does that not count as 'classical'?

The real reason we don't produce classical music like that anymore is arguably because we produce way better music now.

I've never heard of anything like that in my jewish community either. Though honestly I've almost never heard the term "kike" actually used before. Even anti-semites just use the word Jew as far as I know.

Oh snap.

Oh I see what you're saying.

I don't know. I mentioned before there is a euphoric response to having things finally end in peace. This is why so many people can believe in something like the rapture. It's not a frightening thought. They get caught up in the idea that everything will be all right. Suicide sounds like it would trigger that appeal as well, so I'm still inclined to disagree.

I don't believe that such people are any more reliable when making those decisions than they are when making the decision to end their own lives. People misjudge all kinds of situations.

And that's where we disagree. I don't think suicidal people are just as reliable in their decision-making as others.

I don't object to using "tragic" to describe cases where someone's death has higher value than their other options. That said, some examples of that seem far more tragic to me than others.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant to say that if their death had higher value then I would agree that it would be the better decision. It is tragic that there are no positive solutions, and only negative ones.

I agree with you that people often misjudge situations. I don't agree that this is especially true about ending their own lives. People misju

If you commit suicide it's not like you're going to jail.

Besides, the policy against suicide attempts is usually psychological treatment not jailtime or something.

Although assisting suicide seems to be a felony in most states in the US according to wikipedia.

That said, I do believe that situations can arise where the expected value to a person of their death (1) is greater than the expected value of the other alternatives available to them. If I understood you, you disagree that such situations can arise, and therefore you believe that in all cases where a person thinks they're in such a situation they are necessarily mistaken -- either they're wrong about the facts, or they have the wrong values, or both -- and therefore it's better if they're made to choose some other alternative.

I think people often misj... (read more)

How so?

Obviously permanent and long-term effects have more issues with consent. I don't see how that's particularly wishy-washy.

Edit: If anything I'm declaring a harsh limit on how far consent goes. It is insufficient for certain moral situations.

== (1) Admittedly, what counts as consent is not a simple question; I am assuming unambiguous examples of the category here.

There's no way that consent could ever be simple or unambiguous here. Wanting to die might be a temporary state of mind, while death is a very permanent effect. The victim would have to be completely unable to change his/her mind ever in his/her life.

I don't think if a friend asks you to kill him, you should do it. No, clearly your friend needs mental help, and hopefully his suicidal urges are temporary.

Ignoring morals and legality for a moment, this sounds logistically infeasible. The reason I brought up the fact that sex is physically exhausting, is sometimes it really is difficult (and painful) to have sex. Life can get in the way. Women have periods. People take vacations and business trips. People get sick. This sounds more straining on a relationship than anything. Does monogamy drop when such things occur? Maybe it could work if both people have low sex drives.

I think I'll prefer ECDSA for my documents. Elliptic Curves are so much sexier.

Let me put it this way. You're saying that "it doesn't make any sense to be in that position." But that is exactly and precisely the situation we're describing. So it makes me think you either misunderstand the issue or simply lack imagination about real world events.

Edit: Clearly relationships are going to be different for different people. I personally would never expect my spouse to always give in to my desires or the other way around. And the idea that I would be legally obligated to is strange to me.

Because it is rape?

I mean, you do realize they will almost always get a divorce if they file rape charges...

No no no. You can't do that. We're talking about consent. If you are going to say "I just want to make you happy, so even though I'm not in the mood I'll still have sex with you," then that is consent. You are consenting. We are not talking about that. If that is your thought process, then that is still consent.

What we're talking about is if you say "No, I don't want to have sex with you right now," and your wife has sex with you anyway.

And how is it slavery if it is entirely voluntary and can be opted-out of?

All right, slavery is too strong.

I think my earlier assertion was that they'd given consent to have sex, regardless of whether they're in the mood for it. But assuming that distinction doesn't run very deep, what do you think the purpose of marriage is?

Oh? How far does this go? Can you demand any kind of sex from them? What if you are physically exhausted? What if it becomes really painful (and not in a good way)? Nothing matters? Nope, you already gave consent. I have the doc... (read more)

No, that's called sex slavery. Maybe that's what marriage used to be, but it isn't anymore.

Wives aren't obligated to always be in the mood for sex (this could easily be gender swapped by the way). That is not their purpose.

It's even more ridiculous when you consider that sex is physically exhausting (for both genders). It's completely unrealistic to expect someone to do something like that whenever you want.

Well, even if marriage was a contract to say "I want to have sex with you" it's a little ridiculous for it to say "I want to have sex with you whenever you want."

(also, even with consent you can still have statutory rape, though it's debatable whether that's a "natural" subcategory of rape)

If I'm not mistaken statutory rape is based on the age of consent. The law is claiming that the people do not have the right to consent to such acts, much in the same way that children many times do not understand what is happening in cases of pedophilia.

Specific laws and ages of consent have problems and flaws, of course. But when you say "even with consent," that is what people are disagreeing about. Do they really have consent?

Yea, the major issues I've seen are when consent is ambiguous, like pedophilia/bestiality, but also with long term damage. After all, if something is permanent, then they may not want it later. It is impossible to give "eternal consent" as far as I've seen and that is where there are serious moral ambiguities. Like if someone asked you to kill him. That has a permanent effect of a hopefully temporary state of mind.

I understand. What I mean is:

Is it something I would like them to do to me? Yes or No.

Do all parties involved consent that this is what they want to do? Yes or No.

The first question doesn't override the second question. Both parts has to say yes. If the you don't care about consent, that only affects the first question.

The thing is I would like to have her do it without my consent.

And you are not the only party in the engagement. Therefore it is not consensual. That does not defeat what I am saying. It's not like first part overrides the second part or something.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic.

Uhm... did you miss "is actually quite a good rule when you factor in ideas of consent."

If the girl consents to that, then there is no rape and it is not bad.

Thank you.

I'm really confused.

1) You said you had no objections to bestiality. 2) I bring up pets. 3) You say that you are against that. Therefore, (3) is a clarification of (1).

Can you clarify this? I don't understand your point on rape. Even in the old days, I'm pretty sure rape implied not-consent...

Is the idea of consent really that modern?

You know, I agree that at first my ideas were post-hoc, but that could just be where it started.

The fact is that the old adage "Do unto others as they would have them do unto you" is actually quite a good rule when you factor in ideas of consent. It immediately rules out sadomasochism and rape issues. There are still issues of course (usually in terms of irreversible or serious harm).

I was referring to pets in that statement.

Clearly, we don't care about animals' consent when we kill and eat them. So I guess we can have sex with them all we want. Kind of an odd train of thought, I admit...

It doesn't really work this way. And to demonstrate, I bring up the prime numbers.

What many people don't quite understand is that mathematics, like the sciences does not invent things, it discovers them. The structures are already there. We did not invent cells, electricity, or gravity. They were already there. All Mathematics does is name them, categorize them, and show properties that they have. There is nothing human about the prime numbers, for instance. There really is nothing human about mathematics.

Counting is essentially the building block of all o... (read more)