True, but the issue at stake is whether the real and actual you, the actual foundation for your personal identity, is immortal or not. Kolak proves that it is. He also proves that we are all as connected to each other as your future and past selves are connected to your current self. Simply because there is only one identical self in the universe. If one realizes this then focusing on whether it is ‘useful to distinguish between individual biological organisms’ becomes of secondary importance. Furthermore, such a view has a drastic effect on ethics.
ciphergoth writes ‘Either we’re all too dumb to see the enlightenment you’re bringing, or we’re all too smart to fall for it. Either way, it should be clear by now that your quest is hopeless. Please give up.’
What is this? Am I supposed to feel bad or laugh or what? I know I appear arrogant to you but the fact is that I know something you don’t and all I’m asking for is that you check out this information on your own. There is no hidden agenda. I’m not asking you to sell your soul to the devil or to give up logic or become a member of Scientology. I’m not asking you to believe anything. The only act of faith you need to perform is to temporarily believe that I might be on to something, give in, and take a proper look at the source material. As I said before, Kolak has done a marvelous job at explaining this and there is no point in me rewriting what he’s already written. Furthermore, the knowledge he presents is for most individualistic humans so controversial that it becomes nearly impossible to pass it on in the form of a dialog. I was drunk when I wrote my first post so I apologize for calling you (whoever felt included) ‘a bunch of left-brainers’. I hoped you wouldn’t take it so seriously.
If after reading Kolak’s ‘I am You’ you still feel this was a waste of time and that I, and especially Kolak, are blabbering idiots then so be it. I would be very surprised if that was the case though. But seriously guys, how can you be so adamant to try reading a book?! Don’t you trust your own ability to reason? If the book is bullshit then it will become apparent to you. To be able to understand this builds upon the logical tools you already use, it doesn’t require you to abandon them. Do you actually expect me to explain the theory to you here, in a short post, through my brain? Haven’t I proven by now that I’m not qualified for something like that? The only thing I can hope for is to awaken your curiosity for Kolak’s work, and even at that I’m failing. Here’s my last attempt:
‘Guys, something totally amazing has happened. You won’t believe me because it sounds too good to be true but this time it actually is so please please do believe me. There is this guy who has written a book that explains that we are all immortal consciousness, aka God or whatever you wanna call it. It proves that we are all each other, just like our billions of cells are all each of us, and it’s totally mindblowingly amazing. But I can’t explain it because it’s freaking hard, it’s quite complex you see. But Kolak does explain it in his 600+ pages long book. so please please read it. I borrowed the book from a Swedish university, scanned it, uploaded it and totally breached the copyright law just so that anyone interested could read it. Please, please believe me. If just 10% of us realized this the world would become like freaking heaven. Kurzweil’s Singularity is the technical part, this is the spiritual part of it. Do you remember when you were a kid and dreamed of the endless possibilities of reality? Before you became cynical and disillusioned by people’s stupidity and cruelty and by your body’s and the universe’s apparent entropy? Please try to tap back into that way of seeing things and READ THE BOOK.’
Perhaps the rule “consistent downvotes of most comments → stop posting (for a long while)” should be given authority by being added to the “About” page, which may be enough in some cases, removing the need for actual comment-deleting.
I find the process of (1) identifying trolls, (2) trying to convince them to stop posting and (3) kicking them off if they don’t listen to be a very unpleasant experience. It introduces all sorts of negativity and it makes me uncomfortable, mainly because the norms and boundaries are subjective and I empathize (but don’t sympathize) with the trolls.
I think it would be best if the process was entirely objective and automated—people could know the rules from the About page and altercations with trolls wouldn’t be required.
The main rule would be that people cannot comment if their karma is below some negative value K.
If we wanted to give a “time-out” (-->stop posting (for a long while)) instead of a ban, then this could be automated by an algorithm whereby anyone with negative karma gets one karma point per day until they’re back to 0.
Given this second scheme, I think that even a K as high as K=-1 would be fine, because then a person with K=-1 only needs to wait one day until they can comment again.
I agree that an automated system would be preferable. By getting (temporarily) deactivated without fanfare, the actual trolls would be robbed of the attention and responses they crave, and the naive innocents will be more likely to believe they’ve actually done something wrong and should reconsider their behavior, instead of getting self-righteous and feeling maligned and aggrieved.
I definitely see your point: if the system is automated and objective, (that is, without any component of public shaming), trolls won’t feel as much as though it’s a social norm preventing them from posting so they will feel like it’s OK to work around the system. However, it’s the atmosphere of public shaming that makes me uncomfortable.
We could try to emphasize the social norm as much as possible in the About description, something along the lines of, “If you have negative karma, it is because the net opinion of readers on Less Wrong of your comments is negative. Thus, users with negative karma are discouraged from commenting by an interruption in their ability to post comments.”
Also, I submit that it wouldn’t be that rewarding to sock-puppet yourself to positive karma, just to post a comment and get negative karma again.
I find the process [...] to be a very unpleasant experience. It introduces all sorts of negativity and it makes me uncomfortable
Not me. And anyway, it’s not you in charge of this process, so you could try to ignore it to avoid the stress, if at all possible. (It may not be.)
A lot of negativity seems unavoidable whenever anyone comes around the community disagrees with, either as a troll (like the “immortal” guy), or just as someone pushing weird and likely wrong opinions. I’m not sure the “kicking” part itself is a big part of that, so I’m not sure your solution would help.
Edit: I don’t mean to be snide or anything—I don’t know if the sort of person to ignore persistent downvoting would also ignore a rule posted in the “About” page about persistent downvoting. I believe they would not, but I can’t back that up with evidence.
I’d support the addition of the rule to the About page not because I’d have expectations about anyone’s behavior but because it is apparently Eliezer’s policy to enforce such a rule, so we should probably state the rule explicitly somewhere that newcomers are likely to see it.
In a sizable portion of cases, yes. But then again, how many people have we asked to leave? Maybe 5 to 8, no more. On the other hand, presence of this rule may make the endgame shorter, as non-admin users would be able to appeal to it.
Since my Karma is so low, I can only post drafts. At the moment I don’t have very high expectations of getting it up any time soon, seeing how little you appreciate my ideas and style of expression. As said, any feedback would be appreciated, including a permanent ban :)
True, but the issue at stake is whether the real and actual you, the actual foundation for your personal identity, is immortal or not. Kolak proves that it is. He also proves that we are all as connected to each other as your future and past selves are connected to your current self. Simply because there is only one identical self in the universe. If one realizes this then focusing on whether it is ‘useful to distinguish between individual biological organisms’ becomes of secondary importance. Furthermore, such a view has a drastic effect on ethics.
ciphergoth writes ‘Either we’re all too dumb to see the enlightenment you’re bringing, or we’re all too smart to fall for it. Either way, it should be clear by now that your quest is hopeless. Please give up.’
What is this? Am I supposed to feel bad or laugh or what? I know I appear arrogant to you but the fact is that I know something you don’t and all I’m asking for is that you check out this information on your own. There is no hidden agenda. I’m not asking you to sell your soul to the devil or to give up logic or become a member of Scientology. I’m not asking you to believe anything. The only act of faith you need to perform is to temporarily believe that I might be on to something, give in, and take a proper look at the source material. As I said before, Kolak has done a marvelous job at explaining this and there is no point in me rewriting what he’s already written. Furthermore, the knowledge he presents is for most individualistic humans so controversial that it becomes nearly impossible to pass it on in the form of a dialog. I was drunk when I wrote my first post so I apologize for calling you (whoever felt included) ‘a bunch of left-brainers’. I hoped you wouldn’t take it so seriously.
If after reading Kolak’s ‘I am You’ you still feel this was a waste of time and that I, and especially Kolak, are blabbering idiots then so be it. I would be very surprised if that was the case though. But seriously guys, how can you be so adamant to try reading a book?! Don’t you trust your own ability to reason? If the book is bullshit then it will become apparent to you. To be able to understand this builds upon the logical tools you already use, it doesn’t require you to abandon them. Do you actually expect me to explain the theory to you here, in a short post, through my brain? Haven’t I proven by now that I’m not qualified for something like that? The only thing I can hope for is to awaken your curiosity for Kolak’s work, and even at that I’m failing. Here’s my last attempt:
‘Guys, something totally amazing has happened. You won’t believe me because it sounds too good to be true but this time it actually is so please please do believe me. There is this guy who has written a book that explains that we are all immortal consciousness, aka God or whatever you wanna call it. It proves that we are all each other, just like our billions of cells are all each of us, and it’s totally mindblowingly amazing. But I can’t explain it because it’s freaking hard, it’s quite complex you see. But Kolak does explain it in his 600+ pages long book. so please please read it. I borrowed the book from a Swedish university, scanned it, uploaded it and totally breached the copyright law just so that anyone interested could read it. Please, please believe me. If just 10% of us realized this the world would become like freaking heaven. Kurzweil’s Singularity is the technical part, this is the spiritual part of it. Do you remember when you were a kid and dreamed of the endless possibilities of reality? Before you became cynical and disillusioned by people’s stupidity and cruelty and by your body’s and the universe’s apparent entropy? Please try to tap back into that way of seeing things and READ THE BOOK.’
Lol xD
Please stop posting.
I observe a systematic pattern of downvoted comments. If you can’t take this hint, further comments from you will be removed. Goodbye.
Perhaps the rule “consistent downvotes of most comments → stop posting (for a long while)” should be given authority by being added to the “About” page, which may be enough in some cases, removing the need for actual comment-deleting.
I find the process of (1) identifying trolls, (2) trying to convince them to stop posting and (3) kicking them off if they don’t listen to be a very unpleasant experience. It introduces all sorts of negativity and it makes me uncomfortable, mainly because the norms and boundaries are subjective and I empathize (but don’t sympathize) with the trolls.
I think it would be best if the process was entirely objective and automated—people could know the rules from the About page and altercations with trolls wouldn’t be required.
The main rule would be that people cannot comment if their karma is below some negative value K.
If we wanted to give a “time-out” (-->stop posting (for a long while)) instead of a ban, then this could be automated by an algorithm whereby anyone with negative karma gets one karma point per day until they’re back to 0.
Given this second scheme, I think that even a K as high as K=-1 would be fine, because then a person with K=-1 only needs to wait one day until they can comment again.
I suggested something similar recently.
I agree that an automated system would be preferable. By getting (temporarily) deactivated without fanfare, the actual trolls would be robbed of the attention and responses they crave, and the naive innocents will be more likely to believe they’ve actually done something wrong and should reconsider their behavior, instead of getting self-righteous and feeling maligned and aggrieved.
If you automate it people will just sockpuppet their way around it, and other such attacks.
What we have is working well. Let’s not create a system that people will be encouraged to game.
I definitely see your point: if the system is automated and objective, (that is, without any component of public shaming), trolls won’t feel as much as though it’s a social norm preventing them from posting so they will feel like it’s OK to work around the system. However, it’s the atmosphere of public shaming that makes me uncomfortable.
We could try to emphasize the social norm as much as possible in the About description, something along the lines of, “If you have negative karma, it is because the net opinion of readers on Less Wrong of your comments is negative. Thus, users with negative karma are discouraged from commenting by an interruption in their ability to post comments.”
Also, I submit that it wouldn’t be that rewarding to sock-puppet yourself to positive karma, just to post a comment and get negative karma again.
Not me. And anyway, it’s not you in charge of this process, so you could try to ignore it to avoid the stress, if at all possible. (It may not be.)
A lot of negativity seems unavoidable whenever anyone comes around the community disagrees with, either as a troll (like the “immortal” guy), or just as someone pushing weird and likely wrong opinions. I’m not sure the “kicking” part itself is a big part of that, so I’m not sure your solution would help.
Do you believe such a rule would be effective?
Edit: I don’t mean to be snide or anything—I don’t know if the sort of person to ignore persistent downvoting would also ignore a rule posted in the “About” page about persistent downvoting. I believe they would not, but I can’t back that up with evidence.
I’d support the addition of the rule to the About page not because I’d have expectations about anyone’s behavior but because it is apparently Eliezer’s policy to enforce such a rule, so we should probably state the rule explicitly somewhere that newcomers are likely to see it.
An even stronger point—I, too, add my support to the addition of such a rule to the About page.
In a sizable portion of cases, yes. But then again, how many people have we asked to leave? Maybe 5 to 8, no more. On the other hand, presence of this rule may make the endgame shorter, as non-admin users would be able to appeal to it.
That sounds reasonable to me—the second point is particularly cogent.
OK, I take the hint. Sorry about my trollish style. It was never my intention to annoy any of you, straight the contrary. I would however be interested in receiving feedback on http://lesswrong.com/lw/1nz/on_morphological_freedom_and_personal_identity/
Since my Karma is so low, I can only post drafts. At the moment I don’t have very high expectations of getting it up any time soon, seeing how little you appreciate my ideas and style of expression. As said, any feedback would be appreciated, including a permanent ban :)
Draft is not appropriate for Less Wrong in any case. I suggest that you might find your discourse better appreciated elsewhere.
Drafts are not visible to other users, even if you link us to them.