Many of our most serious conflicts are conflicts within ourselves. Those who suppose their judgements are always consistent are unreflective or dogmatic.
-- John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.
Many of our most serious conflicts are conflicts within ourselves. Those who suppose their judgements are always consistent are unreflective or dogmatic.
-- John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.
When I admit my ignorance on a certain topic, upfront and clearly, it usually works for me and gets the other person to trust that my intent is to learn and not to challenge them.
I hadn’t noticed that until you pointed it out. That is genius.
I think the more popular options for pomo times would be 25⁄5 and 50⁄10. That’s what we’ve been doing in the tinychat, anyways...
I really, really hope this goes through, since this co-working experiment is currently paying huge dividends for me.
How’s that sound to you?
2 questions:
How do I sign up?
Who do I give my money to?
Reminds me of all the Jewish actors who’ve changed their names to make it in Hollywood, and all the executives who’ve done the exact opposite.
Gah! Spoiler!
Searle’s response[1] :
This objection really is only worth a short reply. The problem in this discussion is not about how I know that other people have cognitive states, but rather what it is that I am attributing to them when I attribute cognitive states to them. The thrust of the argument is that it couldn’t be just computational processes and their output because the computational processes and their output can exist without the cognitive state.
Talk about begging the question...
[1] Searle, John. 1980a. “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417-424.
Wouldn’t they still have incentives to aid parties who promise to repay them once their term is up? Similar to how some legislators conveniently acquire lucrative positions requiring little-to-no effort on their part from companies who they have helped out through the years once they’ve retired from politics?
It’s not always taught this way. Shelly Kagan, a philosophy professor at Yale, has a tendency to teach those Y’s without teaching about X first, which you can see since some of his courses are available online.
For example, Kant’s categorical imperative is very close to a decision-theory or game theory approach if one thinks about it as asking “what would happen if everyone made the choice that I do?”
In my Intro to Moral Philosophy course, Kant’s work was preceded by an introduction to basic game-theory and such, which most people understood much better than his actual work, so I don’t really think his is a necessary foundation or a proper introduction in those fields
This conversation just metacitasized.
It’s okay, I’ll show myself out.
How is Searle’s actual response to the accusation that he has just dressed up the Other Minds Problem at all satisfactory? Does anyone find it convincing?
We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions. Moral choices. Some are on a grand scale. Most of these choices are on lesser points. But! We define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are in fact the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, human happiness does not seem to have been included, in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love, that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.
-- Closing lines of Crimes and Misdemeanors, script by Woody Allen.
Or one could conclude that since EY’s post is so lacking in clarity and argument
Do you mean Luke, or are you referring to some other Yudkowsky post?
Reading the context (it’s said in response to an evangelical trying to use Lewis’ Trilemma) just makes it plain badass.
If you’re having difficulty with Akrasia and procrastination and you are still looking for solutions, might I suggest the Less Wrong Study Hall? We do constant pomodoros of 25 minutes work, 5 minutes rest, and many of us have found it tremendously effective.
(This is a result of the Co-Working Collaboration to Combat Akrasia post)
Harry seems more awesome to me because he has a strong drive to get to the bottom of things—not the same thing as intelligence, though it might be a trait that wouldn’t be as interesting in an unintelligent character. (Or would it be? I can’t think of an author who’s tried to portray that.)
I would be fascinated to read a character who can Get Curious and think skeptically and reflectively about competing ideas, but is only of average intelligence.
Trying to model this character in my head has resulted in some sort of error though, so there’s that...
My own guess, based on nothing much other than a hunch: Morality as Awesomeness sounds simple and easy to do. It also sounds fun and light, unlike many of the other Ethical posts on LW. People have responded positively to this change of pace.
-- A dialogue by Philip Gasper