And then you move on to meta-epiphanies…
Incorrect
Karma: 1,065
It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.
-- Oscar Wilde
Do not initiate intimate physical contact (hugs, touching shoulder, etc) unless the target has previously made similar contact with you.
If everyone follows this rule nobody will ever initiate physical contact.
No. You’re entitled to arguments, but not (that particular) proof (blog post #898).
You would invoke this on someone asking for only specific evidence for your theory. It doesn’t make sense to invoke it against someone asking for ANY evidence.
That’s because your brain doesn’t have the ability to imagine just how happy Felix is and fails to weigh his actual happiness against humanity’s.
So if I pay attention to paying attention will I get better at paying attention?
Why don’t SIAI researchers decide to definitively solve some difficult unsolved mathematics, programming, or engineering problem as proof of their abilities?
Yes it would waste time that could have been spent on AI-related philosophy but would unambiguously support the competency of SIAI.
More than 30 percent of my libertarian compatriots (and more than 40 percent of conservatives), for instance, disagreed with the statement “A dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person”—c’mon, people!—versus just 4 percent among progressives. Seventy-eight percent of libertarians believed gun-control laws fail to reduce people’s access to guns.
I… I notice that I am confused. How could such a large percentage of people get these easy questions wrong? Are they interpreting it as a question of signalling without even reaching the point of evaluating it as an ontological statement?
Cognitive Style Tends To Predict Religious Conviction (psychcentral.com)
So the Ree are still loose then!?!?
He alone spoke to defend Hermione, the man with a phoenix flaming bright upon his shoulder.
Don’t forget the phoenix.
They’re adherents of the Singularity, a sort of nerd rapture that will occur when machines become smarter than people and begin advancing technological change on their own, eventually outpacing and—in a worst-case scenario—enslaving people before getting bored and grinding us up into fleshy pulp. This, as it happens, resembles the prospect that had the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, all worked up.
Well that’s a strawman if I ever saw one. This is past the point where embellishment becomes deception.
Exchanges like this make me wish we had a signalling-analysis novelty account, akin to reddit’s joke-explainer.
In a classroom setting I sometimes have the opposite problem. I sometimes forget I am in a social situation entirely and think no more of stating something in a huge room of students than simply thinking it within my own mind.
So there’s one answer for you, obliviousness and impulsivety.
I’m guessing Eliezer would lose most of his advantages against a demographic like that.
Why do modern-day liberals (for example) generally consider it okay to say “I think everyone should be happy” without offering an explanation, but not okay to say “I think I should be free to keep slaves”, regardless of the explanation offered?
“I think everyone should be happy” is an expression of a terminal value. Slavery is not a typically positive terminal value, so if you terminally value slavery you would have to say something like “I like the idea of slavery itself”; if you just say “I like slavery” people will think you have some justification in terms of other terminal values (e.g. slavery → economics → happiness).
So, to say you like slavery implies you have some justification for it as an instrumental value. Such justifications are generally considered to be incorrect for typical terminal values and so, the “liberals” could legitimately consider you to be factually incorrect.
Hurting people is bad.
The condemned walk about as if searching for something, and, as we might expect, they soon begin to say that the greatest torment consists in not participating in the vision of God, that moral suffering is worse than physical suffering, and so on
Why don’t they just play tag with each other? Sounds like it would be fun.
Oh don’t worry, there will always be those little lapses in awareness. Even supposing you hide yourself at night, are you sure you maintain your sentience while awake? Ever closed your eyes and relaxed, felt the cool breeze, and for a moment, forgot you were aware of being aware of yourself?
That way the atheists wont want it because it sounds like religion and the religious wont want it because it sounds like atheism! Genius!