In that case, it’s not just about memes but about genes.
How big an impact do genes have on the potential of an individual to become a rationalist?
In that case, it’s not just about memes but about genes.
How big an impact do genes have on the potential of an individual to become a rationalist?
I might agree with that if human civilization as a whole was much more rational than it is now.,(especially the institutions that deal with political and military power—this includes organized religion to a certain degree in most places).
If I believed that warfare would only be used to attain noble goals that nothing else can reach (a “cause worth killing for”, as you say), then yeah, if it’s worth killing soldiers, it might be worth killing civilians too.
But right now, it seems that war is mostly about small politics, personal status (both for dictators and democratically elected leaders), xenophobia, and money.
I feel that if civilians had been a legitimate target in most recent wars, the outcomes would only have been worse, not better, and so I can’t support it.
I wouldn’t press the button, though I had to think a bit longer about the “erase from memory” part.
It reminds me of what Eliezer often says about Friendly AI: “If you offered Gandhi a pill that would make gandhi a murderer, gandhi would refuse to take it.”
I would also refuse to do it even if my memory could be erased. Somehow, I don’t feel it’s really relevant, because when I’m considering wether to do it or not, I’m not even thinking about any guilt I might feel, I’m mostly repulsed by torture in general and imagining myself in the place of the person to be tortured.
“War is not good for your economy (unless you aren’t fighting in it).”
That’s pretty well accepted in some economics circles. See the broken window fallacy by Frédéric Bastiat.
Let’s not forget that the US isn’t the only place where religion is a problem. The Middle-East isn’t exactly a stable and enlightened place, for the most part.
I think that what Dawkins does it marvelous if only because he’s helping to break the taboo that religion is somehow above criticism and that the same standards that apply to everything don’t apply to it.
This helps people be rational about it; ie. being non-religious for the ‘good’ reasons, instead of for the same reasons why others are religious (was raised that way, inertia, social pressure, etc).
I might agree with this. But would you say that it was justified on other grounds and that these were just used as the “sellable to the public” excuse?
A quick Google search reveals the Gandhi phrase on Eliezer’s website:
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity
But I think I saw it in at least one of his papers too.
Thanks for the link, very interesting indeed.
In my case, though,I could hear a few words the first time I listened to the sine-wave modulated version. It became much clearer after listening to the primer, though.
Sadly, once you’ve heard the primer, you can’t really go back to hearing it the way you heard it the first time, so you can’t compare back to back. It’s a bit like “hidden” messages in songs; once you hear them, it very hard to revert back to hearing the original lyrics.
I read Dune a while ago, but I can’t remember ever thinking that the characters were taking a rationalist approach.
Do you have any specific examples?
It would certainly be possible for the character to act very rationally within the internal logic of the world which they inhabit, even if that world isn’t the same as our own.
But I don’t particularly remember that from the book. I remember lots of politics and intrigue, but I think we need more than that to fit Eliezer’s criteria for “rationalist fiction”, otherwise let’s talk about John Grisham novels.
To be clear: I’m not saying Dune isn’t a rationalist book. I’m just asking for specific examples to refresh my memory.
I don’t have a big personal interest in poetry, but to add someone to the list of scientists who were also part-time poets, I’d like to submit J. Robert Oppenheimer.
I’m currently reading his biography (the Sherwin & Kai one, 2⁄3 of the way through and it’s great so far) and they often mention his interest in poetry and literature, and also that he wrote some poetry himself (though not many examples are given in the book).
I think you are focusing too much on discussions.
There are other activities where success can depend heavily on not acting alone, and it is in those types of activities (such as fundraising, seizing political power, reforming institutions, etc) that rationalist-types are disadvantaged by their lack of coordination.
Me too.
This might (partly) answer your question:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/09/why-im-blooking.html
IAWYC but I think you forgot to include something about jealousy in your analysis, even if few people would admit it’s part of it.
I think it’s very possible to greatly admire someone and at the same time feel some form of jealousy that inhibits the clear expression of that admiration. By saying that someone else is better (much better) than you are—especially at something that you value—you are in effect admitting to a lower status.
So all the forced disagreements and claims of independence are in effect just trying to signal that your status is high and you’re not submissive, or something like that.
“I guess that writing about Paul Graham and then getting voted up on Hacker News exceeded the maximum recursion depth of the blogosphere.”
Just wait until PG writes an essay about all this...
I’ve read it too, but made the mistake of reading it right after Godel, Escher, Bach. Hard to compare.
What surprised me most was how much of the things written in a book published in 2007 were more or less the same as those in a book published in 1979. I expected more new promising developments since then, and that was a bit of a downer.
I think this is a great post.
Really made me think about how this might apply to me, and I’ve already decided to make a few changes based on some of your suggestions (mostly in how I phrase things when describing myself).
As social creatures, I wonder if the effect is stronger when these consistency effects rise up in group situations. Does our brain try harder to stay consistent with an identity that makes us part of a group rather than an “individual” identity?
This certainly could explain a few things about how solid political/tribal/religious identity is, not to mention the most intense kinds of metal-heads, comic book geeks, browncoats, free software evangelists, etc (all types of hardcore fans that build their identity around what they happen to enjoy).
Every time Eliezer gets very, very still while someone else is speaking on Bloggingheads, I think:
“Ah-ha! I knew it, he’s a robot!”
or
“Is that part of the art? Be absolutely motionless so that more blood can be redirected from various muscles to the brain?”
or
“Great, Eliezer was disconnected and I’m seeing a frozen video frame.”
“Obviously the vast majority of my OB content can’t go into the book, because there’s so much of it.”
I know this is not what you asked for, but I’d like to vote for a long book. I feel that the kind of people who will be interested by it (and readers of OB) probably won’t be intimidated by the page count, and I know that I’d really like to have a polished paper copy of most of the OB material for future reference. The web just isn’t quite the same.
In short: Something that is Godel, Escher, Bach-like in lenght probably wouldn’t be a problem, though maybe there are other good reasons to keep it shorter other than “there is too much material”.