And maybe the argument is genuinely so right that most humans upon hearing it would agree to not exist, something like collectively sacrificing ourselves for our collective children.
This describes an argument that is persuasive; your described scenario does not require the argument to be right. (Indeed my view is that the argument would obviously be wrong, as it would be arguing for a false conclusion.)
Strongly agreed. Capitalization conventions are part of standard English-language orthography for a very good reason; they make it much easier to read text.
Such things as “stylistic choices” and “to make my formal writing more representative of my casual chatting” do not even begin to approach sufficient justification for imposing such a dramatic cost on your readers.
Writing like this sends a very strong signal that you do not care about your readers’ time or cognitive resources, which in turn implies that you’re uninterested in whether you’re successfully communicating your ideas. (Of course, if that’s your intent, then fair enough. But then why post at all?)
What aspect of things are you testing?
My ability to post comments!
Look, I have to ask: is there some reason why you’re refusing to give me a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer to a yes-or-no question?
I ask because this is making it very difficult to follow what you’re saying. I would like to understand your comments, but it would really be much easier for me to do that if the commentary accompanied the direct answers, rather than replacing them!
I’m sorry, perhaps I’m being dense, but: yes, playing against bots in Unreal Tournament or StarCraft is “authentically challenging”? Is that right?
That’s fascinating, but it seems like your reply to my comment answered none of the questions I asked. Was that intentional, or an oversight, or… what? To clarify, those questions were not rhetorical. I would like to know what your answers are.
Suppose that the AI opponents actually shot more, with superhuman accuracy. (Are there difficulty settings in Halo?) Would the challenge then be “authentic”?
Is playing against bots in Unreal Tournament “authentically challenging”? How about in StarCraft?
Are high-level PVE encounters in World of Warcraft “authentically challenging”?
This is a test reply.
This is a test comment.
What are some examples of “inauthentically challenging” games, and some examples of “authentically challenging” games that aren’t PVP?
Or perhaps an update of this
Probably off-topic, but I can’t help but notice that the supposed moral of the story is, in fact, empirically wrong:
The techniques required for these traditional computer science applications don’t work as well for embedded applications. The toaster is one example. A toaster is not a Breakfast Food Cooker. Any attempt to make it one just leads to a product that is over budget, behind schedule, too expensive to sell at a profit, and too confusing to use. When faced with a difficult problem, the proper approach is to try to make the problem simpler, not more complicated.
But in fact toaster ovens exist, they are precisely the result of taking a toaster and turning it into a Breakfast Food Cooker, and they’re excellent appliances—very useful, very simple and easy to use, and sold at a profit by many manufacturers today!
I’m not the one making the positive claim.
Is that really the right way to value such things? Like, is it actually true that if you had decided “eh, this protest is actually a bad idea and I won’t go”, then you would instead have spent the day working and earning $100/hr (or whatever amount)? In other words, did you actually in fact forego \$(yourHourlySalary * protestDurationInHours) by attending? (And, by extension, the same question for all other protesters?)
Can we get an update? How did this go?
And while I do not find philosophical zombies or non-physicalism plausible, Eliezer indeed badly misrepresents that debate in a way that even a first year philosophy student with passing knowledge of the subject would find egregious.
This is not my impression. (I am not an expert, though I studied philosophy, and specifically philosophy of mind, as an undergrad.) From what I know and have read of the debate, Eliezer’s depiction seems accurate.
What misrepresentation do you see, specifically?
And you didn’t pick up on it here, but the way that Eliezer represents ethics is terrible. Naive utilitarianism is not just not the default assumption in ethics, it is widely considered deeply problematic for good reasons, and telling people they are irrational for doubting it is really problematic.
I totally agree here, FWIW.
Animal consciousness, especially pain, especially in non-human mammals, is indeed well established. Happy to explain more if someone doubts this, this is actually something I am academically qualified for.
I doubt this. Please explain more!
(My best guess is that this disagreement hinges on equivocation between meanings of the word “consciousness”, but if there’s instead some knowledge of which I’m unaware, I’m eager to learn of it.)
though I feel like there might be more
I can definitely think of two obvious examples just offhand, and I know that I’ve noticed more, but haven’t exactly kept track.
People don’t usually go off exploring strange things because they stop caring about what’s true.
On the contrary, there are certain things which people do, in fact, only “explore” seriously if they’ve… “stopped” is a strong term, but, at least, stopped caring about the truth as much. (Or maybe reveal that they never cared as much as they said?) And then, reliably, after “exploring” those things, their level of caring about the truth drops even more. Precipitously, in fact.
(The stuff being discussed in the OP is definitely, definitely an example of this. Like, very obviously so, to the point that it seems bizarre to me to say this sort of stuff and then go “I wonder why anyone would think I’m crazy”.)
Hmm, I think I see your general point. However, I am still not clear on what connection a video has to that point. Or are you thinking of YouTube comments under the video…?
Is this a real example or one that you’ve made up? That is, do you actually have cases in mind where someone discovered valuable and neglected epistemic rationality techniques in the course of doing paperwork?