User Profile

star2
description18
message424

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Happiness and Children

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
29

Asking about polyamory in Melbourne

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
8

Skepticism about Probability

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
129

Historical/Rationalistic Assesment Question

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
4

Criticisms of the Metaethics

5y
4 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
31

Requesting advice- A Philosophy Idea

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
20

Requesting clarification- On the Metaethics

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
75

Lesswrong Philosophy and Personal Identity

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
55

Greatest Philosopher in History

5y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
62

Recent Comments

A good question to keep in mind is how much real power the electorate has, as opposed to entrenched bureaucrats or de facto oligarchies.

Question. I admit I have a low EQ here, but I"m not sure if 4) is sarcasm or not. It would certainly make a lot of sense if "I've been glad to see in this thread that we LW's do, in fact, put our money where our mouths are when it comes to trying to navigate, circumvent, or otherwise evade the Mindk...(read more)

I was trying to say with my second paragraph that we specifically cannot be sure about that. My first paragraph was simply my best effort at interpreting what I think hairyfigment thinks, not a statement of what I believe to be true.

From my vague recollections I think the idea is worth looking up ...(read more)

Clarification please. How do you avoid this supposed vacuity applying to basically all definitions? Taking a quick definition from a Google Search: A: "I define a cat as a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws." B: "Yes, but is that a cat?"

Which c...(read more)

Maybe we should be abandoning the objectivity requirement as impossible. As I understand it this is in fact core to Yudkowsky's theory- an "objective" morality would be the tablet he refers to as something to ignore.

I'm not entirely on Yudkowsky's side in this. My view is that moral desires, whils...(read more)

The Open Question argument is theoretically flawed because it relies too much on definitions (see this website's articles on how definitions don't work that way, more specifically http://lesswrong.com/lw/7tz/concepts_dont_work_that_way/).

The truth is that humans have an inherent instinct towards s...(read more)

I think hairyfigment is of the belief that the Romans (and in the most coherent version of his claim you would have to say male and female) were under misconceptions about the nature of male and female minds, and believes that "a sufficiently deep way" would mean correcting all these misconceptions....(read more)

On a purely theoretical level (which is fun to talk about so I think worth talking about) I would like to see one of the high status and respected members of the rationalist movement (Yudowsky, Hanson etc) in power. They'd become corrupt eventually, but do a lot of good before they did.

On a practi...(read more)