All of deathpigeon's Comments + Replies

Rationality Quotes February 2013

I remembered it vaguely, and found the more exact quote on the ASOIAF Quotes page on TvTropes since I didn't want to search through the Arya chapters to find the exact quote, though I was prepared to.

Rationality Quotes February 2013

I could've sworn it was from both of them, and, thus, from the books originally...

5Sniffnoy9yIt's not from the books; more generally, there isn't anything in the books directly suggesting a connection between Syrio and the Faceless Men.
0Nornagest9yCouldn't find it in the Arya chapters of my copy. Wasn't looking terribly hard, though.
Rationality Quotes February 2013

Gods? There are no 'gods', young bravo. There is only one God, and his name is Death - Him of Many Faces. And there is only one prayer that one says to him - 'Not Today'.

Syrio Forel, Game of Thrones based on A Song of Ice and Fire by George R R Martin

It doesn't matter that much, but I'm pretty sure that line is original to the HBO series, not to the books.

(Not my downvotes, incidentally, but I'd speculate they come from a desire to separate rationality from anti-deathism.)

Pinpointing Utility

"Sure, but surely 2 orgasms are better than 1, so, since you're at 1/399 for turning into a whale, and a single orgasm is equal to 1/400 chance of turning into a whale, so wouldn't two orgasms be good enough to at least require 1/398 chance of turning into a whale?"

Pinpointing Utility

"What if I give you two orgasms?"

0MaoShan9yI'd like that, but let's stay on topic here.
3Kindly9y"Sorry, my utility function isn't linear in orgasms!"
Rationality Quotes January 2013

A straight line may be the shortest distance between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting.

The Third Doctor

Morality is Awesome

If the number of deontologists isn't big enough to power our inference, the stats should tell us this. There are some though.

That's true. Perhaps we could sort them by what their results with "good" show us about which normative ethical theory they follow, then compare the results of each of the groupings between "good" and "awesome". That would show us the results without consequentialists acting as white noise.

And I think going outside LW is unnecessary. This essay is hardly aimed at people-in-general.

Good point, though it would be interesting to see if it could be applied to people outside of LW.

Pinpointing Utility

...Am I the only who is wondering how being turned into a hale would even work and whether or not that would be awesome?

Probably not possible since it isn't even a noun.

0[anonymous]9yHale is a noun, alright.
Morality is Awesome

I meant that we should be looking at the awesomeness of outcomes and not actions, and that "awesome" is more effective at prompting this behavior than "good". It looks like you get it, if I understand you correctly.

Oh! That does make sense. I can see your point with that.

I find that somewhat implausible. If they are a hardcore explicit deontologist who,against the spirit of this article, has attempted to import their previous moral beliefs/confusions into their interpretation of "awesomism", then yeah. For random folks wh

... (read more)
1[anonymous]9yIf the number of deontologists isn't big enough to power our inference, the stats should tell us this. There are some though. And I think going outside LW is unnecessary. This essay is hardly aimed at people-in-general.
Morality is Awesome

Am I to understand that you're suggesting that we apply awesomeness to the consequences, and not the actions? Because that would be different from what I thought was being implied by saying "'Awesome' is implicitly consequentialist." What I took that to mean is that, when one looks at an action, and decides whether or not it is awesome, the person is determining whether or not the consequences are something that they find desirable. That is distinct from looking at consequences and determining whether or not the consequences are awesome. That req... (read more)

1[anonymous]9yI meant that we should be looking at the awesomeness of outcomes and not actions, and that "awesome" is more effective at prompting this behavior than "good". It looks like you get it, if I understand you correctly. I find that somewhat implausible. If they are a hardcore explicit deontologist who,against the spirit of this article, has attempted to import their previous moral beliefs/confusions into their interpretation of "awesomism", then yeah. For random folks who intuitively lean towards deontology for "good", I think "awesome" is still going to be substantially more consequentialist. I would expect variation, though. I wonder how you could test this. Maybe next year's survey could have some scenarios that ask for an awesomeness ranking, and some other scenarios that ask for a goodness raking, and some more with a rightness ranking. Then we could see how people's intuitions vary with whether they claim to be deontologist or consequentialist, and with prompting wording. This could put the claims in the OP here on a more solid footing than "this works for me".
A Fable of Science and Politics

It was blue because its color was within the set of colors that were commonly perceived as blue. It's the color that is defined by human perception, not each individual instance of said color.

Morality is Awesome

Except Watson was intended to be above average intelligence, but below Sherlock level intelligence, so he fails on the last account. He was very intelligent, just not as absurdly inelligent as Sherlock, so he appeared to be of average or lower intelligence.

Morality is Awesome

Those are both good points. I view it as a bug because I feel like too much ethical thought bypasses conscious thought to ill affect. This can range from people not thinking about the ethics homosexuality because their pastor tells them its a sin to not thinking about the ethics of invading a country because people believe they are responsible for an attack of some kind, whether they are or not. However, Nyan_Sandwich's ethics of awesome does appear to bypass such problems, to an extent. It's hardly s, but it appears like it would do its job better than ma... (read more)

1Mass_Driver9yOK, so how else might we get people to gate-check the troublesome, philosophical, misleading parts of their moral intuitions that would have fewer undesirable side effects? I tend to agree with you that it's good when people pause to reflect on consequences -- but then when they evaluate those consequences I want them to just consult their gut feeling, as it were. Sooner or later the train of conscious reasoning had better dead-end in an intuitively held preference, or it's spectacularly unlikely to fulfill anyone's intuitively held preferences. (I, of course, intuitively prefer that such preferences be fulfilled.) How do we prompt that kind of behavior? How can we get people to turn the logical brain on for consequentialism but off for normative ethics?
Morality is Awesome

That misses my point. When people say awesome, they don't think back at the consequences or look forward for consequences. People say awesome without thinking about it AT ALL.

1Mass_Driver9yOK, let's say you're right, and people say "awesome" without thinking at all. I imagine Nyan_Sandwich would view that as a feature of the word, rather than as a bug. The point of using "awesome" in moral discourse is precisely to bypass conscious thought (which a quick review of formal philosophy suggests is highly misleading) and access common-sense intuitions. I think it's fair to be concerned that people are mistaken about what is awesome, in the sense that (a) they can't accurately predict ex ante what states of the world they will wind up approving of, or in the sense that (b) what you think is awesome significantly diverges from what I (and perhaps from what a supermajority of people) think is awesome, or in the sense that (c) it shouldn't matter what people approve of, because the 'right' think to do is something else entirely that doesn't depend on what people approve of. But merely to point out that saying "awesome" involves no conscious thought is not a very strong objection. Why should we always have to use conscious thought when we make moral judgments?
Talking Snakes: A Cautionary Tale

That's a good point, but, in that case, we should be making the judgement that they're holding contradictory beliefs for believing the snake is Satan and the Bible is true, rather than make the judgement that they're believing the ridiculous claim that there once was a talking snake.

Talking Snakes: A Cautionary Tale

It's not actually important for the purposes of this discussion what the Bible says or not. What's important is what people believe. If many Christians believe the snake was Satan, then it doesn't matter what the Bible actually says when we discuss whether or not their beliefs are true, absurd, or, in some way, ridiculous.

In the same way, it doesn't actually matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what evolution actually says, but, rather, what people who believe in evolution believe it says.

0BerryPick69yIt does matter what the Bible says or not iff the same people who claim to believe the snake was Satan also believe the Bible is truth, since this would entail a contradiction.
Welcome to Less Wrong! (July 2012)

Greetings! I am Viktor Brown (please do not spell Viktor with a c), and I tend to go by deathpigeon (please do not capitalize it or spell pigeon with a d) on the internet. (I cannot actually think of a place I don't go by deathpigeon...) I'm currently 19 years old. I'm unemployed and currently out of school since my parents cut off me off for paying for school. I consider myself to be a rationalist, a mindset that comes from how I was raised rather than any particular moment in my life. When I was still in university, I was studying computer science, a sub... (read more)

3ialdabaoth9youch... who the hell downvotes a greeting post?
Morality is Awesome

"Awesome" is implicitly consequentialist.

Not necessarily. If I tell a story of how I went white water rafting, and the person I'm talking to tells me that what I did was "awesome," is he or she really thinking of the consequences of my white water rafting? Probably not. Instead, he or she probably thought very little before declaring the white water rafting awesome. That's an inherent problem to using awesome with morality. Awesome is usually used without thought. If you determine morality based on awesomeness, then you are moralizing without thinking at all, which can often be a problem.

1Mass_Driver9yTo say that something's 'consequentialist' doesn't have to mean that it's literally forward-looking about each item under consideration. Like any other ethical theory, consequentialism can look back at an event and determine whether it was good/awesome. If you going white-water rafting was a good/awesome consequence, then your decision to go white-water rafting and the conditions of the universe that let you do so were good/awesome.