Hi! Thanks for the welcome. Is it possible to move this thread to the Open Thread forum?
Are there other ways of extending life? What if we were able to prevent death, but not ageing? So we were able to control mortality, but not time? Your point is well taken, though. To add to my question-is there a way to recover the "essence" of a person after death? So when we learn how to stop it, we can resurrect people?
Hi! I'm Ciara (pronounced like Keara-Irish spelling is very muh irrational!)
I've actually been a member of less wrong for a little while-I discovered it through HPMOR. I've always liked academics, challenging books, and Harry Potter, so I joined Less Wrong. I am a little ashamed to admit that I was quite intimidated by the sheer intellect and extraordinary thoughts that came from so many members all around the world. So, I took a little break after starting with the basics of rationality and am now a very different, though still amateur rationalist, person. I live in MA, not far from MiT, and I'm hoping to attend a meet up sometime.
I'm sixteen years old, and going into my junior year of highschool. Both of my parents are Irish, and I usually spend about a quarter of my year there with family, so I tend to use some bizzare expressions. I'm also a dancer; I participate in musical theatre and jazz principally. I'm an aspiring author currently some 30,000 odd words into my latest attempt at a novel. I'm trying to incorporate some rationality into the characters; although not rationalist genre, like HPMOR, I'm at least trying to ensure that no one is holding the idiot ball.
I'm a little nervous about rejoining the rationalist community, but I hope that by, say, Newtonmas, that my rationality will have improved enough for me to start posting. Look forward to working with you!
But doesn't Harry accept that he has more than one "voice"? So if he's truly a rationalist, wouldn't he rationally gather evidence based on how people acted and his own voices, and after these observations, look at how complex people can be? Yes, Hermione doesn't think that he sees other people in that way, but he must, because he cares what Hermione and Draco think, and he goes to Prof. Quirrell for help and advice, doesn't he?
I agree about the interesting narrative. It does make it more complex and quite a bit more real. (I don't know about you, but it's similar to how I think/have inner doubt.) Much better than "feeling conflicted".
Well, if Harry fell for it, then I suppose I can't be too bad... :P. But isn't that what Harry "hears" when he thinks in the personalities of Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Slytherin? (with Gryffindor and Hufflepuff usually tag-teaming?) If not, what does it mean? I'm guessing that it is his imagination (not, for example, Voldemort's Horcrux talking to him), but why else would E.Y. insert it into this story?
I agree that Quirrell benefits the most from Harry becoming so angry that he loses control in order to protect Hermione and is therefore probably behind the plot; but if Harry loses control, he loses rationality, and might do something like cast the Patronus Charm and reveal the True Patronus; something I have a hunch Professor Quirrell does not want. In addition, if he were to reveal how bright his Patronus was, could they tie him to the Azkaban escape? Again, something Professor Quirrell does not want.
I agree that Lucius is Snape's closest friend currently (breaking with canon) but given the conversation Harry had had with Snape earlier, I think Snape loves Lily still, not Hermione. Interestingly, I think Snape might not necessarily be good or evil in HPMOR; I think he might be a sort of free agent. He might actually act in order to preserve Draco more than anyone else; he is very protective of Draco.
My most sincere apologies, I'm a bit new to Less Wrong and my rationality is still not perfected. Are the rest of my theories still sound, or do they fall under the umbrella of disaster that is game theory as well?
If we observe, most things that are factual questions are indisputable by intelligent people; for example, "Is the Earth round?" is a question that anyone who is fortunate enough to have some basic intelligence and an elementary school education is unlikely to argue. However, in order to have an opinionated question, one opens the can of worms that is mind killing and biased. For example, if you had two towns side by side, populated by young adults of equal intelligence and equal education, and they each had a sports team that competed against the other town's, those people living in each town would claim their team to be superior, without evidence other than "I live in this town." Hence, bias.
I was thinking about Harry's four sides: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin. He's already tried Ravenclaw (presenting logic and rationality, thinking through his options) and Slytherin (plotting against Lucius Malfoy in front of the Wizgov.-"you do not want me as your enemy") But his Hufflepuff (strong loyalty to Hermione as a friend) refuses to allow him to give up, and I think his Ravenclaw and Slytherin sides will shout down the Gryffindor option (destroy the dementor with his patronus). However, E.Y. said "figure it out from there" so that implies we already have enough information. So, if we analyze it this way, we can observe:
Therefore, we can conclude that any one of these given possible outcomes has some chance of possibility, but some are more probable than others.
I am very long winded. My apologies.