" Also, spend some time with the dictionary, you meant 'prescriptive' not 'proscriptive.'
No, I did not. On what are you basing your claim to know what I meant to say?"
'Prescriptive' is a synonym of normative, and the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive/normative analysis is a standard one. Your use of 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' strongly suggests a mistake (and not a dexterity-related typo on a QWERTY keyboard, incidentally).
'Proscriptive' derives from 'proscription,' i.e. prohibition. 'Prescriptive' can be taken to refer specifically to positive injunctions, but in its general form, the form used in descriptive versus prescriptive discussions, encompasses both. Are you going to claim that the correct reading of your earlier comment was that morality is not descriptive, but prohibitory, with no positive prescriptions? That interpretation is so strained that, combined with your past history of pontificating on topics where your actual knowledge is profoundly lacking and general posting behavior, I would attach more credence to a different hypothesis: you made yet another mistake in yet another of your trollish posts, and are now denying it.
Eli writes: For a start, Roko actually says "universal", not "supermajority", but there are no actual universal actions; no matter what the green button does, there are possible mind designs whose utility function just says "Don't press the green button." There is no button, in other words, that all possible minds will press.
Caledonian writes: Why do you continue asserting that behaviors across all minds are relevant to this discussion? Morality isn't descriptive in regards to minds, it's proscriptive.
Why don't you read the actual post before making your inaccurate claim? Roko thinks that behaviors across all minds are relevant, and Eliezer presents a refutation in those terms without endorsing them. Also, spend some time with the dictionary, you meant 'prescriptive' not 'proscriptive.'
As a general matter, why on earth do you feel compelled to make smug, poorly-reasoned, negative non-substantive comments in almost every post?
I third. What are you aiming at? Showing the relevance of the previous posts via an example of a Cambridge maths grad student Singularitarian who has read your work and is nonetheless enthused about a moral system that would destroy us and our values? Showing that you have an answer to Roko's repeated comments/ending the discussion in comments? Trying to get Roko, Richard Hollerith, and others lost in the wild to refocus their energies on something more productive?