User Profile

star968
description2
message2487

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

No posts to display.

Recent Comments

That observation runs headlong into the problem, rather than solving it.

Well, we don't know if they work magically, because we don't know that they work at all. They are just unavoidable.

It's not that philosophers weirdly and unreasonably prefer intuition to empirical facts and mathematical/logical reasoning, it is that they have reasoned that they can't do without th...(read more)

Many-worlds-flavored QM, on the other hand, is the conjunction of 1 and 2, plus the negation of 5

Plus 6: There is a preferred basis.

>First, it's important to keep in mind that if MWI is "untestable" relative to non-MWI, then non-MWI is also "untestable" relative to MWI. To use this as an argument against MWI,

I think it's being used as an argument against beliefs paying rent.

> MWI is testable insofar as QM itself is testabl...(read more)

> This is why there's a lot of emphasis on hard-to-test ("philosophical") questions in the Sequences, even though people are notorious for getting those wrong more often than scientific questions -- because sometimes [..] the answer matters a lot for our decision-making,

Which is one of the ways in...(read more)

I am not familiar with Peterson specifically, but I recognise the underpinning in terms of Jung, monomyth theory, and so on.

> , a state is good when it engages our moral sensibilities s

Individually, or collectively?

> We don't encode locks, but we do encode morality.

Individually or collectively?

> Namely, goodness of a state of affairs is something that I can assess myself from outside a simulation of that state....(read more)

>No, we're in a world where tourists generally don't mind going slowly and enjoying the view. These things would be pretty big on the outside, at least RV size, but they wouldn't be RVs. They wouldn't usually have kitchens and their showers would have to be way nicer than typical RV showers.

And th...(read more)

> can think of two possibilities:

> [1] that morality is based on rational thought as expressed through language

> [2] that morality has a computational basis implemented somewhere in the brain and accessed through the conscious mind as an intuition..

[3] Some mixture. Morality doesn't have to be...(read more)