User Profile

star0
description1
message97

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

*Could* reach the same point. Said Eliezer agent is programmed genetically to value his own genes and those of humanity. An artificial Elizer *could* reach the conclusion that humanity is worth keeping but is by no means obliged to come to that conclusion. On the contrary, genetics determines ...(read more)

This is a cliche and may be false but it's *assumed* true: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I wouldn't want *anybody* to have absolute power not even myself, the *only* possible use of absolute power I would like to have would be to stop any *evil* person getting it. ...(read more)

Now *this* is the $64 google-illion question! I don't agree that the null hypothesis: take the ring and do nothing with it is evil. My definition of evil is coercion leading to loss of resources up to and including loss of one's self. Thus absolute evil is loss of one's self across humanity whi...(read more)

Xannon decides how much Zaire gets. Zaire decides how much Yancy gets. Yancy decides how much Xannon gets.

If any is left over they go through the process again for the remainder ad infinitum until an approximation of all of the pie has been eaten.

Very Good response. I can't think of anything to disagree with and I don't think I have anything more to add to the discussion. My apologies if you read anything adversarial into my message. My intention was to be pointed in my line of questioning but you responded admirably without evading any ...(read more)

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes I already have read it (steal beach). It was OK but didn't really touch much on our points of contention as such. In fact I'd say it steered clear from them since there wasn't really the concept of uploads etc. Interestingly, I haven't read anything that really examine...(read more)

Other stuff: "Yes, I would say that if the daughter cell is identical to the parent cell, then it doesn't matter that the parent cell died at the instant of budding." OK good to know. I'll have other questions but I need to mull it over. "I would also say that it doesn't matter that the vas...(read more)

Of course I would do it because it would be better than nothing. My memories would survive. But I would still be dead. Here's a thought experiment for you to outline the difference (whether you think it makes sense from your position whether you only value the information or not): Let's say you ...(read more)

EDIT: Yes, you did understand though I can't *personally* say that I'm willing to come out and say definitively that the X is a red herring though it sounds like you are willing to do this. I think it's an axiomatic difference Dave. It appears from my side of the table that you're starting fro...(read more)

"Again, just to be clear, what I'm trying to understand is what you value that I don't. If data at these high levels of granularity is what you value, then I understand your objection. Is it?" OK I've mulled your question over and I think I have the subtley of what you are asking down as distinct...(read more)