4 ms·

A solid article trying to understand exactly what is so important about Rationalism that it must be hidden and treated as a gnostic induction into a mystery rel

A solid article trying to understand exactly what is so important about Rationalism that it must be hidden and treated as a gnostic induction into a mystery religion. Note that the author did the courtesy of not mentioning Roko's Basilisk. Clearly they do understand that some things shouldn't be talked about. But they don't think that any of the writers mentioned here deserve to avoid public scrutiny.

solveit 6y ago
I find this comment ironic
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  Don't worry about the Basilisk. It can't exist, because Newcomb's Paradox is unphysical. Specifically, Newcomb's Paradox is incompatible with a feature of quantum mechanics, Bell's Inequality [0][1][2] which makes it impossible for predictors to fully control how a person will actually choose to act. We could even imagine special "Conway's Coins" which can be flipped like normal coins [3] whenever a person wants a little randomness and wants to be confident that they are not being controlled by a Predictor or Basilisk. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    Dear heavens, the situation is excruciating. I believe your argument to be fundamentally unsound, but I also believe it's extremely bad manners to discuss infohazards. It feels even worse than the normal "someone is Wrong On The Internet"!
    - carapace 6y ago
      It's okay, today is Opposite Day.
    - myWindoonn 6y ago
      I suppose that it depends on who you're talking to. For example, I've talked to many radical religious folks who believe that I am "suppressive", "apostate", "blasphemous", etc. and that talking to me is automatically harmful to their spiritual health. In effect, they would find it to be extremely bad manners to discuss anything which questions their religion. When I was a child, I was afraid that there were monsters in my closet. My parents were understanding at first, but when I requested that we leave on my bedroom light, they gently refused. I wanted all of the lights left on all night throughout the house, and they not only told me no, but stayed in my room with the lights turned off and explored all of the corners and showed me that there were no monsters.
      - Smaug123 6y ago
        Ah, but it's something entirely different when your parents come in, sit down on the bed, and explain to you in detail that your reasoning whose conclusion was "I am safe from monsters in my room" is unsound, before retiring to their own beds.
        myWindoonn 6y ago
        Well, this talk is more like the birds and the bees [0], right? It's not just about correcting misconceptions, but ensuring that folks are practicing safe habits as they go about their lives. Letting people believe in the Basilisk is just like letting them have any other harmful religious delusion: They're wrong, they're injuring themselves and others, and they cling to the belief because it validates part of their worldview. Edit: Single-sentence consideration: Newcomb's Paradox requires that the player can't simply flip a coin and reduce the predictor's accuracy from superhuman 99+% to a more typical 50%, right? [0] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
croissants 6y ago
I don't understand Roko's Basilisk. It seems like a mild twist on Pascal's wager, and like Pascal's wager, it has the following problem: I don't see a convincing argument that we actually know what behavior the Basilisk/God actually wants. It's equally plausible to me that the Basilisk/God wants people to be brave and live out their beliefs (which might be "I think this concept makes no sense") and would actually punish the craven pursuit of a different action in the hopes of pleasing the Basilisk/God. As long as we're suspending enough disbelief to take seriously the prospect of a deity that wants to punish us, it seems like a pretty small jump to believe that we can't predict how that punishment is going to get decided. So, rather conveniently, we can just live without thinking too hard about the Basilisk/God.
- stale2002 6y ago
  The whole argument is just a dumb troll that people bring up a bunch. It is not some serious thing that anyone is worried about. But because the argument sounds so silly, the trolls come out of the woodwork and bring it up all the time, in attempt to attack people for something that nobody actually believes anyway.

solveit 6y ago

I find this comment ironic

myWindoonn 6y ago
Don't worry about the Basilisk. It can't exist, because Newcomb's Paradox is unphysical. Specifically, Newcomb's Paradox is incompatible with a feature of quantum mechanics, Bell's Inequality [0][1][2] which makes it impossible for predictors to fully control how a person will actually choose to act. We could even imagine special "Conway's Coins" which can be flipped like normal coins [3] whenever a person wants a little randomness and wants to be confident that they are not being controlled by a Predictor or Basilisk. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping
- Smaug123 6y ago
  Dear heavens, the situation is excruciating. I believe your argument to be fundamentally unsound, but I also believe it's extremely bad manners to discuss infohazards. It feels even worse than the normal "someone is Wrong On The Internet"!
  - carapace 6y ago
    It's okay, today is Opposite Day.
  - myWindoonn 6y ago
    I suppose that it depends on who you're talking to. For example, I've talked to many radical religious folks who believe that I am "suppressive", "apostate", "blasphemous", etc. and that talking to me is automatically harmful to their spiritual health. In effect, they would find it to be extremely bad manners to discuss anything which questions their religion. When I was a child, I was afraid that there were monsters in my closet. My parents were understanding at first, but when I requested that we leave on my bedroom light, they gently refused. I wanted all of the lights left on all night throughout the house, and they not only told me no, but stayed in my room with the lights turned off and explored all of the corners and showed me that there were no monsters.
    - Smaug123 6y ago
      Ah, but it's something entirely different when your parents come in, sit down on the bed, and explain to you in detail that your reasoning whose conclusion was "I am safe from monsters in my room" is unsound, before retiring to their own beds.
      - myWindoonn 6y ago
        Well, this talk is more like the birds and the bees [0], right? It's not just about correcting misconceptions, but ensuring that folks are practicing safe habits as they go about their lives. Letting people believe in the Basilisk is just like letting them have any other harmful religious delusion: They're wrong, they're injuring themselves and others, and they cling to the belief because it validates part of their worldview. Edit: Single-sentence consideration: Newcomb's Paradox requires that the player can't simply flip a coin and reduce the predictor's accuracy from superhuman 99+% to a more typical 50%, right? [0] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3

croissants 6y ago

I don't understand Roko's Basilisk. It seems like a mild twist on Pascal's wager, and like Pascal's wager, it has the following problem: I don't see a convincing argument that we actually know what behavior the Basilisk/God actually wants. It's equally plausible to me that the Basilisk/God wants people to be brave and live out their beliefs (which might be "I think this concept makes no sense") and would actually punish the craven pursuit of a different action in the hopes of pleasing the Basilisk/God. As long as we're suspending enough disbelief to take seriously the prospect of a deity that wants to punish us, it seems like a pretty small jump to believe that we can't predict how that punishment is going to get decided. So, rather conveniently, we can just live without thinking too hard about the Basilisk/God.

stale2002 6y ago
The whole argument is just a dumb troll that people bring up a bunch. It is not some serious thing that anyone is worried about. But because the argument sounds so silly, the trolls come out of the woodwork and bring it up all the time, in attempt to attack people for something that nobody actually believes anyway.