But Climate science is a lot less about an Apocalypse. Mainstream climate science isn't about a total wiping out of humanity but a few degrees of change in temperature, extreme weather, more deserts, floods etc., which are terrible catastrophes but nowhere near on the scale that Yudkowsky likes to dream up (evil robots destroying everything and torturing and extorting and creating myriads of simulations of simulations of you being tortured in the worst ways possible in various hypothetical, counterfactual scenarios to acausally motivate you to serve these evil overlords etc.)

Also, climate science doesn't ask you to "obviously" dismiss reputable fields and past sources. It's just a very bad analogy. The best defense of Singulitarianism is the "but what if you're wrong" kind of betting. Because their imagined doom scenario is so extremely unimaginably bad, they argue that they can get away with little proof, since multiplying the huge disaster with a little probability still gives a large expected risk. They like to say "shut up and multiply" as a slogan for this, i.e. multiply probability and outcome to get the expectation. He lays the groundwork and path for this such that if you gradually get into his system, he can take you in the woods without you noticing. It's no less than a panic-inducing mind virus.

And yeah, you can say I didn't disprove him with this. I don't want to. My main point is: don't start with his writings and don't recommend them to people who are uneducated in these topics. You'll do them a favor by recommending reputable sources.

You are sounding like a climate skeptic.

What does Yudkowsky ask you to "obviously dismiss"?

Near as I can tell, your only critique of Yudkowsky is that he asks you to consider various philosophical and scientific edge cases that are outside of the social mainstream, and are therefore somehow wrong in a way you refuse to discuss.

The Basilisk is an organic outgrowth from it. And it's just one of many. They follow naturally from the tenets of the religion, they aren't outliers or "bad apples".

It is relevant. Look what you wrote:

>Yudkowsky likes to dream up (evil robots destroying everything and torturing and extorting and creating myriads of simulations of simulations of you being tortured in the worst ways possible in various hypothetical, counterfactual scenarios to acausally motivate you to serve these evil overlords etc.)

Unless I am mistaken, this is a clear reference to Roko's basilisk. EXCEPT Yudkowsky didn't dream it up. Roko did.

Can you elaborate on your issues w/ the Basilisk? As far as I am concerned its just a thought experiment. If Yudkowsky had actually tried to get people to give him money or something via it you would have a good complaint... but he didn't.

Correct, I was conflating things. But his unfriendly AI scenario is pretty bad too.

My issue with it is that it's a symptom of an over-confident belief system naturally leading people to such conclusions. And now I don't want to get into refuting it, it's been done numerous times to varying degrees. I think the whole underlying system is problematic, there is no superficial mistake in the reasoning, once you accept a few philosophical standpoints and value judgments that the reader is spoon-fed while reading his blog posts.

I have no idea what muslims truly believe and I don't even care too much. What I care about is the effects of their beliefs...Terrorism is an organic outgrowth from it. And it's just one of many...

I take it that if Donald Trump makes this claim, you'll support it?

I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with johann30 specific claim, and I can't comment to the negative effects he says he had witnessed on himself and others (all I know is that Yudkowsky is neither a philosopher nor an expert on the subject), but your analogy did not resemble his idea at all.

If I understand what the term means to you I can avoid that in the future.

Your post (and you post a lot of these) takes the form of logically substituting one expression for an equivalent one, but that's not what you're doing at all—you're simply pretending to. Not even mathematical expressions can be substituted that way without careful proof that every step preserves the meaning, and natural language simply doesn't work this way to begin with. It isn't valid to rip something out of its context, do major surgeries on it, then fling it back with the claim that it's what the other is really saying. When the thing you're flinging back seems designed to be offensive, the likelihood that this is sincere communication, aiming at understanding, plummets.

Many of your recent comments seem crafted to be technically unimpeachable while still tweaking people's noses. I could be wrong about that and would prefer to be; it's hard to read intent. But the fact that they come across that way is already a problem. You'd contribute more of value if you sincerely, and not only technically, eliminated that element and sought neutral ground with others. Note that this doesn't entail changing your views, though it can involve making an assessment of how much the conversation can tolerate before it goes haywire, and calibrating accordingly. But that's part of civil discourse anyhow. It makes no sense to send messages with little chance of being received.

And of course there is possibly a distinguishing principle that Johann30 used as an unstated premise - that's just a flaw of natural language. But I realize I could have been clearer in allowing for that possibility. I'll try to be more literal in the future.

I understand you want others to stop being provoked by my comments, but I can't really control that.

What is the concrete action you'd like me to take? Will being more literal and explicitly requesting the elucidation of unstated premises/stating that I obviously don't think the person believes the contradictory conclusion/etc be sufficient? Should I include an explicit disclaimer that I'm making an argument by contradiction? Or are arguments by contradiction now explicitly disallowed (only constructive logic, I guess)?

I have no idea what X truly believe and I don't even care too much. What I care about is the effects of Y ... Z is an organic outgrowth from it. And it's just one of many...

Your claim is that if you substitute in any X, Y and Z (where X, Y and Z are consistent with each other), the statement is equivalent. You want the original poster to reply to this idea. Dan's point, which I agree with, is that putting in emotionally charged X, Y and Z is not civil, promotes emotional responses and is effectively trolling.

(I also happen to agree with Dan that the particular X, Y and Z matter, and the sentences are not necessarily logically equivalent with any X, Y and Z. But it's still possible to make the above argument without the emotional baggage. I understand it's a rhetorical technique to shock the reader into seeing what you perceive as sloppy thinking, but I think it is more likely to inflame and prevent discussion on the original topic.)

I agree that the particular X/etc sometimes matters. And a valid argument against mine would be to give a clear limiting principle (something unstated in the original post, but perhaps implicit?) that applies to the critique of less wrong but fails for Islam.

Pron kind of tried to do this - he said Johann30's argument can only apply to small groups and Islam is large (though where this large vs small distinction comes from is unstated).

To take a mathematical (and hopefully completely uncontroversial) example of this:

Fool: "The sum of IID random variables is gaussian. Therefore $Z"

Smartass: "Oh yeah? What about C/(1+x^2)? Your argument is invalid."

Fool: "Oops I meant IID random variables with finite variance, just thought that was implicit and obvious."

Of course, if Fool can't come up with that added clause then the Smartass has disproven him.

https://www.quora.com/Hacker-News-How-come-I-cant-reply-in-a...

I think that's a pretty good lesson from PG!