Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

[JoshuaZ]

I know it isn't usual to start a thread here about fan fiction, but this one is so particularly good it seemed like it deserved a thread of its own. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality). The fanfic, by Eliezer Yudkowsky, has a central premise, imagines a world in which Harry Potter's adopted father was a scientist. Harry thus learns all about the scientific method and critical thinking and then tries to apply that knowledge to magic when he goes to Hogwarts. Much hilarity ensues.

I'm curious how many other playgrounders are reading this? Also, of those who are reading it, did others find chapter 45 deeply emotionally moving?

[RationalGoblin]

I tried to read it, but I feel it's exceptionally arrogant at the beginning, and didn't want to read further. The fic itself just feels like it's rolling it's metaphorical eyes at me for reading such tripe as a Harry Potter fanfic.

[JoshuaZ]

I tried to read it, but I feel it's exceptionally arrogant at the beginning, and didn't want to read further. The fic itself just feels like it's rolling it's metaphorical eyes at me for reading such tripe as a Harry Potter fanfic.

That's an interesting attitude. You aren't the first person who I've talked to who has expressed that sort of view. I'm a bit puzzled given that this is a fic which includes references to as varied other media as Valdemar, Gargoyles and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Spoilered because minor spoiler but so awesome:

Apparently Slytherins tell their children stories about a bunch of stupid gargoyles who keep trying to foil the plans of a their enemy and whatever they do turns out to be just what he was planning on. Yeah, that's right, Slytherins are taught as children about Xanatos Roulette (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosRoulette)

[Saph]

I had a look. Mildly entertaining, but the main character is so obnoxious it's hard to feel much sympathy for him. The author also spends too much time trying to prove how clever he is and not enough time writing a good story.

[RationalGoblin]

I had a look. Mildly entertaining, but the main character is so obnoxious it's hard to feel much sympathy for him. The author also spends too much time trying to prove how clever he is and not enough time writing a good story.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. It's interesting as a concept, but the entire fic just seems obnoxiously arrogant. Like I said, it just feels like the author (and thus, the fic itself) is rolling his eyes at you, saying "oh look how smart I am".

[Eldan]

Every single character who actually gets his own scenes is obnoxious and annoying, and the author incredibly preachy. There are actually pretty large mistakes in his preaching, and the argumentation used by almost everyone, strawman or not.

And yet, I still thought it was pretty good.

[KnightDisciple]

I had a look. Mildly entertaining, but the main character is so obnoxious it's hard to feel much sympathy for him. The author also spends too much time trying to prove how clever he is and not enough time writing a good story.


Yeah, this is what I was getting at. It's interesting as a concept, but the entire fic just seems obnoxiously arrogant. Like I said, it just feels like the author (and thus, the fic itself) is rolling his eyes at you, saying "oh look how smart I am".

This right here.

[Forgotten T.S.]

Not to surprised that this story is still trying to find some actual support. It's a poor fanfiction, and despite several attempts by those in the community, it never came up to snuff. The author obviously knows his stuff on several topics, but the overall concept is so haughty that it drives away the fan base, on top of the sheer demand it takes on you to try and keep it up with otherwise trivial notions.

You can find a whole slew of comments on this particularly grating story HERE (http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=15594)!

[Reverent-One]

Not to surprised that this story is still trying to find some actual support. It's a poor fanfiction, and despite several attempts by those in the community, it never came up to snuff. The author obviously knows his stuff on several topics, but the overall concept is so haughty that it drives away the fan base, on top of the sheer demand it takes on you to try and keep it up with otherwise trivial notions.

You can find a whole slew of comments on this particularly grating story HERE (http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=15594)!

Seems more like a case "Your mileage may vary". It's got a quite a few fans to match it's detractors, as your own link proves. And really, it's poor fanfiction? Even it's not up to published literary standards, it's still in the higher levels when it comes to fanfiction.

[warty goblin]

Seems more like a case "Your mileage may vary". It's got a quite a few fans to match it's detractors, as your own link proves. And really, it's poor fanfiction? Even it's not up to published literary standards, it's still in the higher levels when it comes to fanfiction.

Now if that's not damning with faint praise, I'm not sure what is.

[Reverent-One]

Now if that's not damning with faint praise, I'm not sure what is.

Meh, I'm not getting involved in any serious debate over it, just dealing with some especially egregious comments.

[GM.Casper]

I found it hilariously funny myself. Say, the madam Malkin's clothing shop scene for instance. And while Harry does start of as a Mary Sue of sorts, when he starts school, that changes.
Just wondering: for those who stopped reading, at which part of the story you dropped of?

[Saph]

I found it hilariously funny myself. Say, the madam Malkin's clothing shop scene for instance. And while Harry does start of as a Mary Sue of sorts, when he starts school, that changes.
Just wondering: for those who stopped reading, at which part of the story you dropped of?

I got as far as chapter 10 I think, which was the Sorting, but it was the conversations on the train that really put me off. It's just such a classic Mary Sue story, right down to the author-insert main character who bears pretty much no resemblance at all to the original Harry Potter. Then we have to listen to page after page of every character in the books being overwhelmed by how amazing the author Harry is and being confounded by his flawless arguments. It's the Possession Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PossessionSue) type of fanfiction.

Note to fanfic authors: if your readers are reading fanfiction, it's probably because they like the canon characters and want to hear about them. It's not because they want the canon characters turned into props to demonstrate the awesomeness of your Author Avatar.

[doliest]

Harry gets more than a bit of a beating as the story goes on. The early chapters really don't have anyone the author can use as an obstacle; Hogwarts is when it gets incredibly good.

The 'confouded' thing is, again, because we're dealing with the 'normal' characters rather than-

Voldemort/Quirrel, who's become the Mag, B***ard of the story.
Dumbledore who's insane or not or faking it or not and is hilarious.
Hermione, who's far better at working with people than Harry.
Draco, who by around twenty chapters is playing everyone, though he's probably losing.
Mr. Hat and Cloak ???

[Obrysii]

See, the write a good fan fiction you need to have decent characters, a good understanding of the setting, and an agenda that is clear and nothing overwhelming.

This fiction does not appear to have any of that.

For example, whilst bored at school I wrote a brief harry potter fan fiction about a character with eyes from (well this is embarrassing to admit) Naruto, the Rinnegan, which granted him absurd levels of power.

He could see magic, understand any spell he witnessed, use House Elf magic, learned to become an animagus, could absorb spells (even absorbing a killing curse thanks to the eye's powers), and many other things.

What kept it from being a mary sue? He wasn't good at any of those things above. While decent at practical applications, he was abysmal at book work, constantly bullied, extremely shy made worse by the appearance of the eyes; he wore special contacts to hide them. Due to his eyes, he suffered from constant headaches (he can't stop the visual appearance of magic, and in a place like Hogwarts the auras were almost blinding), and the nurses were always not sure why.

He was in essence an emotional mess with potentially godlike powers, but the reader's purpose in reading would be to see his growth from bullied weakling to competent wizard.


...don't judge me.

[Force]

I think some of the annoyance can be summed up by the author's own words:


"The First Law of Fanfiction states that every change which strengthens the protagonists requires a corresponding worsening of their challenges. Or in plainer language: You can't make Frodo a Jedi without giving Sauron the Death Star."

So far, the story does not appear to have advanced far, plotwise. We have a suped up Harry and as of yet we do not have an ideal opponent. This probably accounts for some of the "grating Mary Sue"; the author has turned up both sides to 11 but we have yet so see the villains reveal themselves in all their glory.

Quirrelmort is shaping up to be such an ideal opponent but as of yet the Big Reveal has not been made.

I personally enjoy the fic, but I don't engage my brain much while I'm reading fic that isn't drek.

[KnightDisciple]

I got as far as chapter 10 I think, which was the Sorting, but it was the conversations on the train that really put me off. It's just such a classic Mary Sue story, right down to the author-insert main character who bears pretty much no resemblance at all to the original Harry Potter. Then we have to listen to page after page of every character in the books being overwhelmed by how amazing the author Harry is and being confounded by his flawless arguments. It's the Possession Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PossessionSue) type of fanfiction.

Note to fanfic authors: if your readers are reading fanfiction, it's probably because they like the canon characters and want to hear about them. It's not because they want the canon characters turned into props to demonstrate the awesomeness of your Author Avatar.Pretty much this.

I got as far as around the 1st Defense class (where Harry sounded off more brutal tactics than I'd expect some Dark wizards 5 times his age to think of) and a bit after. Somewhere where his odd sleep schedule and other Time-Turner shenanigans took center stage. It was just...boring. Most of the fic felt like a platform for all the talk of math and logic terms and such, and how awesome and utterly correct Harry was. Just...turned me off of the fic, really.

[hamishspence]

Are there any exceptionally good Potter fanfics?

How about ones that show events the books don't cover- maybe Voldemort's time at Hogwarts, his freeing of the Basilisk, creation of his first Horcrux, quest for power, etc?

[kamikasei]

Are there any exceptionally good Potter fanfics?
I've heard praise for Dumbledore's Army and the Year of Darkness, but it's been tl;dr for me for a while now (like a few other, non-Potter fic recommendations). It's about events at Hogwarts during Deathly Hallows.

[Obrysii]

JoshuaZ, are you the author of this fan fic? Your posts are pretty defensive of it ...

[Ajadea]

Seconding the Dumbeldore's Army and the Year of Darkness. DAYD-verse in general is awesome.

This one isn't bad. But I do want to punch this Harry in his mouth to make him shut up and think! He's a Ravenclaw, he should be good at that one. Unless he gains some sort of empathy beyond 'I don't like cruelty and death, so I'll invent magical immortality to solve it and rule both worlds!'

You know who else said that? Grindelwald, more or less. This Harry is like a cross between Prince Arthas, Grindelwald, and Voldemort. And unless the author gets some serious character development in, I can't see him becoming anything else. That annoys me.

[Obrysii]

So I read the chapter where he mouths off to Snape and Dumbledore.

The author has no idea how an eleven year old can act, has no idea how a man like Dumbledore asserts authority, and has no idea who Snape really even is.

[JoshuaZ]

JoshuaZ, are you the author of this fan fic? Your posts are pretty defensive of it ...

The author of the fic is Eliezer Yudkowsky, as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread.

I am not Eliezer. Among other differences between the two of us, Eliezer is a middle-school drop out whereas I'm a grad student in mathematics. Eliezer works in AI and is a Singularity proponent. I don't consider a Singularity type event to be very likely at all. I'm pretty sure we're different people.

As to my posts about it being defensive, *shrug*, I guess I'm a bit of a fanboy. I do think some of the criticisms are valid (to list a few, I don't think that Eliezer has a good handle on how most young children actually act. And a lot of his characters sound verbally very similar to each other. And parts of the fic do come across as egotistical. And much of the psych and critical thinking material that Harry discusses are stuff that would be covered by anyone who took a phil sci class and an intro psych class in college.) But some parts are very clever and interesting, such as Harry's idea about engaging in arbitrage with the gold supply, and Harry's idea to factor numbers using time travel is apparently connected to a more general trick that works for all PSPACE problems, due to Scott Aaronson (I'll see if I can track down the relevant paper. Right now, I can't seem to locate it) which is just very cool.

[Obrysii]

You considerable knowledge of this guy is a little fishy.

I don't know. Your attitude towards this guy and this fic doesn't sit right with me.

[Prime32]

But some parts are very clever and interesting, such as Harry's idea about engaging in arbitrage with the gold supply, and Harry's idea to factor numbers using time travel is apparently connected to a more general trick that works for all PSPACE problems, due to Scott Aaronson (I'll see if I can track down the relevant paper. Right now, I can't seem to locate it) which is just very cool.That kind of stuff seems like it would be better as an essay though.

[The Glyphstone]

You considerable knowledge of this guy is a little fishy.

I don't know. Your attitude towards this guy and this fic doesn't sit right with me.

*offers Obrysii his spare tinfoil hat*:smallbiggrin:

[Starbuck_II]

I had a look. Mildly entertaining, but the main character is so obnoxious it's hard to feel much sympathy for him. The author also spends too much time trying to prove how clever he is and not enough time writing a good story.

Definately, it felt like Mark Twain's infameous book Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Which is a fanfic by Mark Twain about King Arthur and how dumb the people are while his protagonist is every so smart.

Both are rather grating. I had to read Mark's Fanfic for a class in high school.

[JoshuaZ]

You considerable knowledge of this guy is a little fishy.


*shrug*. Yudkowsky is a well-known individual. Much of the information I gave you you could easily get from for example reading the Wikipedia entry on him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky).

I do post on Less Wrong (http://lesswrong.com/) which is the rationality website which Yudkowsky runs.



I don't know. Your attitude towards this guy and this fic doesn't sit right with me.

Well he and I are both marginally educated Ashkenazi Jews so maybe we know each other through both being members of the Elders of Zion? Last I checked he wasn't a member since was too busy doing his critical work with the Illuminati.


That kind of stuff seems like it would be better as an essay though.

Yeah, but who is going to read an essay on the economics of the Rowlingverse? The time travel trick was I thought well explained in a narrative context. I agree that there are parts that do come across as ridiculously didactic, generally when Harry is talking about cogsci and psych issues. And I have trouble imagining the young Malfoy as having nearly as much patience with Harry's monologues as he does in HPMR.

[TheEmerged]

Definately, it felt like Mark Twain's infameous book Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
Which is a fanfic by Mark Twain about King Arthur and how dumb the people are while his protagonist is every so smart.

Both are rather grating. I had to read Mark's Fanfic for a class in high school.

If you think CYiKAC was grating, never touch the final Tom Sawyer/Huck Finn story. It's essentially a tract on why he hates Arthur Conan Doyle.


Note to fanfic authors: if your readers are reading fanfiction, it's probably because they like the canon characters and want to hear about them. It's not because they want the canon characters turned into props to demonstrate the awesomeness of your Author Avatar.

See, I have to differ with you a bit here. I find it more enjoyable to work within the world of the original but with my own characters. It's a bit of a challenge to make interesting characters who *aren't* the stars of the story. Sometimes it gives you a chance to No-Prize little problems of the real story by inserting your character there.

To use the Naruto universe as an example, there's a fairly large plot hole in the first story. How does Naruto, who is so incompetent of a ninja he can't pass the test to become the lowest rank of ninja, able to steal the scroll? To my knowledge it's never been explained. I used this as a way to bring my characters into the story, unintentionally providing the distraction that allows this.

It is a trick to remember that your characters have to remain "in check" by the established players of the universe, though. One method I've ab/used is to show my characters repeatedly failing to do something the canon characters have been shown to do (to use the Naruto universe again, early on one of my character kept throwing up when he tries to make a shadow clone).

[SaintRidley]

Are there any exceptionally good Potter fanfics?

How about ones that show events the books don't cover- maybe Voldemort's time at Hogwarts, his freeing of the Basilisk, creation of his first Horcrux, quest for power, etc?

I've written a couple about events the books didn't cover or detail. They were years ago and probably aren't any good.

I had a long one that I just don't have the time or energy to work on that was about Voldemort at school, had one about Charlie failing his Apparition exam, one about Snape joining the Death eaters, one about Bellatrix doing the same, and one about Voldemort in the moment after he died.

There were others, but those are the main ones for the sort you were looking for. I can share if you'd like, but keep in mind that they're me back in late high school.

[Obrysii]

Well he and I are both marginally educated Ashkenazi Jews so maybe we know each other through both being members of the Elders of Zion? Last I checked he wasn't a member since was too busy doing his critical work with the Illuminati.

IS this for real or is this a joke that I don't quite get?





How does Naruto, who is so incompetent of a ninja he can't pass the test to become the lowest rank of ninja, able to steal the scroll? To my knowledge it's never been explained.

Eh, at this point if it were to come up in the manga, "Madara set it up" would be the explanation.

[Eldan]

Believe me, it's a joke. A rather obvious one, too.

[Saph]

See, I have to differ with you a bit here. I find it more enjoyable to work within the world of the original but with my own characters. It's a bit of a challenge to make interesting characters who *aren't* the stars of the story. Sometimes it gives you a chance to No-Prize little problems of the real story by inserting your character there.

Oh, I agree that it can work, but if you are going to use the original characters, you need to keep them recognisably the same. The best fanfics write the original characters in a way that makes you laugh, because you could see the character doing exactly that.

A big part of making characters feel right is to remember that everyone sees themselves as the protagonist of their own story. In the real world, no matter how intelligent or charismatic you are, most people just don't spend all their time thinking about you. Likewise, other people are not generally going to change their lifelong beliefs on your say-so, no matter how convincing you think your argument is. If you're writing a story primarily from one character's perspective it's always true that that character is going to get most of the attention, but there's a big difference between "We see the world from this character's perspective because he's the protagonist" and "We see the world from this character's perspective because nobody else matters".

[Obrysii]

There are, of course, stories where the protagonist is so filled with himself that he can't see anyone else; those are of course more focused on psychology and tend to drift from reality into psychosis.


Which this fan fiction is not. This particular one is especially preachy while having little to preach about; it's modestly well written but very poorly done. This version of Harry Potter is so disconnected from the source material that all it shares is names and some relative relationships.

It is, in short, something entirely different - and poorly executed.

[leafman]

I had to stop reading about half way through chapter six, the whole "I'm smarter than God" routine started to grate on my nerves.
This probably just a nitpick but this quote from chapter 2 bugs me:

"You turned into a cat! A SMALL cat! You violated Conservation of Energy! That's not just an arbitrary rule, it's implied by the form of the quantum Hamiltonian! Rejecting it destroys unitarity and then you get FTL signaling! ... "

Shouldn't that be Conservation of Matter?

[Avilan the Grey]

I had to stop reading about half way through chapter six, the whole "I'm smarter than God" routine started to grate on my nerves.
This probably just a nitpick but this quote from chapter 2 bugs me:

Shouldn't that be Conservation of Matter?

I am no physicist, but does that really matter? Conservation of Energy comes into play when the matter disappears, because you should have a heck of an atomic explosion when you disintegrate that matter...

Of course if he he or she uses a pocket dimension ("Hammerspace") then it works :smallwink:

[Prime32]

I had to stop reading about half way through chapter six, the whole "I'm smarter than God" routine started to grate on my nerves.
This probably just a nitpick but this quote from chapter 2 bugs me:

"You turned into a cat! A SMALL cat! You violated Conservation of Energy! That's not just an arbitrary rule, it's implied by the form of the quantum Hamiltonian! Rejecting it destroys unitarity and then you get FTL signaling! ... "
Shouldn't that be Conservation of Matter?Wait, he complained "You're not supposed to do that"?

That's not how science works. :smallconfused: Science is supposed to be "Wow, I had no idea you could do that! I wanna know how!" To do otherwise is to presume that you already have a complete and perfect understanding of the universe. Which you obviously don't if that surprised you.

[kamikasei]

I'd heard of this fic before and it sounded interesting and entertaining. Seeing the criticism here, I may actually get around to reading it now.

Wait, he complained "You're not supposed to do that"?

That's not how science works. :smallconfused: Science is supposed to be "Wow, I had no idea you could do that! I wanna know how!" To do otherwise is to presume that you already have a complete and perfect understanding of the universe. Which you obviously don't if that surprised you.
It reads to me more like a "holy crap, do you not realize what a big deal it is that you can do that? Do you not see the implications? This is huge!" freakout.

That was actually my impression of what the whole fic was essentially about: someone reading a fantasy story, noting the unexplored implications within it, and exploring them for his own amusement and that of like-minded others. Perhaps I had a mistaken impression, but I'm curious to give it a look now to see whether the criticisms that people act out of character or it's too didactic or arrogant are fair, or missing the point.

[Rappy]

Wait, he complained "You're not supposed to do that"?

That's not how science works. :smallconfused: Science is supposed to be "Wow, I had no idea you could do that! I wanna know how!" To do otherwise is to presume that you already have a complete and perfect understanding of the universe. Which you obviously don't if that surprised you.
Sadly, the stereotype of science as a static, unchanging object is used all-too often in the same stories as magic. I personally imagine that a scientist confronted with someone turning into a cat or making a fireball would do exactly what you said and try to learn how this new application of physics works, rather than sticking their finger in their ears and going "lalalalalalala you don't exist!"

EDIT to kamikasei: Perhaps.

[Winterwind]

Shouldn't that be Conservation of Matter?There's no such thing as Conservation of Matter. Matter can be destroyed just fine. Only energy has to be conserved (and matter is just one particular form energy can take. E=mc², and all that.). I would add "by our present theories", only "by everything we know" might be more accurate, because the conservation of energy is more or less the most basic principle upon which physics is founded. If that goes out the window, so do the last three centuries of science. Anyhow, his terminology is accurate there.

Not having read the fiction itself, I can tell you one thing however: Me being a physicist, if I saw somebody turn into a small cat, I wouldn't ever think "Gee, this violates Conservation of Energy.". I'd think "Huh... I wonder where that energy went to.". Why not explore explanations that do not violate everything we know first, before moving on to wilder theories? So, that would be my minor nitpick. :smallwink:

As for the fanfic, sounds interesting enough... but reading all the criticism here, I'm not sure I should read it. I hate Mary Sues with a passion. Oh well, I guess I'll give it a try... sometime, when I have lots and lots of spare time. :smallwink:

[kamikasei]

There's no such thing as Conservation of Matter. Matter can be destroyed just fine. Only energy has to be conserved (and matter is just one particular form energy can take. E=mc², and all that.).
There are weaker restrictions on things like Conservation of Baryon Number, though, aren't there? You can't just make e.g. a single proton cease to exist, even if you get the appropriate amount of energy out of it.

[Winterwind]

There are weaker restrictions on things like Conservation of Baryon Number, though, aren't there? You can't just make e.g. a single proton cease to exist, even if you get the appropriate amount of energy out of it.Yeah, that is true. I'm sure one could find some work-around to explain a person turning into a small cat that doesn't violate that either though, and this would be a direction a scientist would, quite certainly, explore first.

When we come up with new hypotheses, we try to come up with hypotheses that are consistent with the old (and well evidenced) theories first, before deciding the old theories must have been false. Jumping straight to the second part is... not exactly the most scientific behaviour. Nor even the most rational behaviour. :smallwink:

(personally, when witnessing somebody turn into a cat - after the initial period of incredulous staring, that is :smalltongue: - my first reaction would be testing if their density has increased, or whether their mass has decreased. In the former case, we have no problem at all (though I would advice them to not turn into something too small, lest they spontaneously collapse into a black hole; also, I'm sure any scientist working in solid state physics would have a field day with the possibilities of compressing matter so easily to such a degree, and the imaginable uses for that would be innumerable. And I bet any biologist would be highly interested in figuring out how the creature manages to move like a regular cat, in spite of being that much heavier, while having muscles of the same size.). In the latter, I would start wondering how exactly they did that without releasing an amount of energy sufficient to pulverize the entire city. But I would definitely assume they had some means to divert that energy safely - which would be a most astounding feat all by itself, mind - and only after making absolutely sure that energy had simply vanished into nothing, rather than just having gone somewhere else somehow, I would start taking the possibility of energy not being conserved into account. :smallwink:)

[Avilan the Grey]

Sadly, the stereotype of science as a static, unchanging object is used all-too often in the same stories as magic. I personally imagine that a scientist confronted with someone turning into a cat or making a fireball would do exactly what you said and try to learn how this new application of physics works, rather than sticking their finger in their ears and going "lalalalalalala you don't exist!"

Exactly. And it is not limited to those kind of stories. Quite frankly this is how a lot of people think science is.

This is also, coincidently, one of the things that are good in The Salvation War; science is portrayed correctly as something in constant change and progress.

[Obrysii]

I had to stop reading about half way through chapter six, the whole "I'm smarter than God" routine started to grate on my nerves.
This probably just a nitpick but this quote from chapter 2 bugs me:

Shouldn't that be Conservation of Matter?

See, this is precisely what's wrong with this whole thing. The author is clearly writing this just to circle-jerk about how awesomely smart he is ... when in fact, it showcases that, well - sure, he might know facts but that doesn't make him smart.

This was perfectly proven during the Snape / Dumbledore encounter. In addition to the fact such insolence would not be tolerated - especially at a boarding school where physical punishment is not illegal - but the simple fact the language, knowledge, audacity, and actions are utterly unbefitting an eleven year old.

This author has no grasp of human interaction or how eleven year olds - even super genius eleven year olds - would act. A better example would be Malcolm in the Middle in the early years - that's how an eleven year old (or so) super genius acts.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Only fanfic I've ever read and so far it's turning out awesome :smile: I'm only up to chapter 7 though...

I take it the writer is a psychologist or somesuch? Most of the science used seems to be social psych, I even remember learning most of the things mentioned when I took the class.

[Obrysii]

I take it the writer is a psychologist or somesuch? Most of the science used seems to be social psych, I even remember learning most of the things mentioned when I took the class.

Most of the criticism has been a misunderstanding of how 11 year olds act, and being overly pompous.

Someone who is a psychologist would know better.

[kamikasei]

I take it the writer is a psychologist or somesuch? Most of the science used seems to be social psych, I even remember learning most of the things mentioned when I took the class.
He's an AI researcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky).

Someone who is a psychologist would know better.
I think that's an overoptimistic view of psychologists (or any profession).

[bue52]

Another complaint I have is with the characterisation of Hermione, this fic's version feels.... somewhat retarded. Hermione is one girl I would consider to be book smart and some what street smart, though she tends towards the book smartness because of her insecurities ( Though is kind of my personal theory.) Rather than one person who just simply memorises information. Yes she does that in the series, but I see that more of an emotional insecurity, something she has before becoming a habit, of hers though you can see her evolution to rely on things outside the books but I digress.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind the author making Harry seem smarter then Hermione, but..... not change her character to such a degree.

[Eldan]

And she's also portrayed as an idiot in that she instantly jumps to the first false solution of a simple riddle in the train sequence. Come on, if you tell someone it's a riddle, everyone will try to find out if their solution is true before blurting out their first idea and then being astounded that it's wrong. You don't need to know about experimental procedure for that.

[JoshuaZ]

And she's also portrayed as an idiot in that she instantly jumps to the first false solution of a simple riddle in the train sequence. Come on, if you tell someone it's a riddle, everyone will try to find out if their solution is true before blurting out their first idea and then being astounded that it's wrong. You don't need to know about experimental procedure for that.

There are a lot of studies about the 2-4-6 puzzle. Empirically, what happens with Hermione is very close to exactly what happens with most of the population even often with people who are very smart. Thinking that something else would happen may be due to hindsight bias. (If you really doubt this you can go and have some fun trying it on some of your friends and see what happens.)

[Eldan]

There are a lot of studies about the 2-4-6 puzzle. Empirically, what happens with Hermione is very close to exactly what happens with most of the population even often with people who are very smart. Thinking that something else would happen may be due to hindsight bias. (If you really doubt this you can go and have some fun trying it on some of your friends and see what happens.)

Already did, after I read that chapter. My results:

Father: tried over 20 permutations, then came up with the right answer on his first "rule guess".
Mother: similar as my father, though took a little longer.
Brother: similar to Hermione.
Three people I asked on Skype: two got the correct answer on their first rule guess, the third was wrong, but at least tried.

[JoshuaZ]

Already did, after I read that chapter. My results:

Father: tried over 20 permutations, then came up with the right answer on his first "rule guess".
Mother: similar as my father, though took a little longer.
Brother: similar to Hermione.
Three people I asked on Skype: two got the correct answer on their first rule guess, the third was wrong, but at least tried.

That's a much better percentage than I would have expected from the studies I've read about this subject. It may be that your acquaintances are a much more introspective or scientifically minded group of people than the general population.

[Vorpalbob]

I'm up to chapter 20 or so, and while its not the best thing I've ever read, it's at least enjoyable. I am, however, in full agreement that the author should hang out in a grade 5 classroom for a week and then read what he wrote.

[Math_Mage]

Read some excerpts from the story, had no fun. Grating, preachy, suffers from Mary Sue Syndrome, poor characterization, and more. I sincerely hope it improves in later chapters, but won't stick around to find out.

[Jerthanis]

That's a much better percentage than I would have expected from the studies I've read about this subject. It may be that your acquaintances are a much more introspective or scientifically minded group of people than the general population.

Now, this isn't a very big sample size, but I just tested on a friend and he got it in less than 5 minutes with only 5 questions. (1,2,3 - 4,5,6 - 5,7,9 - 12,24,36 - 9,8,7 -> correct answer)

Then again, while this friend isn't scientifically inclined whatsoever, I would describe him as extremely wise.

[Math_Mage]

Now, this isn't a very big sample size, but I just tested on a friend and he got it in less than 5 minutes with only 5 questions. (1,2,3 - 4,5,6 - 5,7,9 - 12,24,36 - 9,8,7 -> correct answer)

Then again, while this friend isn't scientifically inclined whatsoever, I would describe him as extremely wise.

Given that he intuited the correct answer despite question choices that weren't terribly informative, I would agree. :smallsmile:

[Eldan]

Well, you can already exclude a lot of possible rules from those answers, though. I would perhaps have given a few more theories to check for, say, negative numbers, but it's not too bad.

[Somas]

The accusations seem to be: Harry's a Mary Sue. The author is arrogant/preachy.
The former is obviously false given that Quirrel has been boosted so much that most of us can't see any way for Harry to even find out that Quirrel is Voldemort before Harry becomes completely corrupted.
As for the latter... According to the author this fic was written to get people interested in Rationality (and as something to do while he rests from writing his 'real' book (on rationality)).
Hence all the infodumps.


A big part of making characters feel right is to remember that everyone sees themselves as the protagonist of their own story.
Check out the title and first half of chapter 29.

That's not how science works. Science is supposed to be "Wow, I had no idea you could do that! I wanna know how!" To do otherwise is to presume that you already have a complete and perfect understanding of the universe. Which you obviously don't if that surprised you.
Chapter 36 has Harry note this.

The author is clearly writing this just to circle-jerk about how awesomely smart he is...
You think you can divine someones motives with a single glance? And yet funnily enough you're dead wrong.

In addition to the fact such insolence would not be tolerated
Part of the way everyone in the story got a power boost is to make them reasonable people. Reasonable people will treat children like actual human beings if they find that these children can be reasoned with (as is the case here).

I also thought this fic had excellent characterization.

[Samurai Jill]

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. It's interesting as a concept, but the entire fic just seems obnoxiously arrogant. Like I said, it just feels like the author (and thus, the fic itself) is rolling his eyes at you, saying "oh look how smart I am".
Oh noes! He's making references to nerdy stuff!

[Saph]

The accusations seem to be: Harry's a Mary Sue. The author is arrogant/preachy.
The former is obviously false given that Quirrel has been boosted so much

That's one of the worst bits of reasoning I've ever seen. "The protagonist was so super special awesome that we had to power up the villain, too, so obviously he can't possibly be a Mary Sue!"


As for the latter... According to the author this fic was written to get people interested in Rationality (and as something to do while he rests from writing his 'real' book (on rationality)).
Hence all the infodumps.

Good grief. So the tone is arrogant and preachy, but this is okay, because it's being done to promote the author's other work?

[doliest]

To step back in; I'm not going to bother arguing one way or another on the 'preachy' tone; but the 'Mary Sue' arguement is pretty off. Harry is being outwitted by Quirrel, likely Dumbledore, Hermione(at points), Draco(at points).
He's arrogant. He's unlikely to look to others for help when he can avoid it. He's got a God Complex.

Edit:It's not just a 'one villain was powered up' it's 'everyone was made more intelligent to avoid the smart character turning this into a ''solve everything in one chapter'' situation.'

[Somas]

That's one of the worst bits of reasoning I've ever seen.
Strange... you have thousands of posts on an internet message board but this is one of the worst bits of reasoning you've ever seen? :smallconfused:

"The protagonist was so super special awesome that we had to power up the villain, too, so obviously he can't possibly be a Mary Sue!"
If we define Mary Sue to be a character too powerful to have a realistic conflict (the most common definition) then yes, Harry Potter in this story is not a Mary Sue.
Defining Mary Sue to be a character whom the story revolves around means Mary Sue=protagonist (and we throw out every work from the heroic fantasy genre and many others). Defining Mary Sue to be a character such that none of the other characters can have thoughts or actions that do not involve the Mary Sue? Again, doesn't meet this definition (it is told primarily through a semi-first person perspective, with the main perspective being Harry's* but Hermione, Draco and a few minor characters get a look in too. The problem is that this takes away the mystery surrounding a characters actions and motives and so it would be unsuitable for most of the important characters with the exception of McGonagall).

Is your definition not one of the common ones? Then you'd better state it because otherwise you will not be understood.

* This would in and of itself excuse it (unless you disapprove of semi-first person works on principle (and how is the audience to experience mystery then? putting the audience in the shoes of the protagonist is a tried and tested method)).


Good grief. So the tone is arrogant and preachy, but this is okay, because it's being done to promote the author's other work?
I'm giving an alternate explanation for the info dumps. Not "look how clever I am!" but "look at this very interesting subject! Wouldn't you like to study it more?". Additionally the author's views are somewhat strange and he does seem to truly believe that "creating more rationalists" is a worthy goal in and of itself (promoting his work was secondary).
You say the tone is arrogant and preachy (presumably referring to the infodumps). Many disagree and instead call it informative and interesting.

Sorry if I seem to be rambling. Rather tired.

[JoshuaZ]

If there's going to be discussion about whether or not the character is a Mary Sue, it may help to read to the TVtropes page on Mary Sues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue). There's a fair bit of controversy over what does and does not constitute a Mary Sue.

It might actually make sense to use a technique that Eliezer is fond of and note that the term Mary Sue has no intrisically correct definition and so tabooing that term might be useful. One can then focus on specific aspects of the character and why they might be annoying, irritating, amusing or infuriating.

There does seem to be a severe problem with the level at which some aspects of the story do come across as being an Author Tract (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorTract) with possible Author Filibusters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorFilibuster). There's a related issue in that, the vast majority of Author Tracts are really just unpleasant and not well-written at all (Atlas Shrugged seems to be the canonical example in that regard.) As often occurs with this sort of thing, the author tract aspects irritate different people to different degrees.

[Mando Knight]

If we define Mary Sue to be a character too powerful to have a realistic conflict (the most common definition) then yes, Harry Potter in this story is not a Mary Sue.

That's an incorrect assumption. While a Sue-type character will often end up too powerful for a meaningful conflict, the character archetype (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) is quite broad (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommonMarySueTraits). Generally, a Mary Sue is a character that is supposed to be the protagonist, but is used in such a ham-handed fashion that most readers dislike the character. Unrealistic plot resolution, character interaction, and so forth generally point to such a character.

[Saph]

If we define Mary Sue to be a character too powerful to have a realistic conflict (the most common definition)

Citation please. I don't know where you're getting that from.

Here's a good list of interpretations of a Mary Sue character (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue):

1. Mary Sue as Protagonist you Don't Like
2. Mary Sue as Poorly Written Character
3. Mary Sue as Cliched Character
4. Mary Sue as Author Avatar
5. Mary Sue as Idealised Character
6. Mary Sue as Power Fantasy
7. Mary Sue as Infallible Character
8. Mary Sue as Centre of Attention
9. Mary Sue as Alien Element
10. Mary Sue as Original Character Protagonist

. . . and others. You'll note that power is only one of ten, and there are others I didn't list.

Now, 1 and 2 on that list are almost purely subjective, as is 3, and 9 and 10 are too harsh for a fair judgement, even if they do describe an awful lot of Mary Sue fics. This leaves 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. And guess what? The author's Harry matches all five of these to varying degrees. He's an Author Avatar, obviously; he's over-idealised, behaving in a completely unnatural way for an 11-year-old; he's the constant centre of attention with everyone stopping whatever they're doing to focus on him whenever he shows up; he's almost always right about everything, jumping instantly to the correct conclusion, often on insufficient evidence; and according to some of the latest comments, the most recent chapters describe him killing a Dementor (which we've never seen even the most powerful wizards in the Harry Potter universe doing).

Now, before you jump in to explain that my judgement is totally wrong because in paragraph 56 of part 2 of chapter 15 Harry acts totally differently, really he does, please bear in mind that if you need to read to chapter 15 or whatever to find an instance of the character not acting like a Mary Sue, then that is in itself a pretty damning criticism of the work. I read 10 chapters of this thing. I'm not especially inclined to read another 10 just on the off-chance that it starts getting better.

[JoshuaZ]

he's the constant centre of attention with everyone stopping whatever they're doing to focus on him whenever he shows up

This is to a large extent true for canon-Harry as well..He's the Boy Who Lived. I'm not sure it is fair to criticize an aspect of a fanfic that is consistent with the original source text.

[Samurai Jill]

There's no such thing as Conservation of Matter.
Well, there is, in the same sense that Newton's Laws are still perfectly accurate in nearly all practical cases, with the whole 'relativity' deal only becoming important when travelling at fantastic speeds, in strong gravity wells, etc. The appreciable differences in mass resulting from different forms of energy conversion (kinetic, potential, chemical, thermal etc.) are insignificant outside of nuclear reactions. IIRC?

[Saph]

This is to a large extent true for canon-Harry as well..He's the Boy Who Lived. I'm not sure it is fair to criticize an aspect of a fanfic that is consistent with the original source text.

The difference is that Rowling's a good enough writer to pull it off. :smallamused: Canon Harry reacts in a much more believable way (he's overwhelmed, and has trouble taking it all in) and, more importantly, he's sympathetic. I felt sorry for Rowling's Harry, and also liked him - he's basically an attractive character. This version of Harry I disliked within the first few chapters. He's arrogant, self-centred, and cold. It's not surprising that he gets on so well with Draco.

[doliest]

On the 'Center of Attention' point? He's almost constantly showing off. He's got the school convinced he can do anything, and he's still the 'Boy who lived'. I'd say that someone like that is usually going to be the center of attention, wouldn't you?

Also the fact that he's not surprised or having a hard time dealing with it seems to be an element of his character-that he's taken to it so well that he doesn't want to leave it; he enjoys being the center of attention, to put it simply.

Edit: And as for 7 and 8...He's beaten fairly often. He doesn't even seem to be at the same table as the villain and Dumbledore.

[Mando Knight]

The difference is that Rowling's a good enough writer to pull it off. :smallamused:

Well, most of the time. Order and Half-Blood kind of put me off of reading Deathly Hallows partly because Harry started getting more and more depressive. (Also because Rowling started to ship characters "the wrong way" and had some rather foul villains have the upper hand both longer and in a manner other than I tend to prefer in my casual reading)

[Math_Mage]

On the 'Center of Attention' point? He's almost constantly showing off. He's got the school convinced he can do anything, and he's still the 'Boy who lived'. I'd say that someone like that is usually going to be the center of attention, wouldn't you?

Also the fact that he's not surprised or having a hard time dealing with it seems to be an element of his character-that he's taken to it so well that he doesn't want to leave it; he enjoys being the center of attention, to put it simply.

Yes, and this is the problem. A protagonist who jumps up and down saying "Cool, I'm the center of attention, look at me being awesome everyone!" is no fun to read about. Or rather, he's no fun to read about when the author agrees with him.

[Somas]

Citation please. I don't know where you're getting that from.
Common usage on various forums so no citation (Ill gladly go with the TVTropes collection of traits from now on).


Here's a good list of interpretations of a Mary Sue character (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue):

1. Mary Sue as Protagonist you Don't Like
2. Mary Sue as Poorly Written Character
3. Mary Sue as Cliched Character
4. Mary Sue as Author Avatar
5. Mary Sue as Idealised Character
6. Mary Sue as Power Fantasy
7. Mary Sue as Infallible Character
8. Mary Sue as Centre of Attention
9. Mary Sue as Alien Element
10. Mary Sue as Original Character Protagonist

. . . and others. You'll note that power is only one of ten, and there are others I didn't list.

Now, 1 and 2 on that list are almost purely subjective, as is 3, and 9 and 10 are too harsh for a fair judgement, even if they do describe an awful lot of Mary Sue fics. This leaves 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. And guess what? The author's Harry matches all five of these to varying degrees.
Up to chapter 10 I'll give you 7, 8 and maybe 5 (you can't judge whether something's an Author Avatar that early in a story and I don't get how you think 6 applies at all unless you think the author fantasizes about being an 11 year old). 7 is lost fairly quickly (there were numerous complaints in the reviews that Harry was failing too much) and 8 drops to ordinary Protagonist levels where other characters do have actions not related to the main character. 5 is reversed later on with three of his flaws causing two very near misses and a loss (for example the loss was due to his inability to consider that people less intelligent than him might have good ideas too (specifically mentioned in an Author's Notes)).

He also meets four of the six Not a Mary Sue traits (to me at least).


he's over-idealised, behaving in a completely unnatural way for an 11-year-old
He is indeed unnatural for an 11-year old (McGonagall points this out). I personally have certain theories about this...


he's the constant centre of attention with everyone stopping whatever they're doing to focus on him whenever he shows up
If I saw something as weird as Harry I would stop and stare too (they do get somewhat used to him and he stops getting as much attention).


he's almost always right about everything, jumping instantly to the correct conclusion, often on insufficient evidence
Really? His jumping to conclusions seems to land him as many hits as it does misses.


the most recent chapters describe him killing a Dementor (which we've never seen even the most powerful wizards in the Harry Potter universe doing).
The method used is unique to people with a combination of a certain (very rare) character trait of Harry's and his rationalistic upbringing. It's definitely the most well done Dementor killing* on fanfiction.net (plenty of people commented to this extent in reviews (yes I have no life and thus read fanfic reviews)).

* Usually done using things commonly found throughout the world (such as protecting a loved one) and thus the reader is left wondering why it hasn't happened before (it actually may have happened before in this AU but got covered up in the same manner as this one did).


I read 10 chapters of this thing. I'm not especially inclined to read another 10 just on the off-chance that it starts getting better.
I'm not trying to convince you. Just to prevent you putting people off reading a very good piece of work.

Mando Knight: So basically YMMV.

Also, in the earlier chapters the writer does occasionally seem to use Rule of Funny.

[doliest]

YMMV on whether or not Harry is enjoyable, and the author doesn't seem to land one way or another on what Harry does. Seeing as he rarely leaves actual comment on it. And that doesn't quite describe Harry's actions. It's more he gets a joy out of tricking people and having them convinced of something that he feels is true, or tricking them into believing something that is clearly wrong. Again, in my book this is the best HP fic I've ever read, but that's just me.

[Samurai Jill]

YMMV on whether or not Harry is enjoyable, and the author doesn't seem to land one way or another on what Harry does. Seeing as he rarely leaves actual comment on it. And that doesn't quite describe Harry's actions. It's more he gets a joy out of tricking people and having them convinced of something that he feels is true, or tricking them into believing something that is clearly wrong. Again, in my book this is the best HP fic I've ever read, but that's just me.
I've only skimmed a chapter or two so far, but I thought it was enjoyable enough.

...We are such nerds.

[doliest]

Now you're realizing that? Not back when you signed up for a Forum for a fantasy webcomic based on DnD? :smalltongue:

[Saph]

I'm not trying to convince you. Just to prevent you putting people off reading a very good piece of work.

The OP was filled with uncritical praise of this "good piece of work", and yet the first five people's responses in this thread were all overwhelmingly negative. It's not reviews you should be worried about. :smallamused:

[doliest]

Eh. Is it just me, or have more 'Fan Fic' threads been popping up in the last couple of weeks? I don't know, I can't think of exact examples, but threads about them seem to pop up more frequently.

[Prime32]

I'm curious about this Dementor-killing. Can someone post the method in a spoiler?

[Obrysii]

You think you can divine someones motives with a single glance? And yet funnily enough you're dead wrong.

The irony here is almost too much.

You say I cannot divine someone's motives with a single glance, that my thought that it is a massive circle-jerk is wrong; you then say that you can divine that person's motive with the same material I have - hypocrisy much?

Why do you defend this work so much? You certainly can - be I would surely enjoy knowing why.


I'm not trying to convince you. Just to prevent you putting people off reading a very good piece of work.

Ahh, you must be the author. Nice to meet you - care to answer a few questions?

[doliest]

Because he enjoys reading it? It's why I'm defending it. Nothing need have a larger motive than that. :smalltongue:

Edit:Why would only the author defend a good work? Does everyone who defends a book that falls under YMMV have to be the author? :smallconfused:

[JoshuaZ]

{{scrubbed}}


I'm curious about this Dementor-killing. Can someone post the method in a spoiler?

Before I get to it, Harry explicitly is worried that explaining the basics of the idea may fundamentally damage someone's ability to make a patronus charm. Are you sure you want this? (Also this is going to make an otherwise amazing scene highly anti-climactic.)

After first, failing to the dementor the first time with very bad consequences, Harry realizes that the dementors aren't aspects of fear, they are are aspects of death with the fear as a secondary characteristic. The reason that a patronus takes the form of an animal is because animals don't fully grasp their own mortality so this temporarily defies death. But if you know about this and are a very rational person who tries to look things in the face then this won't work. Moreover, anyone just knowing this will now likely not be able to make an animal patronus.

So what does Harry do?

Harry declares that


I comprehend your nature, you symbolize Death, through some law of magic you are a shadow that Death casts into the world.

And Death is not something I will ever embrace.

It is only a childish thing, that the human species has not yet outgrown.

And someday...

We'll get over it...

And people won't have to say goodbye any more...

And someday when the descendants of humanity have spread from star to star, they won't tell the children about the history of Ancient Earth until they're old enough to bear it; and when they learn they'll weep to hear that such a thing as Death had ever once existed!
Harry's patronus takes the form of a glowing human as he thinks



And someday when the descendants of humanity have spread from star to star, they won't tell the children about the history of Ancient Earth until they're old enough to bear it; and when they learn they'll weep to hear that such a thing as Death had ever once existed!

The patronus fades away and the cloak of the dementor falls down, empty.

[doliest]

He knows the truth. He must be...assimilated.
We are the Author of Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Edit:But really, this is a fic with 6000 reviews, and this is a rather large forum. A large number of those reviews are positive. There is obviously a large fanbase for this. That people will defend it is obvious. Now excuse me while I assimilate some more people.

[KnightDisciple]

....Really?:smallconfused:

That's wildly pretentious, and also pretty much blatantly inventive on the part of the author.

So instead of overloading Dementors with positive emotions, he basically pulls the equivalent of "I don't believe in fairies!"?

And it friggin' works? And of course, let me guess. He figures this out almost as soon as he learns about Dementors? And he's clearly the only person ever to figure out their "true nature", and thus learn how to destroy them?

[JoshuaZ]

....Really?:smallconfused:

That's wildly pretentious, and also pretty much blatantly inventive on the part of the author.

So instead of overloading Dementors with positive emotions, he basically pulls the equivalent of "I don't believe in fairies!"?

And it friggin' works? And of course, let me guess. He figures this out almost as soon as he learns about Dementors? And he's clearly the only person ever to figure out their "true nature", and thus learn how to destroy them?

Actually not at all.

Harry has reason to believe that Godric Gryffindor and Rowena Ravenclaw knew about their true nature. He uses information from them to succeed. It is emphasized that if Gryffindor had access to certain additional information that anyone with Harry's background would have had, he would have been able to do the same thing. And it is implied that Harry strongly suspects that Hermione will figure it out.

But yes, it is wildly pretentious.

[VanBuren]

....Really?:smallconfused:

That's wildly pretentious, and also pretty much blatantly inventive on the part of the author.

So instead of overloading Dementors with positive emotions, he basically pulls the equivalent of "I don't believe in fairies!"?

And it friggin' works? And of course, let me guess. He figures this out almost as soon as he learns about Dementors? And he's clearly the only person ever to figure out their "true nature", and thus learn how to destroy them?

Good to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I read it and couldn't stop laughing.

[Oslecamo]

Edit:But really, this is a fic with 6000 reviews, and this is a rather large forum. A large number of those reviews are positive. There is obviously a large fanbase for this.

Twilight has a massive fanbase as well. Popularity=/=quality.:smallwink:



That people will defend it is obvious. Now excuse me while I assimilate some more people.

Not over our watch.:smallamused:

This is, the author defeated a Dementor with pseudo-sciense and by changing the very nature of the Dementor (it's mentioned in the original book that Harry only fears Dementors because he only fears Fear itself).

Or why Dementors still exist when wizards already discovered immortality in the form of the philosopher's stone and horcruxes. That's irrationality.

[JoshuaZ]

Twilight has a massive fanbase as well. Popularity=/=quality.:smallwink:

Reading for comprehension is a good thing. doliest was making a point about how one would expect defenders not as an argument for quality.





This is, the author defeated a Dementor with pseudo-sciense and by changing the very nature of the Dementor (it's mentioned in the original book that Harry only fears Dementors because he only fears Fear itself).

Actually, this is mentioned by Lupin, which means that that's Lupin's conclusion.



Or why Dementors still exist when wizards already discovered immortality in the form of the philosopher's stone and horcruxes. That's irrationality.

Well, constructing a horcrux requires killing someone else, so it doesn't remove the issue in question. And it is heavily implied that there's something very difficult about the philosopher's stone since only a single person has ever made it. This actually ties in with some speculation I have about how things are going to end:

Harry is going to work out how mass produce philosopher's stones.

(I'm incidentally curious what you mean when you use the word "pseudo-science"- are you asserting that research into human life-extension is pseudoscience? )

[VanBuren]

Actually, this is mentioned by Lupin, which means that that's Lupin's conclusion.

Wait, so a fanfic trumps an in-canon source?

[JoshuaZ]

Wait, so a fanfic trumps an in-canon source?

First, the original text is riddled with contradictions. Second, fanfic often changes aspects. Third, we already know from internal material that JK often has characters who are not reliable sources even if they initially seem like it, so it is completely consistent with canon to not treat Lupin as reliable in this context. I don't know what you mean by "trumps" in this context. Frankly, I think the experience that Harry has with the sorting hat does far more violence to JK's implicit notion of how magic works.

I'd be curious if you would be annoyed if a fanfic changed the dates when Bellatrix and Snape were at school to make them consistent. Also, are non-canon ships ok? What is it acceptable to modify in fanfic and what is it not acceptable? I'm curious because in this case we have something that is completely consistent with canon narration and simply turns out that characters who aren't generally reliable were wrong about the nature of one magical thing, and that seems to be unacceptable. So what is it ok for fanfic to mess around with?

[VanBuren]

First, the original text is riddled with contradictions. Second, fanfic often changes aspects. Third, we already know from internal material that JK often has characters who are not reliable sources even if they initially seem like it, so it is completely consistent with canon to not treat Lupin as reliable in this context. I don't know what you mean by "trumps" in this context. Frankly, I think the experience that Harry has with the sorting hat does far more violence to JK's implicit notion of how magic works.

I'd be curious if you would be annoyed if a fanfic changed the dates when Bellatrix and Snape were at school to make them consistent. Also, are non-canon ships ok? What is it acceptable to modify in fanfic and what is it not acceptable? I'm curious because in this case we have something that is completely consistent with canon narration and simply turns out that characters who aren't generally reliable were wrong about the nature of one magical thing, and that seems to be unacceptable. So what is it ok for fanfic to mess around with?

I guess I have issues with a fanfic when it mucks around with continuity in an arbitrary and pretentious fashion for the sole purpose of making it more "rational".

But snark aside, none of your example are on the same level. Mess with the dates? Fine, what's a number anyway? Mess with the ships? Meh, sure. Whatever.

Alter the fundamental nature of a part of the mythos? Eh, you've lost my interest.

[JoshuaZ]

Alter the fundamental nature of a part of the mythos? Eh, you've lost my interest.

So how do you tell what is a fundamental part of the mythos? For example, is it a fundamental part of the mythos that in HPMR it turns out that

The sorting hat is not itself intelligent but rather borrows processing power from the person who is wearing it?


I'm a bit puzzled and frankly think that you're suffering slightly from not having read the actual chapters since Harry explains explicitly where people went wrong in thinking about the dementors and justifies it quite well.

I'm also not sure how changing primary characters ships is less of a change of canon than clarifying the nature of a monster. I'm curious what your metric is for measuring deviance from canon.

[doliest]

Yes, I was referring to the questionable idea that anyone who came out to defend the fic was clearly the Author in disguise.

And since when are the Demetors an integral part of the Mythos? Or more specifically, their exact nature? JK, while a great author, was not quite Tolkien when it came to setting. She created a world that, while interesting, was also rather leaky in most respects. It was characters first, plot second, setting third.

[TheLaughingMan]

Yes, I was referring to the questionable idea that anyone who came out to defend the fic was clearly the Author in disguise.


I've seen authors attempting to defend their work through sock puppets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButHeSoundsHandsome) before, so I know where he's coming from.

[doliest]

But accusing anyone defending the work? A popular work? To use the Twilight example, is every fan who defends Twilight secretly Stephanie Meyer?
.
..
God, I hope not. The woman would never write another book again, so busy...she...would...be typing.
.
..
God I hope so. :smallamused:

[JoshuaZ]

I've seen authors attempting to defend their work through sock puppets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButHeSoundsHandsome) before, so I know where he's coming from.

Yeah, except it would have taken minimal effort to determine that that wasn't what was going on here. I mentioned the name of the author in my first remark. Clicking on my name would have gotten a link to my blog which has my actual name and real life contact details and years worth of whiny entries. If he had suspicions he could have taken 1 minute to investigate them.

There's also the minor detail that I've got a heck of a lot of posts here.

So after he was wrong about one person and obviously wrong, he then made an identical accusation about another user. I suppose the claim is minimally more plausible in the case of Somas since Somas is a new user here who has only posted in this thread. But I don't understand the mindset that after being egregiously wrong about a specific type of accusation would cause one to then throw a functionally identical accusation at another individual phrased with absolute certainty:



Ahh, you must be the author. Nice to meet you - care to answer a few questions?

[/QUOTE]

. If I had to make a guess I'd say it is an attempted form of ad hominem attack that one makes when one doesn't have much else to say but is emotionally wedded to an argument (Note that this is a hypothesis, not an argument against anything Obrysii or anyone else has said in this thread.).

I suppose that the next logical step is to accuse doliest of being a sockpuppet of Eliezer's also.

As amusing this is, I'm more interested in discussing the actual fic in question rather than engage in metadiscussion about improbable claims.

[TheLaughingMan]

Nah, but they've got the same demeanor. You know, rather polite if somewhat unfeeling posting, incredibly in-depth knowledge of the work in question, the aforemented "But he sounds so handsome!", only admitting minor flaws at most, and poorly attempting to poke holes in the opposition's argument (in this case, devolving into the ramifications of a Mary-Sue). Altogether very lawyer-like and somewhat alien. Granted, you can find fans like this (and considering the work itself, it would not be surprising), but generally this type of attitude is associated with sock puppets.

EDIT:
There's also the minor detail that I've got a heck of a lot of posts here.

Yes, because being a member of the forum beforehand means you can't possibly have written this. :smallconfused:

This is the internet, Josh. Another possibility is you writing the fic under a different name, though I may be naive in that regard.

[doliest]

I'd enjoy it; after all, my sum total of fan fic writing is a few messy chapters adapting the Twilight Lynching game. Having anyone think I had a good fic under my belt would be quite the compliment. Also, I wouldn't call the discussion on what you consider a Sue minor; it's one of the two main complaints, after all.

[TheLaughingMan]

I'd enjoy it; after all, my sum total of fan fic writing is a few messy chapters adapting the Twilight Lynching game. Having anyone think I had a good fic under my belt would be quite the compliment. Also, I wouldn't call the discussion on what you consider a Sue minor; it's one of the two main complaints, after all.

Potatoes, Potatos, I'm the guy with the loaded shotgun.

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, because being a member of the forum beforehand means you can't possibly have written this. :smallconfused:

Well it would imply that Eliezer Yudkowsky deliberately posted to a forum under an alternate name starting years ago, spent most of that time posting homebrew and never commenting on any other media that Yudkwosky has written (he's wrote a fair bit of other fanfic but frankly the vast majority of it isn't very good. He did write Three Worlds Collide which was interesting although hammerific and The Sword of Good which was amusing but highly predictable.) And that that person had a link to a different blog which includes their real name?

If we're talking about Somas, then the primary problem here is that Obrysii did close to zero investigative work on this subject at all, and was absolutely certain of his conclusion. Not even a "oh are you the author"? And one would think that someone with minimal ability wouldn't make such an accusation after just being egregiously wrong about it.

(Although there's now some tiny part of my brain whispering "you better hope that Somas isn't Eliezer or you'll look like a complete ass when it comes out.)

I'm also a bit confuzzled by the notion that precise discussion of what people mean is "lawyerly." I suppose not shouting at each other with ill-defined terms and not actually communicating is lawyerly. *shrug*

[doliest]

Really? Well-
[Dirty Harry Quote removed due to Copyright]

[JoshuaZ]

This is the internet, Josh. Another possibility is you writing the fic under a different name, though I may be naive in that regard.

Which again is something that's pretty easy to rule out when the author of the fic is someone who is known enough that he's got an extensively sourced Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky)

and I not only have my blog linked to from my name but that most of my biographical details are easily verified (http://www.bu.edu/math/people/graduate-students/).

Again, the thing that isn't striking isn't Obrysii's suspicion which by itself as a prior isn't at all unreasonable. The thing that is striking is how little work it takes to see that it is obviously false. I am however quite flattered by the notion that I could make up Eliezer Yudkowsky as a completely separate persona. We do actually look slightly similar but that's mainly due to being in the same ethnic group. He's taller and not so skinny.

Now, to get things back on track: I'm curious of the people who are actually reading the fic, where do they think Dumbledore has put the philosopher's stone? Is it still in the forbidden third floor corridor? Or is that

the philosopher's stone is the rock that Dumbledore gave to Harry?

[TheLaughingMan]

(I'm also a bit confuzzled by the notion that precise discussion of what people mean is "lawyerly." I suppose not shouting at each other with ill-defined terms and not actually communicating is lawyerly. *shrug*

You need to loosen up, Josh. Like I said, you post a bit coldly. No offense, of course.

As to the rest of the post, I already said I was a bit naive on this particular issue, and that I could simply understand where what's-his-face was coming from. I don't doubt you're not the author, I'm just trying to clear things up before such a discussion gets brought up again in this topic.

[doliest]

Indeed. Let's discuss other things now. Like Puppies. Cakes. And this fic if we have the time. :smallwink:

[TheLaughingMan]

Indeed. Let's discuss other things now. Like Puppies. Cakes. And this fic if we have the time. :smallwink:

Puppies give me stomach aches and cake needs to go to Mars where I can never see it again.

Now rainbows on the other hand....

[doliest]

What about Raindrops on roses and Whiskers on kittens?

[Obrysii]

I've seen authors attempting to defend their work through sock puppets (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButHeSoundsHandsome) before, so I know where he's coming from.

This happens more often than not, and what you say here:


Nah, but they've got the same demeanor. You know, rather polite if somewhat unfeeling posting, incredibly in-depth knowledge of the work in question, the aforemented "But he sounds so handsome!", only admitting minor flaws at most, and poorly attempting to poke holes in the opposition's argument (in this case, devolving into the ramifications of a Mary-Sue). Altogether very lawyer-like and somewhat alien. Granted, you can find fans like this (and considering the work itself, it would not be surprising), but generally this type of attitude is associated with sock puppets.

Is precisely why my eyebrows are raised when I see poor material praised without any negativity; anyone who has any significant prior literature background would find this fiction to be, at best, a bland and poorly constructed one - specifically on the actions of children.

You nailed the majority of my concern on the head - the fact that the OP, person whom I made that comment about, and the work in question all have similar writing style, extremely quick to jump to inaccurate assumptions, and are extraordinarily defensive - all the while in the same language, raises my eyebrows; it's rather curious, that's all.

It doesn't help that he has in-depth knowledge of the author, includes his full name in every mention, and has no misspellings of such an uncommon name...

And my mentioning, "are you the author?" it's calling out that curiousness; that they have nothing but praise for the work (which, again, from a literary background is pretty sub-par except for length...) and do not take well to criticism of the work (or what criticism they do have is extraordinarily mild ... makes you think, doesn't it?


EDIT:

Yes, because being a member of the forum beforehand means you can't possibly have written this. :smallconfused:

This is the internet, Josh. Another possibility is you writing the fic under a different name, though I may be naive in that regard.

Aside from the dishonesty, I would be perfectly happy to discuss this material with the author - learn why he feels his demeanor must be so pretentious, or why he does not seem to understand even basic human interaction.



As to the rest of the post, I already said I was a bit naive on this particular issue, and that I could simply understand where what's-his-face was coming from. I don't doubt you're not the author, I'm just trying to clear things up before such a discussion gets brought up again in this topic.

I appreciate your understanding - and I am not interested in devolving this discussion further.

I leave with this: if any of you are, in fact, the author of this piece - own up to it. Accept the criticism. Don't argue like you're a lawyer - even if you are one - and argue instead for the work itself. Don't use ad hominen attacks, don't use strawmans - let the work stand for itself.

Remember, good fiction requires no explaining by the author. If people are constantly scratching their heads and wondering, you didn't do it right (or that's what you were aiming for). Good fiction requires substantial investment in characters, a respect for the original work, and an understanding of that setting. This fiction fails in all of those.



You think you can divine someones motives with a single glance? And yet funnily enough you're dead wrong.

The irony here is almost too much.

You say I cannot divine someone's motives with a single glance, that my thought that it is a massive circle-jerk is wrong; you then say that you can divine that person's motive with the same material I have - hypocrisy much?

Why do you defend this work so much? You certainly can - be I would surely enjoy knowing why.

Still waiting on a response for this.

[Zexion]

I read this. I LOVED it. Loved loved loved. Better than a lot of actual books out there, actually.

[doliest]

Edit:To Obrysii.
In. Your. Opinion.

Three lovely words, eh? :smalltongue:

You're using strawmen. You're not arguing with anyone, you're simply ranting about the author, like he's an invisible man listening in. Your point isn't so much an argument as it is yelling at ghosts. You're argument doesn't stand on it's own. Therefore you are in error. Errors are obsolete. You are in error. You are obsolete. Errors must be corrected. You will be corrected. Exterminate. Exterminate. Ex-ter-mi-nate!

[Obrysii]

I read this. I LOVED it. Loved loved loved. Better than a lot of actual books out there, actually.

Can you break down why? I'm not trying to be mean. I sincerely would like to know why.

Like - is it the writing style? If so, what's good about it? Characterization - what's good about that?


In. Your. Opinion.

Three lovely words, eh? :smalltongue:

You're using strawmen. You're not arguing with anyone, you're simply ranting about the author, like he's an invisible man listening in. Your point isn't so much an argument as it is yelling at ghosts. You're argument doesn't stand on it's own. Therefore you are in error. Errors are obsolete. You are in error. You are obsolete. Errors must be corrected. You will be corrected. Exterminate. Exterminate. Ex-ter-mi-nate!

Ad hominen much? :smallannoyed:

Seriously - at this point, you aren't arguing. You aren't giving compelling reasons. You're harassing me. Which is fine - cool, whatever. I'm going to bed - good luck. If you really want to have a discussion on the work, feel free to give me your breakdown on what's good.

Not unending, uncritical praise. I would like real analysis as to what is so good about this.

[doliest]

Ad hominen? I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain how.

Edit:How? I'm pointing out it isn't an arguement. And having a little fun. It's a forum about a webcomic in which we're discussing a Harry Potter fic. Lighten up. :smalltongue:

Edit 2.0 REVENGE OF THE EDIT: I enjoy the humor; it's a hilarious fic. It's funny. Beyond that? The plot is intriguing. It's fun to read about the character's interacting. But more than anything, it's one of the rare fics to balance a serious plot with humor that fits into the story.

[Obrysii]

Fine.

Let's have a discussion. I'll bold it so maybe you all can see it.

For those who have had undying, unending praise for this fan fiction, please give me a critical analysis of why you find it so compelling. I am asking this sincerely, because while I have read it, I find nothing of value contained within - poor characterization, inaccurate representations of the setting, and a pretentious "I'm so smart!" attitude that was almost insulting.

Please, if you can, give me a reason to look at it otherwise. Look at it with a critical eye, not a fanboy's eye, and tell me what value you see within.

[doliest]

A deep analysis? Nope, sorry. You're lost in that front. This is a fun fic for me, and that's all I really feel needs saying. I find it hilarious, without devolving into the 'look! I'm random! Isn't if HILARIOUS!?' attitude that permates the subgroup. It does not bash a single character. The plot is easy to follow, but, if you pay attention, littered with deep little pieces you might miss. The characters, while far too intelligent for their ages, including the adults, are still interesting and distinct. Problems? Yes, it plays fast and loose with the setting. Which JK was never that good with, so I don't mind too much. The author has changed several characters significantly-but, again, they are interesting enough, I find myself not caring. Preachy? I don't know enough about the philosophy to care.

[Dienekes]

I've been sort of half looking at this thread, thinking that the idea sounded a bit odd but interesting enough to get some details about and whatnot.

However, then I read that Dementor killing thing and could not take the idea of it seriously. Sorry that was just dumb, like, Terry Goodkind "chicken that is not a chicken" dumb, and put me off reading the work.

Carry on with your scheduled debate.

[Zexion]

Can you break down why? I'm not trying to be mean. I sincerely would like to know why.

Like - is it the writing style? If so, what's good about it? Characterization - what's good about that?
I like the logical extremes of set concepts, the loopholes, the attention to details and plot holes, the advanced mathematical and scientific concepts- basically everything that sets it apart from a 'normal" low-quality fanfic.

[TheLaughingMan]

I think I see the problem.

On one hand, the fic's detractors are comparing it to other literature.

On the other hand, the fic's defenders (at least most of them) are comparing it to other fanfics.

We need to put it on some scale, or neither party is going to get anywhere.

[Zexion]

I think I see the problem.

On one hand, the fic's detractors are comparing it to other literature.

On the other hand, the fic's defenders (at least most of them) are comparing it to other fanfics.

We need to put it on some scale, or neither party is going to get anywhere.
Yes... it is, of course, nowhere near J.K. Rowling's own work, but I can confidently say that it is a much more intelligent piece of work than the entire Twilight series. :smallamused:

[doliest]

How about a night of fun reading? It's what I use it for. Maybe light discussion with other Fic-reading friends after class.

[RationalGoblin]

As for the latter... According to the author this fic was written to get people interested in Rationality (and as something to do while he rests from writing his 'real' book (on rationality)).
Hence all the infodumps.

I also thought this fic had excellent characterization.


Your first point explains a lot. It's intended as an Author Tract? Those are almost universally pretentious by all but the greatest authors, and even then, it's a bit annoying.

This Eliezer (had to control-Find that in this thread to spell it correctly) is certainly not one of the best.

And that's what bugs me; he's not that good of a writer, trying to do an info-dumping Author Tract fanfic. It comes off as extremely arrogant.

Secondly, excellent characterization? Really? The coldly logical, almost robot-like mindsets are "excellent characterization"?

Admittedly, I didn't read very far, but that is because the obnoxious mindset throughout the story turned me off the fic so badly that I had, and still have, no desire to read more of it.


Oh noes! He's making references to nerdy stuff!

No, as previously noted, he's basically going Author Tract all over Harry Potter. That's not nerdy, or perhaps it is, but not the fun kind of nerdy. The pretentious kind.

It's just so full of itself.

[doliest]

I find that only Harry had that mindset, and that's an established character trait of his. Dumbledore is portrayed far better in this fic than...well...he is any where except canon.

[JoshuaZ]

You need to loosen up, Josh. Like I said, you post a bit coldly. No offense, of course.

I'm not sure what it means to post coldly. I presume it means something along the lines of "responding to points with logic and not enough humorous rhetorical flourishes"). If that's the case, then I'm aware that this is a known issue about my writing style when trying to communicate with people. I also have an issue in terms of focusing on trying to resolve ancillary details rather than progressing forward in a conversation.


Puppies give me stomach aches and cake needs to go to Mars where I can never see it again.



Prebake the puppies into the cake. Makes it go down much better.



Aside from the dishonesty, I would be perfectly happy to discuss this material with the author - learn why he feels his demeanor must be so pretentious, or why he does not seem to understand even basic human interaction.

Obrysii, I don't know how your mind functions but I find it deeply puzzling. You've now moved apparently from concluding that I was Eliezer to concluding that Somas is Eliezer to concluding that what? That someone somewhere somehow on this thread must be Yudkowsky? It seems that you've gotten so caught up at defending a subsidiary conclusion that even when the evidence is against it you continue to insist on it.


You nailed the majority of my concern on the head - the fact that the OP, person whom I made that comment about, and the work in question all have similar writing style, extremely quick to jump to inaccurate assumptions, and are extraordinarily defensive - all the while in the same language, raises my eyebrows; it's rather curious, that's all.

I suppose I should give up trying to point out how Eliezer and I are distinct human beings both with substantial webpresences (I suppose if linking to my university's directory isn't enough not much will matter). In fact, I think I'll point out that you're privileging the hypothesis and that Harry explains exactly what is wrong with this to Dumbledore and that the very good-looking, very smart, amazingly self-educated, excellent writer, Eliezer Yudkowsky, may his great name never be forgotten and may he bring the Singularity speedily in our days, has wrote a well-written, insightful essay on this very topic. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/)

(I'm incidentally curious what assumptions I've made that you think are inaccurate)


[QUOTE=Obrysii;9338913]Can you break down why? I'm not trying to be mean. I sincerely would like to know why.

Like - is it the writing style? If so, what's good about it? Characterization - what's good about that?

First, the author does stuff that is just clever (see for example the sorting hat chapters and the outtakes). Second, the author deconstructs standard fanfic in amusing ways (see for example the aftermath with Snape and the student.) He also does a very good job of pointing out flaws or funny issues with canon (see for example the trick with arbitraging the currency.) Overall, the writing isn't amazing, and most of the characterizations are not great (there are a few notable exceptions such as Quirrel who is scarily well-done.) But it is much better than the vast majority of fanfic out there. And many of the funny parts are hilarious (again section with the sorting hat. Or the scenes in Diagon Alley.) And the number of subtle or not so subtle references to other media stretches the fourth wall in amusing ways (the part about the bedtime stories that Lucius told Draco for example.) And the fic is surprisingly educational. I haven't learned much from it (honestly one semester of intro psych and another intro philosophy of science class would cover most of it) but some of what I've learned is actually connected to my own area of study (the factoring trick which is a cool trick which definitely deserves to be spread more). The fact that I've learned something in my own field of study while reading a fanfic? Yeah, I find that impressive. And it is worked into the narrative in a nearly flawless way.


Ad hominen much?

If you mean an ad hominem fallacy, then no he hasn't done that. An ad hominem fallacy is when someone makes an argument of the form "x says A. But x is a y. Therefore A is false." He hasn't done that. He's just making a silly Doctor Who joke.


A deep analysis? Nope, sorry. You're lost in that front. This is a fun fic for me, and that's all I really feel needs saying. I find it hilarious, without devolving into the 'look! I'm random! Isn't if HILARIOUS!?' attitude that permates the subgroup. It does not bash a single character.

Ron Weasley?



The plot is easy to follow, but, if you pay attention, littered with deep little pieces you might miss. The characters, while far too intelligent for their ages, including the adults, are still interesting and distinct. Problems? Yes, it plays fast and loose with the setting. Which JK was never that good with, so I don't mind too much. The author has changed several characters significantly-but, again, they are interesting enough, I find myself not caring. Preachy? I don't know enough about the philosophy to care.

That's interesting. That suggests that Yudkowsky's attempt to make this an Author Tract might actually be failing if people reading it aren't absorbing any of the illustrious master's teachings.



I think I see the problem.

On one hand, the fic's detractors are comparing it to other literature.

On the other hand, the fic's defenders (at least most of them) are comparing it to other fanfics.

We need to put it on some scale, or neither party is going to get anywhere.

This is a very good point. This is as far as I can tell, the most intelligent point made in this thread. I'm going to have go and think about this.

[Xondoure]

And she's also portrayed as an idiot in that she instantly jumps to the first false solution of a simple riddle in the train sequence. Come on, if you tell someone it's a riddle, everyone will try to find out if their solution is true before blurting out their first idea and then being astounded that it's wrong. You don't need to know about experimental procedure for that.

Did he read the books? Specifically the part where Hermione makes a big deal out of Snape's logic puzzle and how it would stump most wizards because of their lack of any form of logic before solving it herself?

[doliest]

That's not a consistent character element. Not to mention her 'jumping to conclusion' is based on Harry spitting a drink on his shirt and assuming first that either he charmed it to go away or that the robes were charmed than that the drink went away on it's own. It was less intended to demonstrate logic than it was a scene about the Scientific Method. Makes sense in context. :smalltongue:

[catchthesun]

I think I see the problem.

On one hand, the fic's detractors are comparing it to other literature.

On the other hand, the fic's defenders (at least most of them) are comparing it to other fanfics.

We need to put it on some scale, or neither party is going to get anywhere.

I think the fact that the critics are comparing a piece of casual fanfiction to critically-acclaimed pieces of serious literature is already speaking fairly positively of it. Considering that many pieces of fanfiction can be described with just for fun and fanservicey at best and near-incomprehensible at worst. Eh, just offering my two cents. I think this debate has gone on for far too long as it is.

[misterk]

I am on the fence. I actually enjoy some of the fic, but it does infuriate me.

The idea- "hey, what if a rationalist encounters the HP universe" was cute, and Harry's investigations into the HP world was kinda fun. But some of the stuff Elizer introduces are about his particular brand of trans-humanism, which, as far as I can tell, involves a rather irrational obsession with death, with a villain from HP being altered to fit his beliefs, even if the villain makes little rational sense anyway... Harry's conclusions aren't particularly rational based on his current beliefs on how magic works. He actually hasn't even thought about magical creatures yet, and he needed to- he literally wakes up knowing how to kill the sodding thing- the hint from Godric Gryffindor was given in the previous chapter, theres utterly no build up to the, as stated, "I don't believe in fairies" form of destruction. Reviewers claimed to be in tears, I was just really, really disgusted.

I think a lot of people who don't read fan fiction have been linked to this, and they have higher standards on writing, and require it not to meander from one topic to the next with no clear sense of purpose or conflict- we still, after 46 chapters (now longer than order of the phoenix folks!), do not know what Voldemorts plan is. Even slightly.

Its incredibly flawed, to an embarrasing extent, and it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

[Math_Mage]

Edit 2.0 REVENGE OF THE EDIT: I enjoy the humor; it's a hilarious fic. It's funny. Beyond that? The plot is intriguing. It's fun to read about the character's interacting. But more than anything, it's one of the rare fics to balance a serious plot with humor that fits into the story.

I'll grant it has funny moments and serious moments. I doubt I'm qualified to comment on the plot, since I gave up too soon to get much of it. But Harry's character is no fun to read about at all. Maybe it improves after the beginning, which is largely Harry thinking 'God, it sucks to be right all the time.' But our little 11-year-old wannabe professor with a superiority complex was just too unpleasant to keep on reading on.


That's not a consistent character element. Not to mention her 'jumping to conclusion' is based on Harry spitting a drink on his shirt and assuming first that either he charmed it to go away or that the robes were charmed than that the drink went away on it's own. It was less intended to demonstrate logic than it was a scene about the Scientific Method. Makes sense in context. :smalltongue:

No, it was a scene about Harry showing off how s-m-r-t he is. He might say that it's about the scientific method; that doesn't make it so.

[Eldan]

That's not a consistent character element. Not to mention her 'jumping to conclusion' is based on Harry spitting a drink on his shirt and assuming first that either he charmed it to go away or that the robes were charmed than that the drink went away on it's own. It was less intended to demonstrate logic than it was a scene about the Scientific Method. Makes sense in context. :smalltongue:

I meant the number puzzle. Was that Draco? It's been a whle since I read it. Anyway, the person in question says three semi-random guesses and bursts out the first theory. Does anyone really do that when they are told it's a riddle?

And on the Death thing: I'm of the same opinion. Death, and to a lesser extent, Dementia (I've seen enough cases, both my parents are basically nurses) are horrible both on a personal level for the person involved and their immediate social environment and on a population scale talking about the entire human culture. Whenever a person dies, valuable knowledge and skills are lost to humanity, along with substantial investments in education of that person. It's economically a waste, and a horrible tragedy to all people involved. It's something we need to change in the future, as soon as we are able to deal with an immortal population. Of course, climate change, the energy crisis and the distribution of energy in the form of food would have to be solved first, but immortality s up there on the list of important goals for humanity.

[Mewtarthio]

But it's still something we need to deal with right now. Refusing to acknowledge death because you believe we'll conquer it in the future isn't brave; it's childish.

[JoshuaZ]

But it's still something we need to deal with right now. Refusing to acknowledge death because you believe we'll conquer it in the future isn't brave; it's childish.

I'm not sure what you mean but whatever it is, I don't think it is what Harry is doing. He's not acknowledging the death as part of the ideal world. That's the point. It isn't something to be accepted but something to be fought against. That's not the same thing as being in denial over it.

[Oslecamo]

And on the Death thing: I'm of the same opinion. Death, and to a lesser extent, Dementia (I've seen enough cases, both my parents are basically nurses) are horrible both on a personal level for the person involved and their immediate social environment and on a population scale talking about the entire human culture.

It's not nice, but death is a necessity of life. Evolution demands renewal and renewal demands death. Young people are much more willing to assimilate and produce new knowledge (because their brains are empty and ready to be filled) than old people that have already strong forged habits and thus have a much harder time adapting to change.



Whenever a person dies, valuable knowledge and skills are lost to humanity,

And that's why we created language, writing, arts, drawing and the internet itself. Funny how the fear of death can make us do such wonderfull things.



along with substantial investments in education of that person. It's economically a waste
You have any idea how much money is spent taking care of the eldery and paying retirements nowadays? With the increase of life expectancy, we suddenly find ourselves having to pay for the care of lots of people for a lot more time than previewed. In some countries the elders almost outnumber the working population. What do we do when there's more retired people than working ones?



and a horrible tragedy to all people involved.

Trust me, it would be even more horrible if you had to deal with an infinite horde of demented people who can't do work and slowly degenerate into a vegetable-like state. There are plenty of worse things that death, dementia for one.



It's something we need to change in the future, as soon as we are able to deal with an immortal population.

Wich we can't unless you break several of our current science laws, because an immortal population will just kept expanding and expanding while the resources keep finite.

Then we would have even worst wars for resources than we have now, and any rising tyrants would be immortal tyrants that wouldn't need to worry about finding sucessors to keep their reigns of terror going.



Of course, climate change, the energy crisis and the distribution of energy in the form of food would have to be solved first, but immortality s up there on the list of important goals for humanity.

It is for many people, but luckily the number of obstacles in the way is so staggering that it simply can't be done in any nearby future.

The simple act of breathing burns you from inside. There's a strong sugestion that even each person's genetic code is a ticking clock with a limited life time.

Even our machines wear down and break (most of them actualy faster than your average human, jus try using a computer more than ten years old). Even stars burn out. We know nothing out that there that is eternal.

Immortality is a quimera. It simply cannot be done unless we had multiple revolutionary discoveries that changed everything we know and then changed it again. You can extend your life, but your body will eventualy wear down and break like everything else out there. And that's not necessarily bad, because what really counts isn't you, but what you did with your time. That's what life is. Be born, grow, do something, then die to make room for the new generations.

Performing deeds that echo trough mankind's history would be the closest you can get to immortality.

EDIT: And to answer another post.



Actually, this is mentioned by Lupin, which means that that's Lupin's conclusion.

And of course the fact that Dementors feed on happy toughts and being actualy unable to kill someone (their kiss only leaves them in a vegetative state) is proof that they're death incarnate.



Well, constructing a horcrux requires killing someone else, so it doesn't remove the issue in question. And it is heavily implied that there's something very difficult about the philosopher's stone since only a single person has ever made it.

So the dementor is so scared of a very distant, basically impossible, future that it dies, but it isn't scared by the actual present?



Harry is going to work out how mass produce philosopher's stones.

Not only that, he'll make them even better, be nominated for minister of magic and probably worshiped as a god (but being called for something else of course).:smallamused:



(I'm incidentally curious what you mean when you use the word "pseudo-science"- are you asserting that research into human life-extension is pseudoscience? )

No, it's simply stuff that looks like science but isn't science. Star spanning immortal mankind would be pure speculation at best with the science we have now.

Claiming that animals aren't aware of mortality is just failing at biology. Not epic fail because a lot of people actualy believe that, but plenty of studies demonstrated that there are several animals that care and even mourn about their deaths.

So basically speculation and not doing any research at all like the author does is pseudo-science.

[JoshuaZ]

It's not nice, but death is a necessity of life. Evolution demands renewal and renewal demands death. Young people are much more willing to assimilate and produce new knowledge (because their brains are empty and ready to be filled) than old people that have already strong forged habits and thus have a much harder time adapting to change.


Sure, but this is something the transhumanists want to change. People would still learn and assimilate new knowledge as they grew older.



And that's why we created language, writing, arts, drawing and the internet itself. Funny how the fear of death can make us do such wonderfull things.

I'm not aware of any evidence that any of these were made in response to the fear of death.



You have any idea how much money is spent taking care of the eldery and paying retirements nowadays? With the increase of life expectancy, we suddenly find ourselves having to pay for the care of lots of people for a lot more time than previewed. In some countries the elders almost outnumber the working population. What do we do when there's more retired people than working ones?

You have healthy, working elderly who aren't retired. Note incidentally that while the elderly population has been increasing, the health of that population has also been increasing. If they keep working that's not an issue. And again, the transhumanist plans drastic changes to how humans age.



Trust me, it would be even more horrible if you had to deal with an infinite horde of demented people who can't do work and slowly degenerate into a vegetable-like state. There are plenty of worse things that death, dementia for one.

But this isn't what the transhumanists want either. They don't intend for their to be demented immortals.



Wich we can't unless you break several of our current science laws, because an immortal population will just kept expanding and expanding while the resources keep finite.

Resources may be infinite. Depends on the nature of universe (actually more likely that resources are arbitrarily large which is not the same thing.) And as populations grow, reproduction becomes less common and if necessary can be enforced.



Then we would have even worst wars for resources than we have now, and any rising tyrants would be immortal tyrants that wouldn't need to worry about finding sucessors to keep their reigns of terror going.

Or we'd have an enlightened system of democracy where people carefully distribute resources and new children are only born when there are sufficient resources. For every utopia there is a dystopia and for ever dystopia there is a utopia. In practice, things seem to generally end up somewhere in the middle.




The simple act of breathing burns you from inside. There's a strong sugestion that even each person's genetic code is a ticking clock with a limited life time.

Do you mean telemeres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemere)? There are strong reasons to doubt the telemere theory of aging or at least doubt that that is the whole story. See here (http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes). Note also that if aging is caused primarily by telemere shortening that's a good thing because that means that most aspects of aging will be easy to fix given the right enzymes (the primarily problem with adding in general telemere repair is that shortening of telemeres helps retard cancer, but this may be fixable.)



Even our machines wear down and break (most of them actualy faster than your average human, jus try using a computer more than ten years old).

We can make long lasting machines but we often don't because technology is progressing at a fast rate. It simply doesn't pay to make a computer that lasts for 20 years. But, many device if kept well work fine. A properly cared for arithmometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmometer) from the 19th century will still work fine (there get to be interesting issues here about the ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)).

Also, keep in mind that our current tech level is not impressive. We've only been really going at things systematically from a scientific perspective for a few centuries and only a small fraction of the population is doing either scientific research or engineering. Nanotech is fast becoming a more and practical field as is AI. Heck, at this point, we're using support vector machines for very mundane tasks like organizing email, classifying medical records and reading hand-written notes. And we're using neural nets for all sorts of similar stuff and some stuff that is out of this world, like using a neural net approach to classify galaxies (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0908.2033). We have computers proving new theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_conjecture) and others even constructing their own new ideas to investigate (http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/colton/joisol.html) The beginning of the future is already here, and the remainder of the future approaches quickly. Claims that we won't be able to do something a hundred year or two hundred years or a thousand years from now are very hard to justify.

Edit: To respond to the sections added in editing above:


And of course the fact that Dementors feed on happy toughts and being actualy unable to kill someone (their kiss only leaves them in a vegetative state) is proof that they're death incarnate

I agree that this doesn't quite fit but then neither does having fear incarnate do this. On the other if souls are real (as they are in the canonverse and seem likely to be real in HPMR) then destroying a soul may be a more profound form of death than simply killing someone.


So the dementor is so scared of a very distant, basically impossible, future that it dies, but it isn't scared by the actual present?

No. It is due to the fact that death doesn't have any hold on Harry. And stating that that is a "a very distance, basically impossible, future" sort of misses the point because a) Yudkowsky would disagree with that assessment about our universe b) in the universe in which Harry resides this assessment seems even more unlikely.



Not only that, he'll make them even better, be nominated for minister of magic and probably worshiped as a god (but being called for something else of course).

Fascinating how when one tries to actually move back to the subject at hand of actually talking about the story other than in a it-stinks!/no-it-doesn't argument that one gets dragged back. (I'm curious what you would be willing to be on any of these claims or are they purely rhetorical?)


No, it's simply stuff that looks like science but isn't science. Star spanning immortal mankind would be pure speculation at best with the science we have now.

There's speculation and then there's speculation. The inability to have a technology at a given point is not a reason to presuppose that the technology will not arise. More generally, there's this common belief that if we don't have X now, somehow there's a heavy burden of evidence for people arguing that we are likely to have X in the future. Technologies don't start with prior probabilities of unlikely, and they should especially not do so when the technology doesn't contradict the known laws of physics.


Claiming that animals aren't aware of mortality is just failing at biology. Not epic fail because a lot of people actualy believe that, but plenty of studies demonstrated that there are several animals that care and even mourn about their deaths.

This is a valid point. Although even then, I'd be inclined to argue that animals
don't have the same ability to comprehend the inevitability of death, or at least we don't have any evidence that they do. The inevitability of one's own demise is an extremely abstract concept.



So basically speculation and not doing any research at all like the author does is pseudo-science.

Eliezer does have a problem with not always doing enough research. I got quite annoyed at him a while ago over his repeated use of phlogiston theory as an example of unfalsifiable hypothesis when he clearly didn't understand how the theory had changed overtime and seemed to not have read any of the relevant history aside from probably tertiary sources. He also has a problem about listening to subject matter experts even as nominally claims that listening to subject experts is an import part of rationality.

I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of these problems in this fic aside from some minor sloppiness about the nature of the magic system. Having opinions that disagree with yours about the prospect of eventual space travel or immortality is not the same as not doing research.

[Obrysii]

We can make long lasting machines but we often don't because technology is progressing at a fast rate. It simply doesn't pay to make a computer that lasts for 20 years. But, many device if kept well work fine. A properly cared for arithmometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmometer) from the 19th century will still work fine (there get to be interesting issues here about the ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)).

This is only partially true.

We don't make long lasting machines because it is not profitable to make long lasting machines. Why make a machine that can last fifty years when it is acceptable to make a machine that lasts ten?

Cars are a perfect example. They're designed to last only a short while (an average of ten years) before components begin to wear out. Notably it isn't usually the engine that burns out on a modern car - but the computer. Engines can go two, three hundred thousand miles without issue - it's just not profitable to let them.

The same is true for the vast majority of things in the modern world. You name it and it likely was designed to fail so that you have to buy another one.



I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of these problems in this fic aside from some minor sloppiness about the nature of the magic system. Having opinions that disagree with yours about the prospect of eventual space travel or immortality is not the same as not doing research.

The issues I have with regard to a lack of research is the man clearly has no idea how an eleven year old talks, acts, or interacts with other people. As someone said earlier - he'd do well to spend a day in a classroom of fifth-graders in order to better understand people of that age group.

His characters, especially Harry, talks like an arrogant college student - not someone fresh out of primary school (or of that age). No matter how smart you are, you don't talk like that when you're eleven. Again, I point to the sitcom Malcolm in the Middle for a more accurate portrayal of a young, preteen genius.

[JoshuaZ]

This is only partially true.

We don't make long lasting machines because it is not profitable to make long lasting machines. Why make a machine that can last fifty years when it is acceptable to make a machine that lasts ten?


Yes, this is a very good point. The economics don't support making every last a long time.

[kamikasei]

Well, after six chapters I'm sold on it. So far the problems people here have pointed to are... not. Probably gonna duck out of the thread until I'm caught up now, to avoid spoilers, since the Dementor thing has been pretty well spoiled above.

The issues I have with regard to a lack of research is the man clearly has no idea how an eleven year old talks, acts, or interacts with other people. As someone said earlier - he'd do well to spend a day in a classroom of fifth-graders in order to better understand people of that age group.

His characters, especially Harry, talks like an arrogant college student - not someone fresh out of primary school (or of that age). No matter how smart you are, you don't talk like that when you're eleven. Again, I point to the sitcom Malcolm in the Middle for a more accurate portrayal of a young, preteen genius.
You know, I get the feeling this fic's Harry takes strongly after the author at that age. So it seems a little presumptuous to me to say, in essence, that you know how every imaginable eleven year old acts, while on the other side all he has to know is how one real one did.

[Obrysii]

You know, I get the feeling this fic's Harry takes strongly after the author at that age. So it seems a little presumptuous to me to say, in essence, that you know how every imaginable eleven year old acts, while on the other side all he has to know is how one real one did.

I think I have a better grasp of how eleven years act than the author - that level of intellect, that level of emotional calm, simply doesn't exist at eleven years old. Maybe if the person has Autism or similar, but in a typical eleven year old? Not at all.

[JoshuaZ]

You know, I get the feeling this fic's Harry takes strongly after the author at that age. So it seems a little presumptuous to me to say, in essence, that you know how every imaginable eleven year old acts, while on the other side all he has to know is how one real one did.

Yeah, more specifically, I get the impression that the conversation with the Sorting Hat is older Eliezer talking to young Eliezer. There's good reason why the Sorting Hat explains in detail what is wrong with young Eliezer's attitudes.

[kamikasei]

I think I have a better grasp of how eleven years act than the author - that level of intellect, that level of emotional calm, simply doesn't exist at eleven years old. Maybe if the person has Autism or similar, but in a typical eleven year old? Not at all.
Uh... this seems to ignore the exact point I'm making. There's no reason to think this Harry is supposed to be "a typical eleven year old".

[Halna LeGavilk]

At first, I loved it, and thought it was really funny. However, in Chapter 42, when

It is revealed that Peter and Sirius had been lovers at one point, that really enraged me. Not that I have anything against gay people, but... why? I mean, I tried to understand what he was saying in the author notes about it, and I guess it was like a point about fanfics, but I felt that it really jumped the shark at that point.

It just makes no sense for that to have happened, and I think he did it mostly for the shock value of it. Maybe I'm missing the point. I dunno.

I just know that after that point, the quality of the fanfic went down rapidly (the whole of Harry's and Dumbledore's conversation on death and the afterlife didn't help a whole lot either.

[Zexion]

Frankly, I talked a bit like that when I was in 5th grade. :smalleek::smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

(Arguments for trying to accomplish immortality)

Skipping all moral and ethical discussions, I feel that your arguments needs the New Monster:

PEOPLE DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

[misterk]

At first, I loved it, and thought it was really funny. However, in Chapter 42, when

It is revealed that Peter and Sirius had been lovers at one point, that really enraged me. Not that I have anything against gay people, but... why? I mean, I tried to understand what he was saying in the author notes about it, and I guess it was like a point about fanfics, but I felt that it really jumped the shark at that point.

It just makes no sense for that to have happened, and I think he did it mostly for the shock value of it. Maybe I'm missing the point. I dunno.

I just know that after that point, the quality of the fanfic went down rapidly (the whole of Harry's and Dumbledore's conversation on death and the afterlife didn't help a whole lot either.


I really don't get why this was a major wallbanger for a bunch of people. Its a tiny change, and a lot of people experiment when younger- theres nothing in canon to negate this at all. Also, its not unreasonable to suppose that

lupin might be lying to hide the truth of their being animagi

The dementor has been my biggest issue. Its Harry's biggest Sue moment for me. He is right about the dementor with little evidence, and is able to banish it despite their being no particular reason that his saying so would DO that. If he had researched a new spell I could buy it, but just not believing in fairies is plain silly

I guess I want this fic to either do one of two things

one- be an interesting look at the lack of rationality in the HP universe. The earlier chapters are mostly doing this.
two-be an engaging story. The latter chapters have tried, and failed to do this.

Wheres the narrative or arc? Character arcs? Hero's journey? Where are the STAKES? Theres no sense of any dramatic tension whatsoever- it might crop up over an individual chapter, but its rare for Harry to actually feel it.

[JoshuaZ]

Skipping all moral and ethical discussions, I feel that your arguments needs the New Monster:

PEOPLE DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

Yes, Morbo people don't work that way. That's why a big part of transhumanism is to improve humans through genetic engineering.

[Eldan]

And Cybernetics, if you believe the more Sci-Fi oriented parts.

[Eldan]

Frankly, I talked a bit like that when I was in 5th grade. :smalleek::smallbiggrin:

You're not the only one. In third (I think) grade we were supposed to write a short essay (I think they were about ten lines back then) about what we want to be when we grow up. My essay "I want to rule the world" was very, hmm, controversial back then.

[VanBuren]

Yes, Morbo people don't work that way. That's why a big part of transhumanism is to improve humans through genetic engineering.

"Improve" is such a loaded and subjective word. Besides, if it turns me into a Mary Sue, I'll pass.

[warty goblin]

"Improve" is such a loaded and subjective word. Besides, if it turns me into a Mary Sue, I'll pass.

And at the end of the day, I don't want to live forever. I want my life to be long and joyful, and to end peacefully in my own bed at a ripe old age. Death is tragic yes, but it is also the most natural thing in the world, and should be recognized as such.

[JoshuaZ]

"Improve" is such a loaded and subjective word. Besides, if it turns me into a Mary Sue, I'll pass.

Yes it is a loaded and subjective word. That doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what the transhumanists want to do.

I'm not sure how something can turn you into a Mary Sue in any meaningful sense. If everyone has a set of modification I don't see how you could meaningfully talk about anyone being turned into a Mary Sue (that's aside from the not minor issue that it isn't even clear what it would mean to be a Mary Sue outside a fictional narrative context).


And at the end of the day, I don't want to live forever. I want my life to be long and joyful, and to end peacefully in my own bed at a ripe old age. Death is tragic yes, but it is also the most natural thing in the world, and should be recognized as such.

What age do you want to end at? How much then is too much? 100? 150? 200? If you are healthy do you think there's ever going to be a point where you are going to say "ok. That's enough. Dying tomorrow." The idea that death is natural is utterly irrelevant. Women dying in childbirth is natural. Dying from infection is natural. That doesn't make them good things or things we should accept just as computers being unnatural is not a reason to reject them.

[warty goblin]

What age do you want to end at? How much then is too much? 100? 150? 200? If you are healthy do you think there's ever going to be a point where you are going to say "ok. That's enough. Dying tomorrow." The idea that death is natural is utterly irrelevant. Women dying in childbirth is natural. Dying from infection is natural. That doesn't make them good things or things we should accept just as computers being unnatural is not a reason to reject them.

As long as I make it to eighty or so with reasonable health and most of my brain intact, I'm really pretty happy to bow out at that point. By then I should have been able to do the things I want to do, contribute what I have to contribute, and spent a long, rich time with the people I love. Time to step aside and make room for a new generation to have it's turn.

Will I mark a day on the calender and decide "On October 23rd I'm going to die?" Probably not, unless I have an incurable ailment that makes life deeply unpleasant and costly to maintain. But I don't consider myself entitled to infinite existence; that is hubristic, selfish and short sighted in the extreme.

[JoshuaZ]

As long as I make it to eighty or so with reasonable health and most of my brain intact, I'm really pretty happy to bow out at that point. By then I should have been able to do the things I want to do, contribute what I have to contribute, and spent a long, rich time with the people I love. Time to step aside and make room for a new generation to have it's turn.

Curiously, in practice one almost never sees this attitude from 80 year old people who are actually healthy.


Will I mark a day on the calender and decide "On October 23rd I'm going to die?" Probably not, unless I have an incurable ailment that makes life deeply unpleasant and costly to maintain. But I don't consider myself entitled to infinite existence; that is hubristic, selfish and short sighted in the extreme.

This I don't understand at all. I don't see what hubris there is in living forever (although honestly I don't understand the whole hubris thing to start with int he general context and whenever I hear the word hubris I'm reminded of this Dresden Codak (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/)) Is it selfish to try to obtain immortality just for yourself? Possibly. But why is it "selfish, and short-sighted" to try to obtain functional immortality for all humans if we can manage it?

[VanBuren]

Curiously, in practice one almost never sees this attitude from 80 year old people who are actually healthy.

I'm calling bull**** on this.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm calling bull**** on this.

Do you have personal counterexamples? I have an extended family and I've never seen this. People take this attitude when either they've either become frail, become sick, or have had serious tragedies in their lives. Healthy, functioning old people don't have this attitude. And comparatively young people (50s and 60s) who are very unhealthy are much more likely to want to die than healthy people in that range.

There's of course also the not at all small issue that even if some people would genuinely want to die when they are old but otherwise completely healthy, that doesn't mean the rest of us want to die at that point. So, if you want to die at some point, good for you. Why then impose your view on everyone else?

[kamikasei]

There's some weird psychology about agency at work here. I don't know of any suggestion that death will be somehow made impossible, so anyone who thinks they'd rather not be immortal will have the option of offing themselves if they so wish. It seems rather monstrous to me to suggest, essentially, that others should be prevented from continuing with their lives as they wish just so that those who want to die not have to actually do anything directly to cause it.

[TheLaughingMan]

This I don't understand at all. I don't see what hubris there is in living forever (although honestly I don't understand the whole hubris thing to start with int he general context and whenever I hear the word hubris I'm reminded of this Dresden Codak (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/)) Is it selfish to try to obtain immortality just for yourself? Possibly. But why is it "selfish, and short-sighted" to try to obtain functional immortality for all humans if we can manage it?

It's short-sighted because, in the long run, if no one dies we are dealing with mass over-population and food-shortage. It's selfish because we don't care what this will do for the next generation.

[VanBuren]

Do you have personal counterexamples?

Yes, examples from my own extended family. I'm not going to share their personal details or stories, but I've seen enough that I'm not comfortable taking your statements on faith.

[TheLaughingMan]

Yes, examples from my own extended family. I'm not going to share their personal details or stories, but I've seen enough that I'm not comfortable taking your statements on faith.

Same here.

[JoshuaZ]

It's short-sighted because, in the long run, if no one dies we are dealing with mass over-population and food-shortage. It's selfish because we don't care what this will do for the next generation.

You are again making assumptions about technological limits. You are assuming a similar population growth rate (not justified and unlikely- when average lifespan goes up, pop growth rate goes down) and you are assuming something resembling Malthusian food supply issues which are also not justified. I agree that if those were issues then you'd have a valid argument. But the transhumanists (well really the immortalist extropian end of the transhumanists) don't want immortality by itself. They have a whole list of things that will be changed.

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, examples from my own extended family. I'm not going to share their personal details or stories, but I've seen enough that I'm not comfortable taking your statements on faith.

That's interesting. I've had extensive interaction with people in that age range, and every single one of them who wanted to die had something that had gone wrong. It might be something that seemed minor to bystanders (arthritis, general weakening of the muscles, bowel control issues) or something that wasn't directly a health problem (the loss of loved one is a major one) but I've never seen a healthy individual with their loved ones around who decided that they had to die.

[VanBuren]

That's interesting. I've had extensive interaction with people in that age range, and every single one of them who wanted to die had something that had gone wrong. It might be something that seemed minor to bystanders (arthritis, general weakening of the muscles, bowel control issues) or something that wasn't directly a health problem (the loss of loved one is a major one) but I've never seen a healthy individual with their loved ones around who decided that they had to die.

Everybody is a psychiatrist on the internet.

Like I said, I'm not inclined to believe your statements just because.

[TheLaughingMan]

You are again making assumptions about technological limits. You are assuming a similar population growth rate (not justified and unlikely- when average lifespan goes up, pop growth rate goes down) and you are assuming something resembling Malthusian food supply issues which are also not justified. I agree that if those were issues then you'd have a valid argument. But the transhumanists (well really the immortalist extropian end of the transhumanists) don't want immortality by itself. They have a whole list of things that will be changed.

Population I might give you, if only because restrictions can be posed (even though that's awful), but you assume Harry and his Gadgeteers will suddenly have solved world hunger in between searching for immortality? I'm calling BS.

If we are going by real-world standards, we're then delving into Science Fiction. We can't just suddenly have a machine that produces enough food to feed the bloated masses. Naive, I may be, but I'm sticking to reality.

[JoshuaZ]

Everybody is a psychiatrist on the internet.

Like I said, I'm not inclined to believe your statements just because.

Ok. I'll see if I can dig up studies about this issue and get back to you. In the meantime, see kamikasei's remark above. Even if you were completely correct and that such people did exist, it wouldn't be a reason not to research immortality for the rest of us.


Population I might give you, if only because restrictions can be posed (even though that's awful), but you assume Harry and his Gadgeteers will suddenly have solved world hunger in between searching for immortality? I'm calling BS.

If we are going by real-world standards, we're then delving into Science Fiction. We can't just suddenly have a machine that produces enough food to feed the bloated masses. Naive, I may be, but I'm sticking to reality.

You don't need to solve world hunger immediately. You just need to solve it. All of these are problems that would need to be solved. The rate of solution isn't as important to the transhumanist as is their eventual solution (well ok, many transhumanists think they'll all be solved soon. This seems unlikely to me but does connect with this amusing SMBC (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comic).)

Also, there's no good reason to say that because something is discussed in scifi contexts that it somehow isn't worth trying to do. In 1890, heavier than air aircraft was science fiction as was going to the moon. In 1950 going to the moon was science fiction. In 1960 household robots were science fiction (ok, so the roomba maybe isn't so impressive). I can go on. Saying "X is science fiction" is not at all an argument that "X is unlikely to happen" or "X is a bad thing."

[Obrysii]

Everybody is a psychiatrist on the internet.

Like I said, I'm not inclined to believe your statements just because.

In addition, there are plenty of examples of wanting to go out before you've become a drain - or before you're long past your prime. A great example is Calvin and Hobbes, and even arguably Harry Potter the series.

J.K. Rowling could easily produce much more material in that setting - she could write just about anything and it'd be a best selling. But for better or for worse, she chooses not to.

[JoshuaZ]

In addition, there are plenty of examples of wanting to go out before you've become a drain - or before you're long past your prime. A great example is Calvin and Hobbes, and even arguably Harry Potter the series.

J.K. Rowling could easily produce much more material in that setting - she could write just about anything and it'd be a best selling. But for better or for worse, she chooses not to.

First of all, that's not the same thing as being willing to die. That's the "ok. I'm done with this particular thing for now." That's not a reason to die. That's a reason to go and do other things. I'm a math grad student, and if I ever contribute all the math I can contribute, I'll probably go back to psychology or biology. Neither Bill Watterson nor J.K. Rowling have decided to kill themselves last I checked.

[Oslecamo]

Sure, but this is something the transhumanists want to change. People would still learn and assimilate new knowledge as they grew older.

And there would be true peace and lasting eternal happyness...

That's not rationality, that's pure dreaming. Transhumanism isn't science, it's propaganda at best.

Less words, more results, good sir.



I'm not aware of any evidence that any of these were made in response to the fear of death.

The internet received a BIG development from the USA military because they feared a whole city could be instantly vaporized by nukes, so they developed the idea of a knowledge network (started in some universities in Europe) so that the knowledge wasn't centralized



You have healthy, working elderly who aren't retired.

Yes, some lucky bastards. But most of them aren't so lucky.



Note incidentally that while the elderly population has been increasing, the health of that population has also been increasing. If they keep working that's not an issue.

You never heard about lairs? We have so much non-working eldery to our working population that we needed to create places just to put them.



And again, the transhumanist plans drastic changes to how humans age.

Again, just words right now. People also said we would be colonizing Mars by now when we reached the moon.



But this isn't what the transhumanists want either. They don't intend for their to be demented immortals.

I would like infinite money and world peace. Doesn't mean I will actualy get them.



Resources may be infinite. Depends on the nature of universe (actually more likely that resources are arbitrarily large which is not the same thing.) And as populations grow, reproduction becomes less common

Actualy, as the population grows, so increases reproduction.



and if necessary can be enforced.

Great, so we change to a tyrannical stagnant state where you're forced into a stagnant existence, and you'll never climb up in your life because nobody retires, so the best positions are taken for eternity.



Or we'd have an enlightened system of democracy where people carefully distribute resources and new children are only born when there are sufficient resources. For every utopia there is a dystopia and for ever dystopia there is a utopia. In practice, things seem to generally end up somewhere in the middle.

In practise, immortality is an uttainable utopia by itself.



Do you mean telemeres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemere)? There are strong reasons to doubt the telemere theory of aging or at least doubt that that is the whole story. See here (http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes). Note also that if aging is caused primarily by telemere shortening that's a good thing because that means that most aspects of aging will be easy to fix given the right enzymes (the primarily problem with adding in general telemere repair is that shortening of telemeres helps retard cancer, but this may be fixable.)

Once more, just words. Show me results good sir.



We can make long lasting machines but we often don't because technology is progressing at a fast rate. It simply doesn't pay to make a computer that lasts for 20 years. But, many device if kept well work fine. A properly cared for arithmometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmometer) from the 19th century will still work fine (there get to be interesting issues here about the ship of Theseus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)).

We're not talking about simple mechanical trinkets. We're talking about very complex machines. A commputer's hard drive for example will wear itself down in a few years, just like a magnetic video tape or even a CD.

Now take an human's body, composed of lots of organs in extremely complex interactions, where a single mistake can cause everything to break.



Also, keep in mind that our current tech level is not impressive. We've only been really going at things systematically from a scientific perspective for a few centuries and only a small fraction of the population is doing either scientific research or engineering.

Of course only a small fraction is doing it. Somebody needs to produce food and medicine and take care of babies and eldery and build the infrastructure and everything else so a lucky few can conduct their research and engineering.



Nanotech is fast becoming a more and practical field as is AI. Heck, at this point, we're using support vector machines for very mundane tasks like organizing email, classifying medical records and reading hand-written notes.
My mail still leaks spam to the main area and send important stuff into the spam folder. Hospitals still make mistakes on medical records. Reading hand-written notes? I believe you mean simply turning hand-writing into digital writing.



And we're using neural nets for all sorts of similar stuff and some stuff that is out of this world, like using a neural net approach to classify galaxies (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0908.2033).

Would be impressive if astronomers didn't change galaxy classification every other month as new discoveries roll in, so of course I can't check if the machine's right or not.



We have computers proving new theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_conjecture)

Actualy that one didn't prove anything we didn't know already. It's programmers were simply biased.



and others even constructing their own new ideas to investigate (http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/colton/joisol.html)

Not really. They're just puting togheter blocks specifically made for that.



The beginning of the future is already here, and the remainder of the future approaches quickly.

Trust me, it doesn't. You remember that talk about computer processors halving their size every X months? Lies. We've hit a dead end there. The new computers must use other tricks to increase their processing power, but if you take a closer look you'll notice they've been increasing at a slower pace when we were promised it would be at a faster pace.

If anything the future is unpredictable. And I mean that in every sense of the word. Nobody could predict the net. Everybody said we would be colonizing the solar system by now. Innovation happens, but very rarely on the ways we want.

Trust me, I'm a physics Engineer student. Most of what they tell to the public is propaganda to get financers (because you can't do research whitout lots of filthy money). But things rarely turn out as well as you want.

For every great advancment there's a thousand failed projects that crash and burn. Problems happen, logistics get in your way, the unexpected happen. Most of the times you hit dead ends, sometimes you hit the jackpot and get something completely unexpected, but very rarely things turn out exactly as you want.

Main point being, you cannot expect the future to deliver your wishes on a silver platter. You have to go search for them, and most of the times you end up with a bronze or gold or some unknown substance platter.




Claims that we won't be able to do something a hundred year or two hundred years or a thousand years from now are very hard to justify.

Need I remind you again that despite puting an human in the moon we're still very far away from puting one on Mars?:smallwink:

Science doesn't work that way. Effective reliable results above everything please.



I agree that this doesn't quite fit but then neither does having fear incarnate do this. On the other if souls are real (as they are in the canonverse and seem likely to be real in HPMR) then destroying a soul may be a more profound form of death than simply killing someone.

Precisely. A senseless existence, a fate far worst than death.:smallwink:



No. It is due to the fact that death doesn't have any hold on Harry.

Neither does it on Voldemort and the philosopher's stone dude and his wife and phoenixes who knows how much other wizards that managed to elude dead.



There's speculation and then there's speculation. The inability to have a technology at a given point is not a reason to presuppose that the technology will not arise.

It certainly isn't science or rationality. Story has show us plenty of times that scientific research rarely goes the way we dreamed it to go.



More generally, there's this common belief that if we don't have X now, somehow there's a heavy burden of evidence for people arguing that we are likely to have X in the future. Technologies don't start with prior probabilities of unlikely, and they should especially not do so when the technology doesn't contradict the known laws of physics.

Entropy. An immortal being would need to drain an infinite amount of energy to prevent his body from deterioating at all or be in a state of perfect inaction.




Eliezer does have a problem with not always doing enough research. I got quite annoyed at him a while ago over his repeated use of phlogiston theory as an example of unfalsifiable hypothesis when he clearly didn't understand how the theory had changed overtime and seemed to not have read any of the relevant history aside from probably tertiary sources. He also has a problem about listening to subject matter experts even as nominally claims that listening to subject experts is an import part of rationality.

Well we can agree on that.



I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of these problems in this fic aside from some minor sloppiness about the nature of the magic system. Having opinions that disagree with yours about the prospect of eventual space travel or immortality is not the same as not doing research.
Making guesses about massive jumps in science is neither rationality or science (History has taught us better), the things the author claims to promote.

[TheLaughingMan]

...Woooowwww.

High five. :smallbiggrin:

[Reverent-One]

There's an impressive derail, from HP fanfic to dicussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of Transhumanism. Good job everyone.

[Obrysii]

There's an impressive derail, from HP fanfic to dicussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of Transhumanism. Good job everyone.

Except that it's on topic, as our discussions are about exactly what this fan fic attempts to do.

[JoshuaZ]

And there would be true peace and lasting eternal happyness...

That's not rationality, that's pure dreaming. Transhumanism isn't science, it's propaganda at best and a cult at worst.

Calling something a cult isn't an argument nor is calling it propaganda. You're engaging in a bad heuristic, going from "cults have made claim X" and "Y makes claim X" to "therefore Y is a cult." This isn't useful. That said, I'd agree that some specific transhumanist groups do border on cultlike behavior. This is one major reason I don't self-identify as a transhumanist.




Less words, more results, good sir.

Sure, we have results coming in all the time. Look at how much has been done curing cancer. In the 1960s, survival rates for leukemia hovered around 15% over five years. That rate is now around 55%. (source (http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page.adp?item_id=9346)). The overall lifespan has been steadily increasing for about 200 years. The fraction of deaths due to violence has been on an overall decline for the last few hundred years. The Green Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution) and associated technologies have helped feed millions who would have gone hungry. Results are poring in all the time.




The internet received a BIG development from the USA military because they feared a whole city could be instantly vaporized by nukes, so they developed the idea of a knowledge network (started in some universities in Europe) so that the knowledge wasn't centralized

Right. Not fear of death. Fear of disruption to centralized command and communication structures.



Yes, some lucky bastards. But most of them aren't so lucky.

Yes! And that's unfortunate, and that's part of what would be changed under the transhumanist vision.



You never heard about lairs? We have so much non-working eldery to our working population that we needed to create places just to put them.

I've never heard the term "lair" for that and am curious where they use that term (old age home and homes for the elderly are both ones I've seen). But that's due to the same problem, many of those elderly are in no condition to work. That's not the sort of functional immortality that the transhumanist envisions.



Again, just words right now. People also said we would be colonizing Mars by now when we reached the moon.

Huh? First, of all, the main reasons we haven't colonized Mars are political not scientific. Second of all, nowhere have I been arguing for specific timelines. I agree that many transhumanists are wildly optimistic.



I would like infinite money and world peace. Doesn't mean I will actualy get them.

I suspect you don't actually want infinite money since money would then be valueless. And I have to wonder if you then get annoyed when people talk about disarmament treaties or attempting to cool down specific hotspots. Humans are violent. We are one of the few species that systematically exterminates our own kind. But that's not a reason to not fight against are baser nature.



Actualy, as the population grows, so increases reproduction.

No. Population growth is complicated. The reproduction rate goes down. This is unambiguous. What you may be referring to is the total number of births. But there's a lot of evidence that this goes down in the long run when populations get large or from other cultural events. Look at Japan and Western Europe (in both cases there are complicating factors but the point is the general trend).



Great, so we change to a tyrannical stagnant state where you're forced into a stagnant existence, and you'll never climb up in your life because nobody retires, so the best positions are taken for eternity.

Um, what? I don't know where you are getting any of this. People will do different things and go find things to do. I'm not sure what you mean by "best positions"



In practise, immortality is an uttainable utopia by itself.

If we're labeling things just words then I'll put that down under rhetoric.



We're not talking about simple mechanical trinkets. We're talking about very complex machines. A commputer's hard drive for example will wear itself down in a few years, just like a magnetic video tape or even a CD.

Now take an human's body, composed of lots of organs in extremely complex interactions, where a single mistake can cause everything to break.

Right. This isn't an easy problem to solve. That doesn't make it not very much worth attempting.



Of course only a small fraction is doing it. Somebody needs to produce food and medicine and take care of babies and eldery and build the infrastructure and everything else so a lucky few can conduct their research and engineering.

Yes. This is part of the cause. So?



My mail still leaks spam to the main area and send important stuff into the spam folder. Hospitals still make mistakes on medical records.

So what? No one is claiming that we live in an era of perfect computing technology.



Reading hand-written notes? I believe you mean simply turning hand-writing into digital writing.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw here. We now have support vector machines that can turn hand-writing into digital writing. (source (http://www.springerlink.com/content/uw7gqrqa16u51tfb/)) and we there are systems currently under development that turn that into speech for blind people.




Would be impressive if astronomers didn't change galaxy classification every other month as new discoveries roll in, so of course I can't check if the machine's right or not.

Actually, galactic classification for the majority of them stays pretty similar. Maybe read the article?



Actualy that one didn't prove anything we didn't know already. It's programmers were simply biased.

Please read what I linked to. The Robbins conjecture was open prior to the work in which the EQP system was used to derive a proof. I don't know how you can say the programmers were biased.



Not really. They're just puting togheter blocks specifically made for that.

Excuse me? How do you decide what is just putting blocks together? I'm very curious, because the work done in the link I gave you is very similar to the sort of work done by professional mathematicians. Speaking in my capacity as a mathematician (ok a math grad student but close enough for this purpose), calling what Colton's program did "putting together blocks" is simply inaccurate. Simply dismissing the work isn't an argument with any force.



Trust me, it doesn't. You remember that talk about computer processors halving their size every X months? Lies. We've hit a dead end there. The new computers must use other tricks to increase their processing power, but if you take a closer look you'll notice they've been increasing at a slower pace when we were promised it would be at a faster pace.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You seem to be repeating some garbled form of Moore's law. That's the claim that the number of transistor's per an integrated chip would double approximately every 18 months. And that has been slowing down. That rule did hold true for about fifty years and there's some evidence over the last five years or so that it may be slowing down. The pace is still quite quick. And there are many very interesting technologies that are improving.



If anything the future is unpredictable. And I mean that in every sense of the word. Nobody could predict the net. Everybody said we would be colonizing the solar system by now. Innovation happens, but very rarely on the ways we want.

Of course the future is unpredictable (although note that the claim that nobody predicted the internet is wrong. For example, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story in the 1950s predicting something very similar to the internet, and in 1945 Vannevar Bush wrote "As We May Think" which predicted the idea of hypertext and similar ideas (relying primarily on versions of fascimile transmission, teletypes and microfiche) and even predicted some of the problems we face such as the distinction between information and knowledge.)



Trust me, I'm a physics Engineer student. Most of what they tell to the public is propaganda to get financers (because you can't do research whitout lots of filthy money). But things rarely turn out as well as you want.

Missing the point. Of course projects fail. And of course they take a lot of resources. And of course people give exaggerated predictions to the public (one reason I'm thankful that in math we don't require much in the way of resources.)
ou want.



Main point being, you cannot expect the future to deliver your wishes on a silver platter. You have to go search for them, and most of the times you end up with a bronze or gold or some unknown substance platter.

But no one is saying otherwise. The transhumanists have a list of goals because they are good goals worth striving for. And many of them acknowledge that things might not go ok. Indeed, Eliezer Yudkowsky, the author of the fic in question that we were discussing has wrote a lot about possible failure modes.




Science doesn't work that way. Effective reliable results above everything please.

Yes, that's the gold standard. That doesn't mean we can't make estimates about what technologies are more or less likely than others and which are more or worth trying to achieve. 40 Terabyte hard-drives or flash memory drives don't exist yet. I'm pretty sure they will in a few years. Or to use an example closer to my own area of expertise, right now we know that any odd perfect number must have at least nine distinct prime factors. I'm pretty sure that within five years someone will increase that to ten distinct prime factors. I can make an estimate for that even though we haven't done that yet.



Neither does it on Voldemort and the philosopher's stone dude and his wife and phoenixes who knows how much other wizards that managed to elude dead.

*shrug*. Yes, this may be a problem with the fic. I'm interested to see how he resolves it.




It certainly isn't science or rationality. Story has show us plenty of times that scientific research rarely goes the way we dreamed it to go.

But that doesn't mean we can't locate hypotheses about where it is likely to go more than other areas. Since I've used positive examples above (estimates of things likely to happen) let me give a negative example: We are unlikely in the next ten years to find anything resembling psychic powers. We are unlikely in the next twenty years to have practical fusion technology. Note however that the second tech is orders of magnitude more likely than the first. That's important: We can compare likelyhoods.



Entropy. An immortal being would need to drain an infinite amount of energy to prevent his body from deterioating at all or be in a state of perfect inaction.

Oh to be sure, the second law of thermodynamics is very pesky. But there may be ways around it. Remember the whole being surprised by what we discover thing? Although I'd think that finding a serious hole in the 2nd law seems to be one of the less likely things that can happen. There are other issues as well which I suspect will never give infinite expected lifespan, although it may be extended by quite a bit.

[Reverent-One]

Except that it's on topic, as our discussions are about exactly what this fan fic attempts to do.

The fanfic actually attempts to make humans immortal? That's quite ambitious of it.

[Obrysii]

Has it ever occurred to you that we, as humans, are designed very specifically for a finite lifespan?

Consider how many old people, even in good health feel: thin, stretched, like they've gone on for too long, or - to use a LoTR quote, "stretched thin, like butter scraped over too much bread" ...

I think our minds are designed for a specific limit.


The fanfic actually attempts to make humans immortal? That's quite ambitious of it.

It deals very much in mortality, ergo within its universe the cast attempts to make humans immortal.

Didn't say it was good, or well written. Just that the current discussion is on-topic.

[VanBuren]

Has it ever occurred to you that we, as humans, are designed very specifically for a finite lifespan?

Which makes sense if you believe in Intelligent Design. If not, then that doesn't work so much, since evolution doesn't work like that.

[Obrysii]

Which makes sense if you believe in Intelligent Design. If not, then that doesn't work so much, since evolution doesn't work like that.

I do, happen, to believe in an intelligence controlling evolution - not the weird "6000 year old" stuff you find with a lot of intelligent design believers.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it does happen to work that way. The majority of species live long enough to pass on their genetics and often little after. It doesn't make sense otherwise, unless such species requires a significant child-raising tendency.

[Reverent-One]

It deals very much in mortality, ergo within its universe the cast attempts to make humans immortal.

Didn't say it was good, or well written. Just that the current discussion is on-topic.

Eh, the success or failure of fictional characters in a fantasy world in pursuit of any philosophy/mentality/ect has little impact on the merits of the philosophy/mentality/ect in the real world.

[JoshuaZ]

I do, happen, to believe in an intelligence controlling evolution - not the weird "6000 year old" stuff you find with a lot of intelligent design believers.

Can we please stay away from those topics please? Real world religious issues are off-limits.



From an evolutionary standpoint, it does happen to work that way. The majority of species live long enough to pass on their genetics and often little after. It doesn't make sense otherwise, unless such species requires a significant child-raising tendency.

Well, there's a lot of different hypotheses about why aging occurs. But one important thing to note is that evolution has an incentive to front-load, get a few good years of reproduction and then if you age it doesn't care much once children are raised. But that's not a reason not to modify humans further, that's a quirk of evolutionary incentive. Just because something evolved doesn't make it something worth keeping.

[VanBuren]

I do, happen, to believe in an intelligence controlling evolution - not the weird "6000 year old" stuff you find with a lot of intelligent design believers.

As do I, but the process of evolution itself, as it stands in science, does not deal with deliberate design. Things that work continue, things that don't, don't.


From an evolutionary standpoint, it does happen to work that way. The majority of species live long enough to pass on their genetics and often little after. It doesn't make sense otherwise, unless such species requires a significant child-raising tendency.

The natural state of things is entropy, and death is just a form of that decay. Lifeforms that reproduced continued because lifeforms that didn't... just died.

[Obrysii]

Can we please stay away from those topics please? Real world religious issues are off-limits.

So why are we talking about the whole transhumanism stuff?


Just because something evolved doesn't make it something worth keeping.

Ah the arrogance of humanity. We have existed as we are for two hundred thousand years yet we think we have greater wisdom than the evolutionary chain of being, which has existed for at least a billion years.

We think we know better, so we tinker with things that have worked for a billion years.

Why?

[VanBuren]

Ah the arrogance of humanity. We have existed as we are for two hundred thousand years yet we think we have greater wisdom than the evolutionary chain of being, which has existed for at least a billion years.

Speaking as a non-transhumanist, this is faulty because evolution doesn't have a will, and thus it has no inherent wisdom. It's simply an observed natural process.

[Obrysii]

Speaking as a non-transhumanist, this is faulty because evolution doesn't have a will, and thus it has no inherent wisdom. It's simply an observed natural process.

And it's worked out pretty well, hasn't it? Why think we can do better with only a few hundred years of real observation and experience?

[VanBuren]

And it's worked out pretty well, hasn't it?

Not for the Neanderthals.


Why think we can do better with only a few hundred years of real observation and experience?

To be fair, we've largely made natural selection an irrelevant process in the human race, with modern medicine and science. Submitting to the "wisdom" of evolution might have discouraged that. Or perhaps not, since there is no real meaning in that statement.

[JoshuaZ]

So why are we talking about the whole transhumanism stuff?

Because transhumanism isn't a religion. It is a set of (fairly disjointed) philosophical outlooks. A while back in the there was in the nth thread on alignment an argument about whether neutral on the good-evil axis is essentially utilitarianism. That's the same sort of argument here.




Ah the arrogance of humanity. We have existed as we are for two hundred thousand years yet we think we have greater wisdom than the evolutionary chain of being, which has existed for at least a billion years.

We think we know better, so we tinker with things that have worked for a billion years.

There's no chain of being. The great chain of being is a 19th century idea that doesn't exist in modern biology. But yes, we do know better. Evolution is short-sighted. Sometimes species can even evolve to extinction due to some very ill-behaved genes (http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/6/363.extract). In other cases, a virus or other disease can wipe a species out with little warning. Look at what is happening to the Tasmanian devils. Evolution isn't very bright at all. Evolution is short-sighted but has lots of time on its hands so it occasionally stumbles on interesting stuff. Evolution doesn't cause species to cooperate with each other except under rare circumstances and evolution doesn't actually care about individuals. Yudkowsky wrote an essay on this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/).

[Obrysii]

Yudkowsky wrote an essay on this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/).

In case you haven't gotten it, I have absolutely no interest in anything Yudkowsky has written and I find your constant references to him to be rather unusual - you seem to indulge in the whole 'appeal to authority' bit with him rather too much for my taste.

But whatever - you misunderstand what I mean by "chain of being" and I honestly don't feel like explaining. I don't think I could get to you anyway, so - I consider it a failed line of discussion.

[JoshuaZ]

In case you haven't gotten it, I have absolutely no interest in anything Yudkowsky has written and I find your constant references to him to be rather unusual - you seem to indulge in the whole 'appeal to authority' bit with him rather too much for my taste.

Actually, suggesting someone read an essay is not an appeal to authority. Honestly, while the essay is well-written I'm at some level simply having fun with the fact that you think I'm Yudkowsky. See earlier in this thread where I referred to him "very good-looking, very smart, amazingly self-educated, excellent writer, Eliezer Yudkowsky, may his great name never be forgotten and may he bring the Singularity speedily in our days." Odd, that didn't strike me as a subtle joke. I guess I just have a different sense of humor. If you are absolutely incapable of reading something by him(which, incidentally, I don't understand not liking fanfic by someone doesn't somehow imply that one shouldn't read anything by someone. With some one can also get something of the opposite. I don't like Orson Scott Card's nonfiction essays that much, but he's a very good writer.) then may I suggest you read Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Selfish Gene"? Both of those deal with many of the same issues.



But whatever - you misunderstand what I mean by "chain of being" and I honestly don't feel like explaining.

*shrug* Chain of being is a technical term. If you mean something else then it isn't my fault. Did you mean accumulated experience that evolved organisms have due to millions of years of evolution? If so then that's already been responded to by both my remarks and VanBuren's. I don't understand why someone would not want to explain something. It seems like a generally unproductive response unless the idea in question is highly technical and the individual doesn't have the background. If that's the case, then perhaps you can simply give a reference for me to read?

[Zexion]

Everyone who is arguing, please read this (http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death.html).

For the record, I think that immortality is unfair because if it isn't free, then it unbalances basic human equality, and if it is free, then the population would skyrocket.

Or, look at it this way.
For every extra day of your life that you live, that takes away from the supplies, government resources, and jobs that would be available to a younger person if you didn't decide to live forever.

Or, look at the above statement simplified.
If you live forever, then a younger person who hasn't experienced a fraction of what you have is unable to get what you now, undeservingly, have.

The only possible fair payment for immortality (IF it were even possible), would be direct enhancement of human life. A famous philanthropist, for example, would get life enhancement, while an average Joe would not.

EDIT: Also, you are correct that evolution doesn't care about the individual. That's because anyone who focuses only on bettering himself/herself is being incredibly selfish and narcissistic.

[TheLaughingMan]

Everyone who is arguing, please read this (http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death.html).

For the record, I think that immortality is unfair because if it isn't free, then it unbalances basic human equality, and if it is free, then the population would skyrocket.

Or, look at it this way.
For every extra day of your life that you live, that takes away from the supplies, government resources, and jobs that would be available to a younger person if you didn't decide to live forever.

Or, look at the above statement simplified.
If you live forever, then a younger person who hasn't experienced a fraction of what you have is unable to get what you now, undeservingly, have.

I just said that. Good to know I got one of the fic's fans on my side, though. :smallsmile:

[Zexion]

I just said that. Good to know I got one of the fic's fans on my side, though. :smallsmile:
Yeah, I know. I'm supporting you, and explaining it differently in the hope of him understanding it this time.

[TheLaughingMan]

Yeah, I know. I'm supporting you, and explaining it differently in the hope of him understanding it this time.

Teamwork triumphs once again. :smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

Curiously, in practice one almost never sees this attitude from 80 year old people who are actually healthy.

Really? Most of the reasonably healthy eighty to ninety year olds I've met, while not actively seeking to die, often express the opinion that they would rather like to simply die in their sleep before they get carted away from their homes to some 'retirement community' or a hospital bed somewhere.


This I don't understand at all. I don't see what hubris there is in living forever (although honestly I don't understand the whole hubris thing to start with int he general context and whenever I hear the word hubris I'm reminded of this Dresden Codak (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/)) Is it selfish to try to obtain immortality just for yourself? Possibly. But why is it "selfish, and short-sighted" to try to obtain functional immortality for all humans if we can manage it?
It is hubristic in that it is intensely, seethingly arrogant, on top of selfish and short sighted in the extreme.

Ask yourself the following two questions:

1) Do you think having children is something that on the whole makes a person's life better?

2) If/when you have children, do you want them to have as good a life as you have had?

If you answered yes to both of these, and I suspect most people do, than immortality is everything I said it was. The universe is finite, and more importantly the planet we live is very finite with respect to the number of people it can support.

So let's say we can make people immortal. If we make everybody immortal, just to maintain the material quality of life available whenever this occurs, nobody can ever have children. Ever again. Personally, I'd rather face dying someday than never having children, and I strongly suspect that I'm probably in the majority on this one. Such a choice to me stinks of hubris because you are in essence saying that the entire species should stagnate, that there should essentially never be any new ideas or perspectives, merely so you can stick around a bit longer.

Alternatively only some people get to be immortal. I don't think it takes much elaboration to figure out where the hubris and selfishness creeps into this picture. I'd start by considering compound interest, and how badly that's going to screw over the ephemerals, to borrow Heinlein's term, after a couple hundred years or so.

For a third possibility, everybody gets to be immortal, and keeps right on cranking out the kids. If you answered yes to my second question, you are now a hypocrite.

In general immortality strikes me as deeply arrogant, simply because by construction it places such utter importance on the self.

I here discount anything like mass movements of people to other worlds, or somehow being able to feed an arbitrarily large population on Earth. The first option is merely impractical to the extreme, the second is utterly stupid.

[misterk]

Obrysil, you are making the naturalistic fallacy and also failing to understand how natural selection works exactly. Doing something because it occurs in nature not only isn't wise, its demonstrably what we haven't done for the past 20,000 years or so (or however far back we want to date the start of civillisation).

Where I agree with trans-humanism is most attempts are going to be fundementally good. That is, medical science will always attempt to prolong the life of human beings, by getting rid of disease and cancer. Halting the aging process, if possible (and there is no reason to be certain that it isn't possible at this point), would be a good thing- obviously the goal would be to make immortals who were healthy and able to work.

Now such a society of functional immortals (accidental death is unlikely to be eliminated, but we might have something like Peter F Hamilton posits where you have an electronic back up of your brain), would have different problems. I'd definitely recommend some Hamilton for some ideas on what those might be. Many of the problems defined with immortality are lonliness, which is not true for a society made up of them. The grind would be a major one- working for an eternity would be hideous, and the biggest one would be the cementing of inequality- those who lived longest would, in all probability, be best off. Still, in such a world people wouldn't be forced to live, and I imagine those who didn't want to go on could end it for themselves. I expect the impulse would be much less after a few generations, however.

Where I differ from trans-humanists is this belief of death as a great evil. Its not. Its an unfortunate occurence, but our very being is a lucky happenstance, and we should treasure it rather than focusing on our end. Whats more this obsessive need to deal with something that is currently undealable with distracts from day to do- I do believe cryonics is a distraction, and not a healthy one at that.

The reason I don't like trans-humanism in that fic is that it feels imposed, and makes Harry feel EVEN more like an author insert. Simply put, the exact outlook Elizer has is unlikely to be the one all rationalists have, its certainly not one I have, and it just feels a bit cheap. Especially, as I mentioned, altering a dementor so it backs up your particular beliefs. That feels tawdry.

[GM.Casper]

First, note that I’m not exactly a transhumanist. I only recently found out about them. There is a lot of different “schools” of transhumanism. I do find that I happen to agree with a fair share of their statements.

The concept of infinity is difficult to grasp- so how about we use 1 000 years as the benchmark here- if we actually live those 1 000 years we can discuss further.

Note on religion: if one believes in afterlife, the whole discussion is moot since they already expect to get immortality/reincarnation after death. The point is- transhumanists think that the only way to get an “afterlife” is by creating one themselves.

And remember that long live without good health and decent quality of live is rather useless. So of course any proper “ immortality treatment ” should also involve “eternal youth”.


Issues with immortality:

1)Burden on the society: Old folk are a burden because they old and infirm and can’t provide for themselves. Not an issue with immortals.

2)Overpopulation and resource depletion: Those already are major problems that urgently need a solution anyway. I think we will either solve them at least partially or perish before we can develop effective form of immortality. Population control is a viable solution- and one we might have to institute anyway. And such laws are no more likely to bring on some sort “oppressive regime” than any other set of laws and restrictions. Restricting people to 2 kids per family and a minimal age of, say. 50, would keep population grown linear and give us at least a couple of centuries to find a better solution. Space colonization is viable- we haven’t gone to Mars jet because of lack of motivation- there’s is no short or even mid- term profit there and no “Space Race” to motivate us either.
Its only reasonable to get a education and job before you start a family- rather than getting a kid first and then scrabbling to feed an extra mouth. So you are an immortal who wants children (and for them not to quickly die from old age either)? Well, there are no extra resources to allocate to you on Earth. How about you first go colonize Mars and then have them. It’s not as if you are short on time.

3)”Its unnatural”. Well, cavemen were lucky to live past 40. Modern civilization and medicine have already extended our lives. Evolution is blind, slow and inefficient. It does not care about the individual.
We have already supplanted biological evolution with a cultural/technological one. So why should we care that its unnatural if it increases our quality of life? I see no difference between a life extension treatment and antibiotics or vaccination- all of which give you an extra X years of healthy life.

4)Boredom: “Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.” So the quote goes. Well, I don’t have any problem with keeping myself occupied on a rainy afternoon. In fact there is so many things I would like to do, but I know I won’t have time for most of them because my lifespan is limited- and lot of it will be spent just earning a living. 70 years is just plainly not enough.
Ok, maybe after I have read 10 000 books, all the new ones will seem boring- but then I will go mountain climbing, master all martial arts, learn how to draw and paint or compose music or something. There’s so many different things to do.

5)Accumulation of too many memories: A definite problem here. But even if it’s a hard limit on how long a human mind can last, surely its more than just a few measly centuries. There might be possible solutions- if me choose to pursue them in year 3000.

6)Social inequality: Naturally, at first life extension treatments will be expense. So it is today: rich people can afford all kinds of treatments while in Africa people die from lack simple medicine. Is that an argument to stop all medical research? Of course not! Poverty and social inequalities a serious issues that must be solved, immortality or not. And the more research you do, the more people will be able to afford them.

7)Social stagnation: We already have limited terms for politicians. Make those restrictions more stringent and more widespread. Surely, forcing people to retire and pursue some other career is better than killing them off. As for the free market: people will soon notice that companies that keep the same CEO for too long tend to ossify and die. There is already a preference for hiring younger employees today.

8)“Think of the children!” Supposedly, but not dying and making room for the next generation, immortals prevent the existence of hypothetical future children. Well, I would thing people who are already alive are more important than nonexistent hypothetical ones. Sure, don’t pollute the environment- because otherwise people in the future will suffer from it. But preventing hypothetical people from being born in the first place?
Well, think of it like this:
A woman could give birth up to 20 children- but if she decides on a reasonable 3 child family-is she preventing the birth of the other 17 hypothetical children who will now not exist? Children should not be forced to grow up in overpopulated dystopian “Soylent green” world, but neither should the world where they will all suffer from a deadly disease (called “aging”) that could be prevented if the society choose so- just like the “Soylent green” scenario could have been prevented if not for the “I will have a unreasonably large family and damn the future” people.


So do I want live forever? Well, living a 1000 years with an option to extend would be nice. I understand there are people who only want to live only to 60 or 90 or 120 or whatever is considered “natural” thanks to existing sanitation and medicine in a given society, but no one will be forcing them to take the treatments- and there’s always the option simply not taking your next rejuvenation treatment or what have you. But all people should have the freedom to choose either way.

[pffh]

About the space colony thing. Since accidental deaths would still be possible why would you risk YOUR immortal life exploring/colonizing new worlds when some other person can do it? Sure it's easy to take risks when all you're losing is a few decades but we are literally talking about taking some risk that could potentially rob infinity from you.
Would you risk it?

[Selrahc]

About the space colony thing. Since accidental deaths would still be possible why would you risk YOUR immortal life exploring/colonizing new worlds when some other person can do it?

All that deadly mind destroying boredom? If people are going to be so easily bored with existence that they want to die, surely they'd welcome the thrill of space exploration?

Or to put it less flippantly, if people are seriously arguing that immortality is bad thing then there must be a core of people who don't mind risking their immortality.

Or alternatively, if state control of population is brought in then people are going to want to have children that can't. Offer them the chance to have children if they join the space colonies. That was pretty much how it was done in the Ringworld books.

[Eldan]

About the space colony thing. Since accidental deaths would still be possible why would you risk YOUR immortal life exploring/colonizing new worlds when some other person can do it? Sure it's easy to take risks when all you're losing is a few decades but we are literally talking about taking some risk that could potentially rob infinity from you.
Would you risk it?

Yes. Oh god yes. Going to Mars has been on my list of "possibly impossible dreams" as far back as I can remember. I would start training instantly if I heard it was even remotely possible, even though no space agency would ever take me.

[Oslecamo]

Evolution doesn't cause species to cooperate with each other except under rare circumstances and evolution doesn't actually care about individuals. Yudkowsky wrote an essay on this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/).

Ok that's wrong in so many levels I don't know where to start.

You know oxygen? The stuff we breath and is needed to catalyze our energy production?

Created by plants, algaes and certain unicellular beings. Whitout them, animals don't exist, point.

But plants themselves need nitrogen, wich must be processed into the ground by some of the most primitive bacterias in existence.

And then most plants also stablish symbiotic relations with fungi to better extract minerals from the soil.

We ourselves have multiple relations with bacterias inside our bodies.

Heck, there's strong proof that mythocondrias, wich are essential to animal activity, were actualy once independent beings.

And what's a predator whitout prey? It's an being gone extinct. What's a rabbit whitout predators? It's a plague that consumes all local vegetation untill there's nothing else to eat and then dies itself.

Except a few rare cases on the darkest depths of the Earth all species cooperate with other species to a smaller or bigger extenct. The individual may be expendable, but the group is not.

Now on the other matter that certain predictions are more acurate than others, immortality would demand that we:
-Find 100% effective cures to ALL diseases, including the thousands of diferent cancers out there and all possible mutations.
-Understand perfectly how the human brain works so we can improve it (hint: we barely understand what makes it tick right now).
-Find ways to stop cell degeneration on the dozens of organs your average human being has.
-Find out what exactly causes aging and how to stop it.
-Remove the possibility of bad mutation during reproductions
-Eliminate all work risk.
-Make all of the above cheap and affordable to everybody.

So no, not very probable on any nearby or even far away future that we solve all of the above. Our best medicine barely scratches all of the above.
We can stop some diseases and fix some organs, replace most of them if we have a suitable donor, but we can at best slow down aging and plenty of things simply cannot be solved and you get to die slowly and agonizingly unless they fill you with narcotics.

Then we get oil rigs exploding and cars crashing and people simply killing each other. Even if nature doesn't catch them, mankind itself will.

And yes, obsessing oneself with trying to reach immortality when we have plenty of other more urgent troubles to solve it's bad.

[Selrahc]

Ok that's wrong in so many levels I don't know where to start.

Surely you're talking about reliance rather than cooperation? A lion relies on catching prey to survive but it doesn't cooperate with them. It's a competitive relationship rather than a collaborative one.



but we can at best slow down aging

Yeah,, so maybe instead of immortality we just talk about longevity?

[JoshuaZ]

Everyone who is arguing, please read this (http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death.html).


Yes, I'm familiar with that essay. Pretty much everything in that essay isn't terribly relevant because it works off the assumption of a single immortal rather than a population of immortals.

Population growth issues which you bring up have also already been discussed earlier in this thread.



Also, you are correct that evolution doesn't care about the individual. That's because anyone who focuses only on bettering himself/herself is being incredibly selfish and narcissistic.

No. Evolution doesn't care about abstract concepts like selfishness. Evolution simply is. Evolution doesn't care about individuals because selection occurs at a gene level. Evolution has no goals of betterment. Genes which are more likely to be passed on become more common even if they make the situation unpleasant for others (there's a lot of fascinating game theory related to this. See for example the class hawk/dove models)


Really? Most of the reasonably healthy eighty to ninety year olds I've met, while not actively seeking to die, often express the opinion that they would rather like to simply die in their sleep before they get carted away from their homes to some 'retirement community' or a hospital bed somewhere.

Right, because they don't want to get sick. Given the choice between getting unhealthy and dying they choose dying. That's exactly what I'm arguing. Given the choice between being healthy indefinitely, they don't want to die. The transhumanist model of functional immortality doesn't have sick, aging immortals.


It is hubristic in that it is intensely, seethingly arrogant, on top of selfish and short sighted in the extreme.

I don't see the arrogance, and selfish and short-sightedness (even if they were true) don't have to do with hubris.



1) Do you think having children is something that on the whole makes a person's life better?

Varies by person. But there's a fair bit of evidence that the answer is no. There's a lot of evidence (http://www.newsweek.com/2008/06/28/having-kids-makes-you-happy.html) that people with children are generally unhappier than people without.



If you answered yes to both of these, and I suspect most people do, than immortality is everything I said it was. The universe is finite, and more importantly the planet we live is very finite with respect to the number of people it can support.

We can spread to other planets. That's in fact part of what was being discussed. As to whether the universe is finite- that's far from clear. That's a very complicated question whose answer depends on among other things what form of inflationary model you use for the early universe.



I here discount anything like mass movements of people to other worlds, or somehow being able to feed an arbitrarily large population on Earth. The first option is merely impractical to the extreme, the second is utterly stupid.

Well, the question becomes very much what the long-term practicality is of moving people to other planets. I agree that for a while, probably for the remainder of our lifetimes, moving people to other planets will not be practical. But that's not an argument for indefinite impracticality. If for example we develop space elevator technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) movement into space will be orders of magnitude cheaper, and there are other potential options as well, such as skyhooks and launch loops.


Ok that's wrong in so many levels I don't know where to start.

You could take an ev bio course. Most of what he said in that essay is pretty standard stuff you'd learn in a college level ev-bio class. Having interconected evolved systems is not the same thing as cooperation. Complicated systems can arise from slow evolution even when none are actively trying to cooperate with each other.

[SaintRidley]

There's of course also the not at all small issue that even if some people would genuinely want to die when they are old but otherwise completely healthy, that doesn't mean the rest of us want to die at that point. So, if you want to die at some point, good for you. Why then impose your view on everyone else?

It may help if you take a moment to understand that you are conflating wanting to die with being okay with dying.

If someone says they'd be happy to make it to 80 and bow out after that because they'll have had enough time to accomplish the things they'd like to do, that is not a statement that they want to die after they turn 80. It's a statement that they would be okay with it. There is a vast difference.

[JoshuaZ]

It may help if you take a moment to understand that you are conflating wanting to die with being okay with dying.

If someone says they'd be happy to make it to 80 and bow out after that because they'll have had enough time to accomplish the things they'd like to do, that is not a statement that they want to die after they turn 80. It's a statement that they would be okay with it. There is a vast difference.

I was replying to the following:


Really? Most of the reasonably healthy eighty to ninety year olds I've met, while not actively seeking to die, often express the opinion that they would rather like to simply die in their sleep before they get carted away from their homes to some 'retirement community' or a hospital bed somewhere.

So your point, while in general correct (that there's a distinction between wanting to die and being ok with dying) is not very relevant in this context.

[Aharon]

I don't quite get the naysayers. I'm not a transhumanist, nor do I believe that all they claim will be possible within our lifetime (see the saturday morning cartoon JoshuaZ posted), but the goals are just an extension of what we already strive for, aren't they?

We want to have healthy, long, fulfilling lives. What the transhumanists want isn't that much more, and if the problems related to their wishes can be solved, why not?

I think the problem is there are different assumptions in this discussion. JoshuaZ, and most of the transhumanists in it, seem to argue from the standpoint that immortality will be achieved and all problems related to it (malthusian explosion, health issues, societal issues) will be solved alongside it (in fact, I think Yudkowsky proposes that a strong FAI will provide the solutions).

The Non-Transhumanist side assumes those things aren't possible, and thinks immortality would be bad because of that.

I think in a meaningful discussion, we should ask the following questions:
For Non-Transhumanists:
If the assumptions Transhumanists make were correct, would you still have any issues with immortality? If so, what would they be?
For Transhumanists:
If immortality were possible, but related problems (health issues, societal issues etc.) can't be solved at all or for a long time (say, something like 2000 years), would you still think immortality is a desirable goal?

Oh, and by the way, I am Yudkowsky. Ok, you didn't believe that, did you?

[Prime32]

The Non-Transhumanist side assumes those things aren't possibleMy issue is that we can't possibly know whether those things are possible or not. Transhumanism is a matter of faith, but it seems like it's being represented as part of science.

[JoshuaZ]

My issue is that we can't possibly know whether those things are possible or not. Transhumanism is a matter of faith, but it seems like it's being represented as part of science.

It isn't a matter of faith. It is an argument of the form "This would be really nice. Here are plausible argument for why this might be doable so we should strive for the following list of goals." There's no faith in any part of that.

As I've said earlier, I disagree with a lot of transhumanists and don't self-identify as one. But labeling transhumanism as a cult or as faith based simply isn't justified.

Edit:


For Transhumanists:
If immortality were possible, but related problems (health issues, societal issues etc.) can't be solved at all or for a long time (say, something like 2000 years), would you still think immortality is a desirable goal?



Well, not a transhumanist but the person arguing most for their position, I'd say that potentially yes, but it depends. And since there may be other options (such as cryonic preservation at death), I'm going to go with probably not because there are other priorities. However, at the same time, keep in mind that research into medicine in general puts us on the path to functional immortality. One of the problems with transhumanism is that in the short run (next 30 years or so) most versions of it don't give us very different sets of behavior or rules for research resource allocation, so there's a bit of a "so what?" attached (there are obviously some exceptions such as Yudkowsky's interest in strong FAI, but frankly, I think that's a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.)

[Prime32]

It isn't a matter of faith. It is an argument of the form "This would be really nice. Here are plausible argument for why this might be doable so we should strive for the following list of goals." There's no faith in any part of that.Yes, "we should strive for immortality" is not a matter of faith. However, "we will achieve immortality" is, since it can't be proven or disproven.

[Aharon]

Do the THs actually do that? It's unfortunate the most vocal defender of TH in this thread isn't a TH himself :smallwink:

[Eldan]

No, I am Spartacus Yudkovsky!

The goals of transhumanism are ideals to work towards. It's an utopian state they strive for. A potential goal that could come about if science ever progresses to a sufficient state. Sufficient as in "indistinguishable from magic", really, if you read some of the more utopian essays.

Does that mean it's a bad idea? Medical research, new forms of energy, solving the food and water crises are all part of it. They are all needed to eventually get close to that perfect goal. And even if we never reach it in the next thousand years, medical science can still do a lot of good on the way. We need new sources of energy in any case. Our environment will be screwed up. Look at some projections.
Even if we reduced population growth to zero immediately, demographic momentum means we still have a lot of problems. I've read an article projecting some of the potential problems if china reaches the same standard of living as Western Europe or even the US. 200 million new houses to shelter smaller families. They would eat more beef than there is in the world. And so on.
We have problems. Transhumanism is an ideology which works towards solving them. That's good enough for me, whether or not the end goals are possible.

[Prime32]

Do the THs actually do that? It's unfortunate the most vocal defender of TH in this thread isn't a TH himself :smallwink:It's a personal thing, not an organisation.

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, "we should strive for immortality" is not a matter of faith. However, "we will achieve immortality" is, since it can't be proven or disproven.

Proof is just for math and alcohol. In other areas we just have different degrees of evidence. We can't determine if we'll go to Mars either but if I said "we'll go to Mars in the next 100 years" it wouldn't be labeled a faith claim. Or to use a more concrete, short-term example, I can't prove that we'll have 40 terabyte hard drives within a decade. Asserting we will is not the same thing as having faith.

[misterk]

This argument is pretty fragmentary. My personal take is to not be bothered by transhumanism in the abstract, but find its imposition in the fic to the point of altering the dementors deeply distracting, and not terribly rational either.

So, anti-transhumanists.. what bothers you here? When someone expresses a belief that something is true that tends to be because they think its likely. Your goal here is to show its less likely than they think, or that its not a desirable goal?

Heres the thing. If something is scientifically possible, humans will probably do it. Especially if it extends their life. We are spending a not insignificant (although never enough) portion of our endeavours trying to understand the universe and better our existence within it. If humanity doesn't burn itself out, with civillisation collapsing, then we're going to increase our understanding. Is there any reason to suppose that we won't be able to drastically increase human lifespans? We can clone humans right now, although not very succesfully, and given enough electronic advancement and understanding of the human brain, perhaps we will be able to store personalities. Effective immortality. Its not certain, as many things could stop us reaching that point, but it certainly seems likely to me that we will continue to extend human lifespans if society manages to hold intact.

Whats more, if we develop the technology, we will end up using it. I can guarentee that too. So talks of whether or not its a good idea are, perhaps moot- if it can happen, it probably will happen, and thus thinking about how society might need to be structured is probably a good idea.

[Math_Mage]

There's no chain of being. The great chain of being is a 19th century idea that doesn't exist in modern biology. But yes, we do know better. Evolution is short-sighted. Sometimes species can even evolve to extinction due to some very ill-behaved genes (http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/6/363.extract). In other cases, a virus or other disease can wipe a species out with little warning. Look at what is happening to the Tasmanian devils. Evolution isn't very bright at all. Evolution is short-sighted but has lots of time on its hands so it occasionally stumbles on interesting stuff. Evolution doesn't cause species to cooperate with each other except under rare circumstances and evolution doesn't actually care about individuals. Yudkowsky wrote an essay on this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/).

I'll agree with just about everything you wrote here except the one thing that, oddly enough, isn't actually discussed in Yudkowsky's essay, which is interspecies cooperation. Evolution doesn't 'cause' this only to the extent that evolution is not an active causative force to begin with. In nature, you get evolution producing and reinforcing commensal, mutual, and symbiotic relationships all the time.

[Somas]

The irony here is almost too much.

You say I cannot divine someone's motives with a single glance, that my thought that it is a massive circle-jerk is wrong; you then say that you can divine that person's motive with the same material I have - hypocrisy much?
I have a LOT more material here. I've been reading lesswrong for a while now and have seen a hundreds of Eliezer's posts.


Why do you defend this work so much?
To an extent I sympathize with Eliezer's goals.


Ahh, you must be the author. Nice to meet you - care to answer a few questions?
Hehehehe...
I was hoping I'd be accused of this. :smallamused:
I've sent you a PM via e-mail with an e-mail address tied to my real life identity via my university. Feel free to send me something there so I can confirm that I'm not a sockpuppet. :smallamused:

I'll edit in more replies to this post after I've finished looking at the rest of this largish thread.

[Eldan]

Ahaha, but!

Yudkovsky could be an alias you have. Or you could be using a friend as your false identity.

Stop stealing my tin foil hats, Eliezer.

[Fiery Diamond]

Wow. So, I just wasted several hours reading the rest (pages 3-7) of this thread, just as I wasted 15+ hours reading the entirety of the fanfiction that this thread was originally about. Both achieved nothing but lost time and a sense that people are dumb, as a general group. Not that any of you specifically (or the author) are dumb, just that all put together, this seems rather ... not-striving-toward-an-intelligent-goal.

Firstly, I will address the more recent discussion by saying:
-I don't think immortality is a worthy goal
-I think that the fanfiction's discussion about life, death, immortality, and souls was irritating and angering
-I fail to see the difference between philosophy-as-life-view (such as transhumanwhatsit) and religion. Philosophy as the study of ways of thinking is different, philosophy as view of life is identical to religion. A religion doesn't have to involve a deity. Therefore, I think that transhumanism is something which should cease being discussed.
-

Proof is just for math and alcohol. In other areas we just have different degrees of evidence. We can't determine if we'll go to Mars either but if I said "we'll go to Mars in the next 100 years" it wouldn't be labeled a faith claim. Or to use a more concrete, short-term example, I can't prove that we'll have 40 terabyte hard drives within a decade. Asserting we will is not the same thing as having faith.

Yes it is. I would claim that that is faith. If you assert a prediction as being true, and you actually believe that is true, then you have faith that it is true unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. And I mean overwhelming in the sense that I would say it isn't faith to say "the Earth will continue to rotate such that the time period we call tomorrow will come into existence."






And now, back to the original and much less incendiary topic (though still not completely fireproof).

I read the entirety of that fanfiction, primarily because in the early chapters there were some amusing things and then it was like a train wreck I couldn't look away from, sprinkled with just enough good things to keep me from throwing in the towel before I reached the end. I will not go back to see if it has updated.

Here are my thoughts on the story:

-It is so completely inconsistent with canon as to be mildly offensive (Weasley rat, Black/Pettigrew, Sorting Hat, Atlantis/Source of Magic, basically having mana points drained away for using magic, Dumbledore isn't the one who gave Harry the cloak)
-The characters are inconsistent with canon. The only characters who act even remotely like their canon counterparts are: McGonnagal (I probably misspelled that but I'm too lazy to look) and Fred&George. All of the others have been changed radically. THIS IS A BAD THING.
-The Dementor thing was just stupid.
-The author has NO IDEA how humans act. Harry acts like an egotistical, foolish, college-age brat who thinks he is sooo smart: and this is treated primarily as a good thing with only occasional "okay, so Harry makes mistakes" from the author. NONE of the 11 year olds act like they are 11. Some of them act like teens, some like adults, and some like aliens without human psychology. This also goes for the adult characters: the blackmail of Snape/Dumbledore would NEVER work like that in real life. In fact, it seems that the author only identifies with the evil fanatics of the story, based on how "reasonable" the characters are presented as being: Quirrell and Harry. Yes, I classify Harry as evil, deluding himself into thinking that he is good. Look to the battles and generals bits for examples of how real kids do not think. Actually, read any part of the story for that.
-It is an Author Tract. This is completely obvious. It is also, while sometimes informative (I have learned a few things), infuriating. In the vast majority of cases, Author Tracts are bad things. This is not an exception.
-What with the changes to the characters and setting, this doesn't really resemble a fanfiction of Rowling's works at all. I can't think of the trope, but isn't there a trope about fanfictions that basically just borrow names in order to appear to be fanfictions rather than crappy original works? This isn't quite that bad, but it is close.
-Some parts were too dark for me: Quirrell killing Rita Skeeter.

All that said, there were a few positives.

-In places, it was funny. "What part of 'getting yourself fitted for robes' sounded like 'cast a confundus charm on the entire world?'" "For Chaos!"
-In places, it was thought-provoking. Such as stable time loops.
-In places, there were things that just stuck out to me. "Don't mess with time."
-In places, the character interactions were interesting, despite being completely unrealistic.
-Unexplained parts of the plot were intriguing, and I wanted to find out about them. I didn't, as they were never explained. For example... who warned him against Dumbledore? Who sent the cloak? Who messed with Zabini? Who helped the twins with the prank? Are they all the same person? Are they someone from a parallel universe, such as canon-verse?
-The syntax was good.







And finally...my judgment.

1) It is not in the top tier of fanfiction, but it is not in the bottom tier either. It is somewhere in the middle, slightly better than average.
2) It is not worthy of being compared to published works, except for things like Twilight or similarly just plain bad things.
3) There are fanfictions that are worthy of being compared to published works, and I think that there are fanfictions that are better than the vast majority of published works. These are extremely rare. This one is not one of them.

[The Glyphstone]

Ahaha, but!

Yudkovsky could be an alias you have. Or you could be using a friend as your false identity.

Stop stealing my tin foil hats, Eliezer.

Want to borrow mine? I'm suspecting Obrysii of actually being the author, fishing on GitP for compliments regarding 'his' fanfiction by playing devil's advocate.:smallbiggrin::smallsmile::smallcool:

[kamikasei]

The "inconsistent with canon" thing baffles me. Yes. It changes things. Some big things, many little things.

...So? Why is this a bad thing for it to do?

It doesn't present itself as a simulation of what would happen if you took the canon Potterverse and made this change and this. It's not as if the details it's tweaked are somehow out to disprove Rowling. I just don't get it.

Maybe it only works for a particular sort of personality that's less common that I'd realized. I know that when I'm reading fiction, most especially of the speculative sort, I have an inner monologue running that picks apart inconsistencies and gets annoyed when people do things that aren't quite justified by what's been established. I know that I'm not the only one who does this, because I enjoy talking to other fans of various works (including Potter) and working out theories of varying elaboration for how things really work that would explain the inconsistencies that we know damn well are narrative contrivance or simple plot holes, because it's fun to do so. And reading a fic which does this as a whole, while its main character is doing it in universe, is fun for me. Simple as that.

I can understand why people wouldn't find this entertaining, but I don't get the attitude that it's bad and wrong.

Oh yes, and I'm Eliezer Yudkowsky and so's my wife.

[JoshuaZ]

-I think that the fanfiction's discussion about life, death, immortality, and souls was irritating and angering

Ok. This I want to understand. Why was it "irritating and angering"?



-I fail to see the difference between philosophy-as-life-view (such as transhumanwhatsit) and religion. Philosophy as the study of ways of thinking is different, philosophy as view of life is identical to religion. A religion doesn't have to involve a deity. Therefore, I think that transhumanism is something which should cease being discussed.

Ignoring for the moment that the mods don't apparently think this, I'm curious as to how you distinguish between philosophy as a study of ways of thinking and philosophy as a view of life. Can we discuss utilitarianism in your view? What if people were only discussing individual aspects of common transhumanism motifs such as "death is bad" or "genetic modification is something that should be explored to remove some bad alleles from the human population" or "cyborg enhances are cool"? What combinations become a view of life rather than just a minor part of philosophy?



Yes it is. I would claim that that is faith. If you assert a prediction as being true, and you actually believe that is true, then you have faith that it is true unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. And I mean overwhelming in the sense that I would say it isn't faith to say "the Earth will continue to rotate such that the time period we call tomorrow will come into existence."

This is not at all a standard definition of the term faith and isn't particularly useful in communicating it. Designating this as faith_FD (FD for Fiery Diamond), I have to ask where the dividing line is. Does it take to faith_FD make that claim for instead of tomorrow the next 5 days? What about the next 100 days? The next 10^6 days? How do you tell what is faith_FD and what has overwhelming evidence. I'm also curious as to whether you think it matters if someone says "I'm pretty certain that X" or "I'm estimate probability P that X"- are such claims also faith_FD?

[Prime32]

Ignoring for the moment that the mods don't apparently think this, I'm curious as to how you distinguish between philosophy as a study of ways of thinking and philosophy as a view of life. Can we discuss utilitarianism in your view? What if people were only discussing individual aspects of common transhumanism motifs such as "death is bad" or "genetic modification is something that should be explored to remove some bad alleles from the human population" or "cyborg enhances are cool"? What combinations become a view of life rather than just a minor part of philosophy?I was under the impression that we're primarily supposed to avoid organised religion and things which stand opposed to organised religion. Transhumanism does not appear to be incompatible with most faiths.

[Math_Mage]

The "inconsistent with canon" thing baffles me. Yes. It changes things. Some big things, many little things.

...So? Why is this a bad thing for it to do?

It doesn't present itself as a simulation of what would happen if you took the canon Potterverse and made this change and this. It's not as if the details it's tweaked are somehow out to disprove Rowling. I just don't get it.

Maybe it only works for a particular sort of personality that's less common that I'd realized. I know that when I'm reading fiction, most especially of the speculative sort, I have an inner monologue running that picks apart inconsistencies and gets annoyed when people do things that aren't quite justified by what's been established. I know that I'm not the only one who does this, because I enjoy talking to other fans of various works (including Potter) and working out theories of varying elaboration for how things really work that would explain the inconsistencies that we know damn well are narrative contrivance or simple plot holes, because it's fun to do so. And reading a fic which does this as a whole, while its main character is doing it in universe, is fun for me. Simple as that.

I can understand why people wouldn't find this entertaining, but I don't get the attitude that it's bad and wrong.

Oh yes, and I'm Eliezer Yudkowsky and so's my wife.

There's consistency with canon and there's consistency with canon. Lampshading inconsistencies within canon? Fine. Changing half the cast to the degree that only the name ties canon to fanfic? Well...what's the point of keeping the names, then? Why not write a separate story with your personalities and your names, in-universe, rather than appropriating the author's characters and slapping your own personalities on them?

[Obrysii]

There's consistency with canon and there's consistency with canon. Lampshading inconsistencies within canon? Fine. Changing half the cast to the degree that only the name ties canon to fanfic? Well...what's the point of keeping the names, then? Why not write a separate story with your personalities and your names, in-universe, rather than appropriating the author's characters and slapping your own personalities on them?

You say it very well. This isn't really a harry potter fan fiction as it is an entirely different story.

And I agree - change the names and the story becomes modestly OK - but if you're going to keep pretending it's actually Harry Potter ... yeah.

[warty goblin]

W
-The author has NO IDEA how humans act. Harry acts like an egotistical, foolish, college-age brat who thinks he is sooo smart: and this is treated primarily as a good thing with only occasional "okay, so Harry makes mistakes" from the author.

Emphasis mine, and I noticed this after only reading through the first seven or so chapters. Seriously, Harry reminds me of a truly insufferable person I used to sit near in a philosophy class, who was absolutely convinced that because he could do real analysis, everything else is so trivial as to be nearly beneath notice. Both of them were egotistical asshats whom I felt very little compulsion to spend any more time around then necessary.

[Fiery Diamond]

I concur with what Math Mage and Obrysii said on this page.

Regarding the questions asked of me: I cannot answer everything, as that would require me to expound on how my religious beliefs interact with the very essence of the way I perceive reality, and thus wouldn't be acceptable on this forum.

Example of thing I can't answer: why the HPMR death/soul/immortality thing irritated and angered me.


Regarding the things I can answer:

Actually, I think that "I estimate probability P of X" is a much more accurate and much less faith-based way of saying things. Saying "I'm fairly certain of X" is merely shorthand for saying "I estimate a very high probability of X, but the precise probability I don't really know how I'd go about determining," or potentially "I suspect the probability of X occurring is close to 100%." Saying "X will happen" says "There is 100% probability of X occurring, and those who disagree are wrong." Which is not at all the same thing as "I estimate close to 100% probability of X based on the facts I know."

In general, the further into the future the predicted occurrence, the more FD_faith (as you put it) it takes to state a prediction with certainty. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have in our human power the ability to stop the earth from rotating, and we have not detected anything which might cause the earth to cease rotating. So, given certain assumptions - such as technology and scientific understanding continuing to progress similar to the way it currently does, with jumps and changes such as we have had in the past century, and aliens with advanced technology not coming to the solar system, and the universe not spontaneously ceasing to exist - we can reasonably predict that the Earth with keep rotating for a significant period of time. How long that period might be I'd have to ask the scientists who deal with planets and stars and solar systems and so forth, since I'm not particularly well-informed. However, I do note that in order to have that reliable prediction, we do take into account certain assumptions. In general, the more assumptions required, the less certain the prediction will be. For example, I know some people who believe that the world will suffer nuclear holocaust within the next ten years. If our assumption that this won't happen is false, much of our predictions about future scientific successes will obviously not come to pass. Since the further into the future we talk about, the higher the likelihood of something happening to violate our assumptions becomes, the less certain we should be of our assumptions. Assumptions based on the physics continuing to do its thing are generally safer than assumptions that humans will continue to happily advance.

As far as "how much does it take before it becomes a view of life"...well, I'd venture that that would depend on not just the subject matter, but the individuals discussing the subject matter. See my point above about how my religious beliefs influence the essence of how I view reality. If someone were to say "Cyborg enhancements are cool" and proceed to talk about why they thought such enhancements were interesting and potentially useful, that would probably not be view-of-life. IF, however, someone said "Cyborg enhancements are obviously beneficial for reasons X,Y,Z and therefore we should definitely spend resources advancing them and making them practical: it is a reasonable and good goal that would should strive to achieve. I think that those who do not hold this view are wrong." I would be inclined to say that this was indeed view-of-life. The more aspects you combine together into a single philosophical entity, the greater the likelihood of its proponents being so strongly attached and influenced by it; and even if those discussing it are third party members, so long as they purport to be expressing the views of those who do adhere to that philosophy, there is great potential for clashing of belief.

*Disclaimer: the above is entirely and purely my perspective and is obviously not shared by everyone. However, since I tend to hold my own perspectives (obviously), this is the angle I'm coming from.

[kamikasei]

You say it very well. This isn't really a harry potter fan fiction as it is an entirely different story.
Okay, I guess I see what the objection is, it just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand why you'd draw such a line around what's allowed to count as fan fiction.

[bue52]

Okay, I guess I see what the objection is, it just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand why you'd draw such a line around what's allowed to count as fan fiction.

Because names give certain impressions, and for fan fiction, the distinction between it and whatever else that is on the net IS the fact that it takes aspects of another person's original fiction and then using that basis to make a story. By claiming to be a HP fanfic, Less wrong(I apologise for not being able to properly spell his name) is setting certain expectations for readers, and instead of delivering what he claims to be by writing it under the premise of a Harry Potter fanfic we get a Harry Potter who is NOT anything like the Harry that we know. Nor do we get few resemblances to Rowling's original fiction, so people feel cheated.

Also fanfics are also a kind of way to express the love for another author's work, so to a degree Less Wrong has misused the spirit of a fanfic.

[kamikasei]

Because names give certain impressions, and for fan fiction, the distinction between it and whatever else that is on the net IS the fact that it takes aspects of another person's original fiction and then using that basis to make a story.
Which this story clearly does. It's quite up-front about what it's doing. I don't see how it makes sense to call this anything other than fan fiction and if people are annoyed that it's not quite what they expected I dare say they ought to relax their preconceptions a bit. As to "expressing love for another author's work", affection for the HP series pretty much radiates off the fic as far as I can see.

The concept of a "re-imagining" is hardly a new one. I know of a bunch of tie-in manga for popular series, for example, which take some aspects of the core premise or story and transplant them in to a different setting or context, changing a lot about characters and other details along the way. Neil Gaiman wrote A Study In Emerald, a short story that put a Sherlock Holmes mystery in the context of the Cthulhu Mythos. I would say all of these changed at least as much as this fic does, but it would seem ridiculous to me to suggest that they shouldn't use the names from the original works because they're too different. They're derivative works and the derivation is a large part of the point. I doubt the story would have fewer detractors if it was about Larry Cotter and his time at Pigboils.

Incidentally, if you feel the need to disclaim your inability to spell the author's name, you could always just copy and paste it from earlier in the thread.

[misterk]

Which this story clearly does. It's quite up-front about what it's doing. I don't see how it makes sense to call this anything other than fan fiction and if people are annoyed that it's not quite what they expected I dare say they ought to relax their preconceptions a bit. As to "expressing love for another author's work", affection for the HP series pretty much radiates off the fic as far as I can see.

The concept of a "re-imagining" is hardly a new one. I know of a bunch of tie-in manga for popular series, for example, which take some aspects of the core premise or story and transplant them in to a different setting or context, changing a lot about characters and other details along the way. Neil Gaiman wrote A Study In Emerald, a short story that put a Sherlock Holmes mystery in the context of the Cthulhu Mythos. I would say all of these changed at least as much as this fic does, but it would seem ridiculous to me to suggest that they shouldn't use the names from the original works because they're too different. They're derivative works and the derivation is a large part of the point. I doubt the story would have fewer detractors if it was about Larry Cotter and his time at Pigboils.

Incidentally, if you feel the need to disclaim your inability to spell the author's name, you could always just copy and paste it from earlier in the thread.

My issue is that the fic does not know what it wants to be

-pointing out weird plot holes and lack of rationality
-telling an epic story
-creating an alternate universe
-"fixing" canon

It tries to do all at once, and as a result is tonally all over the place. Also, some complaints are about a lack of characterisation- so someone acting unlike their canon version for no reason doesn't make much sense without explanation. For example, we are happy to accept altered Quirrel, but maybe not altered Dumbledore. One is necessary, the other seems to be forced in.

On changing certain aspects in canon- there appear to be two reasons Elizer changes things from canon.

1-to make them more consistent
2-to make them fit his plot

#2 is why transfiguration was changed. It feels like #1 was why the dementor was changed. Heres my issue with that

making the dementor death is clearly contradicting canon, despite what the author says. Indeed, the author's note is rather informative in that his obsession with death is what informs his beliefs on dementors. My main issue though is that it, if anything, makes the world less rational.

Lets suppose the Atlantis hypothesis is true (this seems to be what Harry is currently doing. Whether he's right or not is unclear, but he reaches the apparently correct solution by doing so). So in the past humans created the source of magic, which mages, presumably genetically related to atlantis citizens, or simply having the gene.

Now, there exist some magical creatures. We might suppose they've been affected by the same source of magic- either by direct contact or having the same genetic affinity. This has led to all number of creatures.

We are apparently to believe that the dementor, being created by the source of magic, is the personification of death. Human death. A scar left on the world... by the source? Uh? And it can be defeated by telling it that ONE DAY DEATH WON'T EXIST ANYMORE. WHAT???

On a similar note, Harry has used his magical powers of rationality in irrational ways before- see partial transfiguration when apparently he has to think of the particles at a quantum level. Thinking at a molecular one wasn't enough... because... well... theres no reason given, and one suspects thats because the author didn't think very hard about it.

[bue52]

Which this story clearly does. It's quite up-front about what it's doing. I don't see how it makes sense to call this anything other than fan fiction and if people are annoyed that it's not quite what they expected I dare say they ought to relax their preconceptions a bit.


I'm not too sure about that, I would have agreed with you for the first few chapters, but when we started going into the Sorting, we start seeing Yudkovsky adding new information that was never hinted at, such as the sorting hat obtaining sentience after Harry just thinking about it. You can argue that even that event is a parody, but I see this as the start of the slippery slope where Yudkovsky starts to add more and more original ideas into the fiction, and changing other aspects of the Potter Universe to serve his needs.

I think there is a degree where one can say that a fanfic is parodying the HP series, and another is to take it too far. I think what everyone is pissed about with regards to it having already gone beyond the initial Harry Potter universe and not only expanded the traits of the Potter universe, but also changed some traits of it. And at the same time also changing quite abit of the other characters, be it their personality, mental aptitude or principles. There is only so much you can change before its simply not like the original source material.



The concept of a "re-imagining" is hardly a new one. I know of a bunch of tie-in manga for popular series, for example, which take some aspects of the core premise or story and transplant them in to a different setting or context, changing a lot about characters and other details along the way. Neil Gaiman wrote A Study In Emerald, a short story that put a Sherlock Holmes mystery in the context of the Cthulhu Mythos. I would say all of these changed at least as much as this fic does, but it would seem ridiculous to me to suggest that they shouldn't use the names from the original works because they're too different. They're derivative works and the derivation is a large part of the point. I doubt the story would have fewer detractors if it was about Larry Cotter and his time at Pigboils.


The first few chapters where pretty decent, and I could see the parody in the fiction, but as Yudkovsky continued, he expanded his fiction into his own version of the Harry Potter universe, shifting some attributes of the Potter universe. These is usually identifiable traits that if to be considered as a re-imagined work would be paying homage to. I think the recent chapters have since digressed much from that initial stage where we can still identify the premise as the world of Harry Potter to one that to a lot of people is simply borrowing the name of Harry Potter.

Also, with regards to the 'A Study In Emerald', I've not read the story so I cannot comment about it. But what I can say is that if I were to describe 'Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality' I wouldn't simply say this is Harry Potter rationalising the world of Harry Potter. The story has detracted from that universe by changing the way the world works, and not just that but the way Harry thinks, its one thing to say Harry believes in the Scientific Method and then create a story where he goes on to use it to "solve" the mysteries of the magical world. Its another to have a Harry who is overly confident, Dementors who are symbols of death rather than fear, Malfoy being a manipulative chessmaster and Hermione having memory skills that are the level of a genius savant and STILL be able to function as a normal human being.



As to "expressing love for another author's work", affection for the HP series pretty much radiates off the fic as far as I can see.

Please do not take this as a challenge but I'd like to know where you see that, you can send a pm so there won't be anymore detractions from the thread.


P.S.: While they may be as many detractors if the fanfic was posted as an original pic ' Larry Cotter and his time at Pig Bolis' it would bring a different crowd of detractors, by posting it as a HP fanfic he will target a specific niche of audience, and that would change the expectations that the readers would have of his work.

[kamikasei]

*snip*
I don't see how any of that means it ceases to be a fanfic, but it looks like that's a fundamental disagreement not worth hashing out further.

Please do not take this as a challenge but I'd like to know where you see that, you can send a pm so there won't be anymore detractions from the thread.
Seems perfectly on topic to me and I'm quite happy for it to be a "challenge", whatever that means. Where do I see that? Well, the fact that he's written a lengthy fic (partly) poking fun at a canon he clearly knows well is a good start. I have no full textual analysis complete with graphs and clip art to show that Yudkowsky pings closer to Love than to Fear, but my impression throughout has been that he read the books, liked the books, and wrote this because of that. This is the sort of thing one does with canons one likes, not that one loathes.

P.S.: While they may be as many detractors if the fanfic was posted as an original pic ' Larry Cotter and his time at Pig Bolis' it would bring a different crowd of detractors, by posting it as a HP fanfic he will target a specific niche of audience, and that would change the expectations that the readers would have of his work.
My point is that now he's being criticised for changing too much and keeping the names, but if he'd changed the names he'd likely be equally criticised for being too derivative. Nor do I really believe that it would shield him from criticisms that his totally original characters don't act enough like the canon characters they're not based on at all, honest.

[bue52]

Seems perfectly on topic to me and I'm quite happy for it to be a "challenge", whatever that means. Where do I see that? Well, the fact that he's written a lengthy fic (partly) poking fun at a canon he clearly knows well is a good start. I have no full textual analysis complete with graphs and clip art to show that Yudkowsky pings closer to Love than to Fear, but my impression throughout has been that he read the books, liked the books, and wrote this because of that. This is the sort of thing one does with canons one likes, not that one loathes.

I think where we disagree is at the part where we deem as Canon and the degree of parody, I'd agree with you with the first few chapters, especially with Malfoy and the exchange-rates idea. But not so much with the latter chapters. I think when he changed things such as the way transfiguration works to better fit his story, the story is moving away from its parody aspect.

The other thing I disagree with is with the tone of which he pokes fun of the Potter universe, the way he pokes fun of the Potter universe doesn't seem quite light hearted, one example is the way Harry starts rambling on about a scientific theory that contradicts the magic he just saw. I think he can achieve the same effect by stating the name of the theory and then having someone, say his father shut him up before he can continue the rant. This achieves Yudkowsky's goal of sharing his knowledge of these theories and also creating a comedic effect, parodying Harry Potter. If he needs to explain certain concepts for people to get the joke or parody then he ought to do so in layman terms and not bombard the readers with an academic definition of what he is talking about. It's not an easy task but its one that I think would make the fiction better.




My point is that now he's being criticised for changing too much and keeping the names, but if he'd changed the names he'd likely be equally criticised for being too derivative. Nor do I really believe that it would shield him from criticisms that his totally original characters don't act enough like the canon characters they're not based on at all, honest.

I think what everyone else is saying is that if he changed the names and the title for that matter, the reader's expectations would be different. They would be following the story of a young boy who advocates Rationalism and his journey through his discovery of a fantastical world that is running contradictory to all he was led to believe. And not, a boy who claims to be Harry Potter, and deconstructs a magical universe that appears to be the universe Rowling created and at the same time not the same.

Also, he'd be targeting a different group of readers not Harry Potter fanfiction enthusiasts.

[kamikasei]

I think when he changed things such as the way transfiguration works to better fit his story, the story is moving away from its parody aspect.
Yes. But I don't think it was ever supposed to be or presented as simply parody.

The other thing I disagree with is with the tone of which he pokes fun of the Potter universe, the way he pokes fun of the Potter universe doesn't seem quite light hearted, one example is the way Harry starts rambling on about a scientific theory that contradicts the magic he just saw.
I'm not sure what you're countering here. It's not affectionate because it includes explanations of its subject matter instead of just name drops? Or it's not fanfic because instead of MST3King the canon in a commentary track it inserts that discussion in to the narrative?

I think what everyone else is saying is that if he changed the names and the title for that matter, the reader's expectations would be different. They would be following the story of a young boy who advocates Rationalism and his journey through his discovery of a fantastical world that is running contradictory to all he was led to believe. And not, a boy who claims to be Harry Potter, and deconstructs a magical universe that appears to be the universe Rowling created and at the same time not the same.

Also, he'd be targeting a different group of readers not Harry Potter fanfiction enthusiasts.
I think you may be misunderstanding me. You really think that if he had made the story about Larry Cotter and Pigboils that it wouldn't be quite obvious that it was based on Harry Potter and wouldn't be criticized first for being a parody that mangles the canon it caricatures and then for being disrespectfully transparent about it?

At this point it looks like a psychological difference between myself and "Harry Potter fanfiction enthusiasts" that I frankly regard as their problem and not Yudkowsky's. I don't see how they can really claim to have been tricked in to reading the fic thinking it was going to be much different than it is, or why the fact that their own preconceptions tripped them up is a reason for the author to have done things differently.

[Sholos]

Which this story clearly does. It's quite up-front about what it's doing. I don't see how it makes sense to call this anything other than fan fiction and if people are annoyed that it's not quite what they expected I dare say they ought to relax their preconceptions a bit. As to "expressing love for another author's work", affection for the HP series pretty much radiates off the fic as far as I can see.

Let's put it this way. Suppose I offered you some chocolate. Let's say your the type of person who loves chocolate very much. I say I've got a chocolate that beats any other chocolate on the market hands-down, and I'm going to give it to you for free. Excited yet? Let's even say that I give you a sample, and, while it's a bit strange, it's certainly a very good chocolate that you wouldn't mind having more of. Now, imagine your feelings when what I finally give you is a fish, very lightly covered in this chocolate. That's what people going into this story are feeling. They're promised a Harry Potter fanfic with an interesting twist, and instead are given this.

[JoshuaZ]

Actually, I think that "I estimate probability P of X" is a much more accurate and much less faith-based way of saying things. Saying "I'm fairly certain of X" is merely shorthand for saying "I estimate a very high probability of X, but the precise probability I don't really know how I'd go about determining," or potentially "I suspect the probability of X occurring is close to 100%." Saying "X will happen" says "There is 100% probability of X occurring, and those who disagree are wrong." Which is not at all the same thing as "I estimate close to 100% probability of X based on the facts I know."

In general, the further into the future the predicted occurrence, the more FD_faith (as you put it) it takes to state a prediction with certainty. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have in our human power the ability to stop the earth from rotating, and we have not detected anything which might cause the earth to cease rotating. So, given certain assumptions - such as technology and scientific understanding continuing to progress similar to the way it currently does, with jumps and changes such as we have had in the past century, and aliens with advanced technology not coming to the solar system, and the universe not spontaneously ceasing to exist - we can reasonably predict that the Earth with keep rotating for a significant period of time. How long that period might be I'd have to ask the scientists who deal with planets and stars and solar systems and so forth, since I'm not particularly well-informed. However, I do note that in order to have that reliable prediction, we do take into account certain assumptions. In general, the more assumptions required, the less certain the prediction will be. For example, I know some people who believe that the world will suffer nuclear holocaust within the next ten years. If our assumption that this won't happen is false, much of our predictions about future scientific successes will obviously not come to pass. Since the further into the future we talk about, the higher the likelihood of something happening to violate our assumptions becomes, the less certain we should be of our assumptions. Assumptions based on the physics continuing to do its thing are generally safer than assumptions that humans will continue to happily advance.

Ok. In that case the distinction does seem to be purely terminological. Yudkowsky is a Bayesian in the strong sense of the word. Roughly speaking that means he believes that a) essentially all claims are probabilistic in nature b) claims never have probabilities of 0 or 1 c) the proper method of updating probability estimates based on new data rests of applying Bayes's theoerem. It isn't as clear cut, but seems that Harry James Potter Evan Verres is also a Bayesian (certainly he has used the term explicitly). It is important to note that to a Bayesian saying "X will happen" or even "X has happened" (e.g. George Washington was the first President of the United States") is still probabilistic. When one doesn't use a quantifier this just means the probability is very high. So part of the issue here seems to be purely notational/terminological.



As far as "how much does it take before it becomes a view of life"...well, I'd venture that that would depend on not just the subject matter, but the individuals discussing the subject matter. See my point above about how my religious beliefs influence the essence of how I view reality. If someone were to say "Cyborg enhancements are cool" and proceed to talk about why they thought such enhancements were interesting and potentially useful, that would probably not be view-of-life. IF, however, someone said "Cyborg enhancements are obviously beneficial for reasons X,Y,Z and therefore we should definitely spend resources advancing them and making them practical: it is a reasonable and good goal that would should strive to achieve. I think that those who do not hold this view are wrong." I would be inclined to say that this was indeed view-of-life. The more aspects you combine together into a single philosophical entity, the greater the likelihood of its proponents being so strongly attached and influenced by it; and even if those discussing it are third party members, so long as they purport to be expressing the views of those who do adhere to that philosophy, there is great potential for clashing of belief.

I'm a bit confused by this especially the part where you add your hypothetical pro-cyborg individual saying "I think that those who do not hold this view are wrong." Generally, if someone makes a statement X that means that they think people who disagree with X are wrong. This also seems difficult because by this definition almost any research grant request is going to be a life philosophy. A large part of research grants are justifying why some type of research is a good or the best allocation of resources. If every biologist, physicist, mathematician and engineer is doing philosophy when they apply for research funding...



On changing certain aspects in canon- there appear to be two reasons Elizer changes things from canon.

1-to make them more consistent
2-to make them fit his plot

#2 is why transfiguration was changed. It feels like #1 was why the dementor was changed. Heres my issue with that

I'm not sure completely that one can easily break down why transfiguration was changed into either of 1 or 2. It seems to be a mix of 1 and 2. As given in the books there's no clear reason there's anything resembling a wizarding economy given how easy transfiguration is. Thus for example, the rules about transfiguring money are a minor patch in the vein of 1.
[/QUOTE]



On a similar note, Harry has used his magical powers of rationality in irrational ways before- see partial transfiguration when apparently he has to think of the particles at a quantum level. Thinking at a molecular one wasn't enough... because... well... theres no reason given, and one suspects thats because the author didn't think very hard about it.

He didn't just need to think about it at a quantum level. He needed to think about it using a timeless model of QM. That's not the same thing and it does make sense if you think about it. I find it interesting that some people are criticizing Yudkowsky for not explaining things enough while others are criticizing him for explaining things too much. (Incidentally to me this was the most implausible part of the fic. Even an eleven year old prodigy isn't going to easily learn about timeless versions of physics. Just to do QM properly takes years of study. There's a point where Harry's knowledge base simply becomes too deep and too broad and this was probably it. Unlike a lot of the social psych and cogsci he knows, these are deep results in the sense that there's a lot of basic machiners (linear algebra, differential equations, some group theory) that you need to know before understanding these ideas.)


I'm not too sure about that, I would have agreed with you for the first few chapters, but when we started going into the Sorting, we start seeing Yudkovsky adding new information that was never hinted at, such as the sorting hat obtaining sentience after Harry just thinking about it. You can argue that even that event is a parody, but I see this as the start of the slippery slope where Yudkovsky starts to add more and more original ideas into the fiction, and changing other aspects of the Potter Universe to serve his needs.

I don't quite understand the problem with the Sorting Hat. JK never addressed how apparently intelligent entities in the Potterverse function. Saying that they function off of borrowed processing power but aren't self-aware is consistent with canon. I don't see why adding something consistent to canon would be an issue. This seems to be in the same category as say people writing fanfic that involves stuff Rowling hasn't talked about (I read a while ago a very good fanfic that went through the sortings of various characters over the last 200 years, going through Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall Bellatrix, Snape, Lily and the Marauders. That seems to be clearly ok because none of them are actually in the source text. So how is it different to simply clarify how the Sorting Hat works in a way that doesn't contradict canon? The objection here seems to be that many people have an unstated assumption about how intelligent entities in the Potterverse work (i.e. that they are self-aware) and that therefore not using that assumption is changing canon when it isn't.

[JoshuaZ]

Ok. In that case the distinction does seem to be purely terminological. Yudkowsky is a Bayesian in the strong sense of the word. Roughly speaking that means he believes that a) essentially all claims are probabilistic in nature b) claims never have probabilities of 0 or 1 c) the proper method of updating probability estimates based on new data rests of applying Bayes's theoerem. It isn't as clear cut, but seems that Harry James Potter Evan Verres is also a Bayesian (certainly he has used the term explicitly). It is important to note that to a Bayesian saying "X will happen" or even "X has happened" (e.g. George Washington was the first President of the United States") is still probabilistic. When one doesn't use a quantifier this just means the probability is very high. So part of the issue here seems to be purely notational/terminological.



I'm a bit confused by this especially the part where you add your hypothetical pro-cyborg individual saying "I think that those who do not hold this view are wrong." Generally, if someone makes a statement X that means that they think people who disagree with X are wrong. This also seems difficult because by this definition almost any research grant request is going to be a life philosophy. A large part of research grants are justifying why some type of research is a good or the best allocation of resources. If every biologist, physicist, mathematician and engineer is doing philosophy when they apply for research funding...



I'm not sure completely that one can easily break down why transfiguration was changed into either of 1 or 2. It seems to be a mix of 1 and 2. As given in the books there's no clear reason there's anything resembling a wizarding economy given how easy transfiguration is. Thus for example, the rules about transfiguring money are a minor patch in the vein of 1.




He didn't just need to think about it at a quantum level. He needed to think about it using a timeless model of QM. That's not the same thing and it does make sense if you think about it. I find it interesting that some people are criticizing Yudkowsky for not explaining things enough while others are criticizing him for explaining things too much. (Incidentally to me this was the most implausible part of the fic. Even an eleven year old prodigy isn't going to easily learn about timeless versions of physics. Just to do QM properly takes years of study. There's a point where Harry's knowledge base simply becomes too deep and too broad and this was probably it. Unlike a lot of the social psych and cogsci he knows, these are deep results in the sense that there's a lot of basic machiners (linear algebra, differential equations, some group theory) that you need to know before understanding these ideas.)



I don't quite understand the problem with the Sorting Hat. JK never addressed how apparently intelligent entities in the Potterverse function. Saying that they function off of borrowed processing power but aren't self-aware is consistent with canon. I don't see why adding something consistent to canon would be an issue. This seems to be in the same category as say people writing fanfic that involves stuff Rowling hasn't talked about (I read a while ago a very good fanfic that went through the sortings of various characters over the last 200 years, going through Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall Bellatrix, Snape, Lily and the Marauders. That seems to be clearly ok because none of them are actually in the source text. So how is it different to simply clarify how the Sorting Hat works in a way that doesn't contradict canon? The objection here seems to be that many people have an unstated assumption about how intelligent entities in the Potterverse work (i.e. that they are self-aware) and that therefore not using that assumption is changing canon when it isn't.[/QUOTE]


Let's put it this way. Suppose I offered you some chocolate. Let's say your the type of person who loves chocolate very much. I say I've got a chocolate that beats any other chocolate on the market hands-down, and I'm going to give it to you for free. Excited yet? Let's even say that I give you a sample, and, while it's a bit strange, it's certainly a very good chocolate that you wouldn't mind having more of. Now, imagine your feelings when what I finally give you is a fish, very lightly covered in this chocolate. That's what people going into this story are feeling. They're promised a Harry Potter fanfic with an interesting twist, and instead are given this.

I have at l least one friend who expressed something like this. She's very much into the fanfic community and she just found the level of character change to be jarring. The one actually that annoyed her the most was Lucius because "He's not that scary or competent."

[Obrysii]

There's a point where Harry's knowledge base simply becomes too deep and too broad and this was probably it.

I've been arguing this point the whole time. Harry is too mature, too smart, too worldly to be an eleven year old. My example of his argument with Snape - an eleven year old is rarely that well-spoken, that well-aware of his rights, that well-able to argue with authority figures, that well-able to ignore the power of personality (Dumbledore is often described as being able to silence a crowd with a look, after all, and this version of Harry blatantly ignores that in his first year).


I don't quite understand the problem with the Sorting Hat. JK never addressed how apparently intelligent entities in the Potterverse function. Saying that they function off of borrowed processing power but aren't self-aware is consistent with canon.

They are magically empowered entities - their intelligence stems from their magic, as our intelligence stems from our biology. There's no reason beyond that that needs to be given.

[hamishspence]

Orson Scott Card's Ender Wiggin (and Bean) might be a bit like this.

They were pretty exceptional in terms of intelligence though.

[kamikasei]

I've been arguing this point the whole time. Harry is too mature, too smart, too worldly to be an eleven year old. My example of his argument with Snape - an eleven year old is rarely that well-spoken, that well-aware of his rights, that well-able to argue with authority figures, that well-able to ignore the power of personality (Dumbledore is often described as being able to silence a crowd with a look, after all, and this version of Harry blatantly ignores that in his first year).
None of that is knowledge base (except perhaps "well-aware of his rights", but that's the sort of thing a kid with Harry's personality would make sure to know), which is what Joshua confined himself to conceding.

They are magically empowered entities - their intelligence stems from their magic, as our intelligence stems from our biology. There's no reason beyond that that needs to be given.
You don't see how, if you're perfectly happy to accept "it's magic!" as the entire explanation and think it's silly to ask questions beyond that, you should maybe just state that up front and hold off on other criticisms since they would pretty much all derive from this one, glaring difference between yourself and the author?

[Obrysii]

None of that is knowledge base (except perhaps "well-aware of his rights", but that's the sort of thing a kid with Harry's personality would make sure to know), which is what Joshua confined himself to conceding.

No, but it makes it an aweful lot like a Gary Stu, now doesn't it?

And it makes for a bad characterization, as Harry in the series shows contempt for only Snape's authority - he respects everyone else.


You don't see how, if you're perfectly happy to accept "it's magic!" as the entire explanation and think it's silly to ask questions beyond that, you should maybe just state that up front and hold off on other criticisms since they would pretty much all derive from this one, glaring difference between yourself and the author?

Except that this is Harry Potter. It's a series about wizards. To make it otherwise deviates from the entire purpose of the books! It's about magic! It's not about processing power or physics. It's about magic.

[misterk]

Orson Scott Card's Ender Wiggin (and Bean) might be a bit like this.

They were pretty exceptional in terms of intelligence though.

To be fair, while I love Ender's game and am ambivalent towards Ender's Shadow, both of those characters were more than a little bit absurd. I'm actually willing to forgive Harry's precocious nature for the most part- its never bothered me. But I would find it odd for someone to be bothered by that and not be bothered by Ender (note, this is purely on precociousness. There are certainly other reasons to be bothered by Elizer's characterisation/lack therof.)

[kamikasei]

Except that this is Harry Potter. It's a series about wizards. To make it otherwise deviates from the entire purpose of the books! It's about magic! It's not about processing power or physics. It's about magic.
This is... kind of the entire point of the fic. Seriously. It's like you're allergic to peanuts and wrote a scathing review of an experimental new restaurant that tries to make everything out of processed and flavoured peanuts. "The food there is so bad it sent me in to anaphylactic shock!!!" Only at the very end in tiny font comes the "In the interests of full disclosure...".

[Prime32]

I don't see what the problem is with the Sorting Hat thing. It still runs on magic, this version is just slightly more specific about what kind of magic.

[JoshuaZ]

And it makes for a bad characterization, as Harry in the series shows contempt for only Snape's authority - he respects everyone else.

Yes, because this Harry is different. He had a very different upbringing. That doesn't make by itself a bad characterization.




Except that this is Harry Potter. It's a series about wizards. To make it otherwise deviates from the entire purpose of the books! It's about magic! It's not about processing power or physics. It's about magic.

Kamikasei gave such a good analogy for this that I don't have anything much to add except to note that you really shouldn't read Brandon Sanderson's books then. He's one of my favorite fantasy authors and one major reason is that he thinks very carefully about how his magic systems work and how they interact and what societies they would produce. Mistborn is amazing. But, um yeah. Don't read it. You'll just get annoyed.

Also regarding the knowledge-base, I really do just mean knowledge-base about specific areas of advanced math. I've met 12 year olds who know calculus, and knowing things like their rights or the basics of the scientific method and some cool cogsci tidbits isn't at all implausible. By and large there's very little of that sort that I haven't seen known by at least one 12 year old. The problem really is just limited to the QM material because it simply takes so much background to understand.

[bue52]

I don't quite understand the problem with the Sorting Hat. JK never addressed how apparently intelligent entities in the Potterverse function. Saying that they function off of borrowed processing power but aren't self-aware is consistent with canon. I don't see why adding something consistent to canon would be an issue. This seems to be in the same category as say people writing fanfic that involves stuff Rowling hasn't talked about (I read a while ago a very good fanfic that went through the sortings of various characters over the last 200 years, going through Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall Bellatrix, Snape, Lily and the Marauders. That seems to be clearly ok because none of them are actually in the source text. So how is it different to simply clarify how the Sorting Hat works in a way that doesn't contradict canon? The objection here seems to be that many people have an unstated assumption about how intelligent entities in the Potterverse work (i.e. that they are self-aware) and that therefore not using that assumption is changing canon when it isn't.

The point I was making is that Yudkowsky was going down a slippery slope of changing the Potterverse to a greater and greater degree. There was nothing wrong with the Sorting Hat change, but from there, he started to do minor shifts in the canon, to changing some of the rules that we know, such as a Dementor is an avatar of Fear. So instead of critiquing or parodying the concept of Dementors, he treats it as a plot twist. I'm not saying that the explanation of the Sorting Hat was bad, I just treat it as the watershed.

[Androgeus]

I don't see what the problem is with the Sorting Hat thing. It still runs on magic, this version is just slightly more specific about what kind of magic.

I think this may be a bit nit pickey, but does the hat still do a song at the start of each year? If it does, where does it get the power to sing?

[Prime32]

I think this may be a bit nit pickey, but does the hat still do a song at the start of each year? If it does, where does it get the power to sing?Dumbledore? It wouldn't surprise me.

[GM.Casper]

I've been arguing this point the whole time. Harry is too mature, too smart, too worldly to be an eleven year old. My example of his argument with Snape - an eleven year old is rarely that well-spoken, that well-aware of his rights, that well-able to argue with authority figures, that well-able to ignore the power of personality (Dumbledore is often described as being able to silence a crowd with a look, after all, and this version of Harry blatantly ignores that in his first year).


It’s the whole point of the fic that Harry Potter is a child genius. Just like, say, Ender Wiggin or Artemis Fowl. Even if they are Sues, they are entertaining ones.



They are magically empowered entities - their intelligence stems from their magic, as our intelligence stems from our biology. There's no reason beyond that that needs to be given.

There’s a Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/2/) strip about it. :smallbiggrin:
Some people like to occasionally mix science with magic and see what happens, others don’t. I would think it was clear since the first chapter as to what the fic would do.

[JoshuaZ]

I think this may be a bit nit pickey, but does the hat still do a song at the start of each year? If it does, where does it get the power to sing?

It it described as borrowing most of its processing power from the mind it is sitting on. It could a) borrow power from the people around it to do minor things or b) have just enough power on its own to compose songs. I don't think this fits entirely with canon in that in canon as things are getting worse in the later years the hat sings songs that reflect the events around them.

[Obrysii]

It’s the whole point of the fic that Harry Potter is a child genius. Just like, say, Ender Wiggin or Artemis Fowl. Even if they are Sues, they are entertaining ones.

Why not make a new character and set your story in this setting, instead of warping every character so that only their name and general physical description remains?

[bue52]

It it described as borrowing most of its processing power from the mind it is sitting on. It could a) borrow power from the people around it to do minor things or b) have just enough power on its own to compose songs. I don't think this fits entirely with canon in that in canon as things are getting worse in the later years the hat sings songs that reflect the events around them.

Come to think of it, a little nick pick here, but if the Sorting Hat gains intellect through the ppl who places their head on them..... then how does he get the capacity to make a song while not on anyone's head, unless a house-elf suffering from dwarfism was under it...... Hey the imagery is actually pretty funny.

[JoshuaZ]

Come to think of it, a little nick pick here, but if the Sorting Hat gains intellect through the ppl who places their head on them..... then how does he get the capacity to make a song while not on anyone's head, unless a house-elf suffering from dwarfism was under it...... Hey the imagery is actually pretty funny.

Right, the point was that is has some small amount of processing power. We know it does because it keeps track of vague feelings about the chances that someone like Harry will become a Dark Lord. The Hat says


my primary intelligence comes from borrowing the cognitive capacities of the children on whose heads I rest.

So it has some degree of secondary intelligence. To use what may be a bad analogy, in order to use virtual memory on a computer hard drive you still need some amount of actual memory to manage it. So presumably the Sorting Hat has a small amount of processing power which it can use for things like composing songs. The problem that the songs reflect the time period seems to be more of a problem because it sort of implies that the Hat is aware of its surroundings.

[bue52]

Which I don't think is a problem because we do not know if Yudkowsky's Sorting Hat following that part of the canon too.

[JoshuaZ]

Which I don't think is a problem because we do not know if Yudkowsky's Sorting Hat following that part of the canon too.

Right, but we were discussing whether the section on the Sorting hat directly contradicted canon or not.

[bue52]

Right, but we were discussing whether the section on the Sorting hat directly contradicted canon or not.

Personally, I'd say, Yudkowsky expanded on the premise of the Sorting Hat, and simply did that, from what I understand of the Sorting Hat at least.

[Obrysii]

Does the author ever explain why portraits are intelligent?

[Fiery Diamond]

It’s the whole point of the fic that Harry Potter is a child genius. Just like, say, Ender Wiggin or Artemis Fowl. Even if they are Sues, they are entertaining ones.

There is a world of a difference between HPMR Harry Potter and Artemis Fowl. Both are highly intelligent, but Artemis Fowl actually fails sometimes because of his lack of life experience affecting the way he thinks. HPMR...doesn't. Only lip service is given to HPMR Harry's lack of life experience.


Also, in regards to "people who disagree are wrong": yes, if you think something is true, you think that those who say it is false are incorrect. But there is a significant difference between thinking "X is good, this is my opinion and I'm sticking to it" and thinking "X is good, this is not subjective and therefore those who disagree (fill in the blank with anything)". When I added the "people who disagree are wrong", I was attempting to display the latter of the two.

[JoshuaZ]

There is a world of a difference between HPMR Harry Potter and Artemis Fowl. Both are highly intelligent, but Artemis Fowl actually fails sometimes because of his lack of life experience affecting the way he thinks. HPMR...doesn't. Only lip service is given to HPMR Harry's lack of life experience.

I'm curius how far you have read because that's not the impression I get. Indeed the fact that he's being

Corrupted by the arch-villain without even realizing it. And has managed to possibly send Snape back over to Voldemort's side.

Neither suggest that his failings are just lip service. And there's just things where he fails in funny ways (for example the whole thing with the occulemency training.)

[Somas]

There is a world of a difference between HPMR Harry Potter and Artemis Fowl. Both are highly intelligent, but Artemis Fowl actually fails sometimes because of his lack of life experience affecting the way he thinks. HPMR...doesn't. Only lip service is given to HPMR Harry's lack of life experience.
You clearly haven't read the entire fic...
People actually started to complain in reviews about Harry Potter losing too much at one point!


Also, in regards to "people who disagree are wrong": yes, if you think something is true, you think that those who say it is false are incorrect. But there is a significant difference between thinking "X is good, this is my opinion and I'm sticking to it" and thinking "X is good, this is not subjective and therefore those who disagree (fill in the blank with anything)". When I added the "people who disagree are wrong", I was attempting to display the latter of the two.
Most of the transhumanists I've heard would have considerable trouble trying to differentiate between the phrases "good is objective" and "good is subjective" as most would consider "good" a word that requires two contexts: an action and a goal system/utility function/ect.. Basically saying "X is good" actually means "X is good in [default goal system]*".

*A default context is the one that is assumed in conversation if none is specified.