Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

[Lord Cataplanga]

Portkey visas for Transylvania, the Forbidden Empire, the City of Endless Night... my my, Texas."
The man looked up from the portfolio, eyes narrowed. "What were you doing there, Mr. Quirrell?"

It's odd that Voldemort didn't thoroughly erase Quirrel's past. Although he did remember to remove Albania from the list of countries he visited.

[Pope Lecherous]

Anyone still reading?  Good but short chapter posted today, one expected tomorrow.  Ideas on the last few chapters? Dont want to give spoilers just yet.

[Cain]

It's clearly in Quirrell's interest to undermine Harry's faith in the practices of Magical Britain, and thus make them his enemy.  But that doesn't necessarily make Quirrell the person responsible.

I have not read the most recent chapter, though.

[Don Coyote]

WHY DO MY KINDLES HAVE TO KEEP DYING ON ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So frustrating reading this on my computer.

[Forsooth]

holy hot genitalia in purgatory, how did i not see this previously?

this is freakin awesome

[Kai]

It's clearly in Quirrell's interest to undermine Harry's faith in the practices of Magical Britain, and thus make them his enemy.  But that doesn't necessarily make Quirrell the person responsible.

I have not read the most recent chapter, though.

The ending of Chapter 82 confuses me. Which of course should be something I hone in on; the Sequences are clear in that confusion is a sign of map not corresponding to territory. I don't understand this utlitarian mental combat between costs and Harry's mention of his mother's emotional involvement inspiring her decision in the same episode. They seem to be contrasting world views. This could be why Harry himself is confused at the end of the chapter.

[Reginald Ret]

It reminds me of one of machiavelli's points, that you can't both be a good leader and a good person.
Similarily, it seems that you can't both be a good person and a good utilitarian ethicist.
I think this mostly says something about (my) morals, i.e. that they have a (seemingly) irrational basis.
I can't really wrap my head around it but there's something there.

[Pope Lecherous]

New chapter from  Less Wrong,

Title: Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

Category: Harry Potter


Character(s): Harry P. & Hermione G.


Chapter 84 Title: Taboo Tradeoffs, Aftermath 2
Words: 11,619
Genre(s): Drama/Humor
Rating: Rated: T
Summary: Petunia married a professor, and Harry grew up reading science and
science fiction. Then came the Hogwarts letter... Ch. 84, "Taboo Tradeoffs,
Aftermath 2".  Hermione wakes in a sad new world.  Next update Tuesday Apr 17,
7PM Pacific Time.

URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/84/

for those who have not signed up for email alerts

[Kai]

It reminds me of one of machiavelli's points, that you can't both be a good leader and a good person.
Similarily, it seems that you can't both be a good person and a good utilitarian ethicist.
I think this mostly says something about (my) morals, i.e. that they have a (seemingly) irrational basis.
I can't really wrap my head around it but there's something there.

Those first two statements don't make any sense to me. What do you mean by good?

Also, utilitarian ethics are ultimately flawed because they are so mechanical. Might as well be robots.

ETA: I'd argue that human morals tend to be irrational, because (in large part) they don't need to be rational. Ultimately they stem from the necessity of /getting along with each other/ in a social species which relies on conspecific interactions for day to day survival. Natural selection has finely honed so many unconscious behaviors that we get along quite well, considering. Likewise, it is the fact that so many of these behaviors are unconsciously fine tuned that stepping in with reason can actual screw things up. The important thing about ethics is knowing when to reason things out, and knowing when to see these unconscious behaviors are most useful and shove the rational mind /out of the way/.

[Pope Lecherous]

It reminds me of one of machiavelli's points, that you can't both be a good leader and a good person.
Similarily, it seems that you can't both be a good person and a good utilitarian ethicist.
I think this mostly says something about (my) morals, i.e. that they have a (seemingly) irrational basis.
I can't really wrap my head around it but there's something there.

Those first two statements don't make any sense to me. What do you mean by good?

Also, utilitarian ethics are ultimately flawed because they are so mechanical. Might as well be robots.

This latest chapter seems to indicate Dumbledore has been pondering those statements/questions by Regret extensively.  As far as the definition of 'good' goes there probably can not be an objective definition, however in this example it would be Dumbledore's personal idea of what he thinks society would regard as 'good.'  How many licks... right.

As far as utilitarian ethics go I do see them as flawed but i don't see them as mechanical exactly.  In Dumbledore's application of the system to a wartime environment/scenario it seems a process largely based on balancing a scale of sorts where each action can likely be intuitively understood as more good or more evil, yet in the context of the grand scheme or 'greater good' the inherent good or evil quality/value of each action becomes harder to quantify when weighed against a combination of other deeds and the sum of these again weighed against the 'nobility' of the desired goal.

I realize i used a scale in this example and that is a mechanical object, but the careful balancing element seems more like an organic(?) process, especially considering the use heavily subjective terms and the user of the system's personal ideas of these terms, and their perception of others' ideas etc.

ETA: I'd argue that human morals tend to be irrational, because (in large part) they don't need to be rational. Ultimately they stem from the necessity of /getting along with each other/ in a social species which relies on conspecific interactions for day to day survival. Natural selection has finely honed so many unconscious behaviors that we get along quite well, considering. Likewise, it is the fact that so many of these behaviors are unconsciously fine tuned that stepping in with reason can actual screw things up. The important thing about ethics is knowing when to reason things out, and knowing when to see these unconscious behaviors are most useful and shove the rational mind /out of the way/.

I agree completely.  I think for the sake of this fanfiction Harry understands the cognitive science behind the behavior you mentioned which lubricates/facilitates co-existence among human animals, yet as we have transcended the common animal in many ways some of these subconscious behaviors he may see as relics no longer necessary to our survival as a species, but now as a hindrance to our development and advancement as a people.  That's just my idea about how mor!harry might regard the issue given the things his character says regarding his 'Patronus 2.0' and subjects connected.

[Cain]

So, who does Madam Bones believe Quirrell is?

My initial thought was it might have been Sirius Black (has to be a Most Ancient and Noble House, after all), but that doesn't fit, as it was established in the HPMOR canon that everyone thought Sirius guilty, not a hero.  I also considered his brother, Regulus, who turned traitor and died while fighting Voldemort, but the dates don't fit, either.  It seems to be someone who went to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle.

The Harry Potter Wiki is almost useless in this regard, and of course, the Noble Houses are at least in part an Elizier invention, so trying to figure out even which house we suspect he is from is not east.

What we do know is that the Noble Houses are: Greengrass, Malfoy, Longbottom (?), Potter, Black (?).  That's three, possibly four other old, mostly "pure-blood" and politically influential families, that need to be accounted for, as Bones said there was 7 - 8, if Quirrell's identity is included.  I cannot go back and search through the series right now, as my time is limited, but I'm willing to bet if we went through the whole series, we'd find seven or eight families named as being Noble Houses.  Yudowsky's put too much thought into this for something like that to be merely an off-the-cuff statement.

Quirrell's comments to Hermione are also interesting, for those of you who have read Elizier's shorter fiction.  In particular, a certain fantasy story about his concerning a Dark Lord who needs to be vanquished.... all I'm saying is that Quirrell was probably not being entirely untruthful when talking to her.

Mr Hat and Cloak remains the most likely suspect for the Memory Charm/Duel gambit, given his proven previous skill at these, but the identity of Mr Hat and Cloak remains a mystery.  There is one canon character who is known to be exceedingly good with memory charms, who has not yet made an appearance, though.  A certain Defence Against the Dark Arts professor.... Just a suggestion, though, since we still need to account for how Hat and Cloak knew to pick those two students to have a duel to cause a political crisis, that it would set Lord Lucuis "I would burn all of magical Britain down for my son" Malfoy and Harry "I cannot stand down from threats on my friends" Potter against each other. 

It might be an idea to establish who Potter told his conversation with Lucius Malfoy to, and work up a list of potential suspects back from that.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Hat and Cloak is Quirrell, which cannot be discounted.  He has an apparent skill for fake identities, after all.  Or someone else we know under another name, too.

[Cain]

Also Chaos Legion anti-conformity training sounds like something we should incorporate into our daily lives.

[Pope Lecherous]

So, who does Madam Bones believe Quirrell is?

While reading the reviews for the chapter i came upon a very plausible theory, but i'm reluctant to post it here because it really seems that damn possible.  I'm not 100% certain of course, but it almost seems like a spoiler, it's that good.

[Kai]

It reminds me of one of machiavelli's points, that you can't both be a good leader and a good person.
Similarily, it seems that you can't both be a good person and a good utilitarian ethicist.
I think this mostly says something about (my) morals, i.e. that they have a (seemingly) irrational basis.
I can't really wrap my head around it but there's something there.

Those first two statements don't make any sense to me. What do you mean by good?

Also, utilitarian ethics are ultimately flawed because they are so mechanical. Might as well be robots.

This latest chapter seems to indicate Dumbledore has been pondering those statements/questions by Regret extensively.  As far as the definition of 'good' goes there probably can not be an objective definition, however in this example it would be Dumbledore's personal idea of what he thinks society would regard as 'good.'  How many licks... right.

As far as utilitarian ethics go I do see them as flawed but i don't see them as mechanical exactly.  In Dumbledore's application of the system to a wartime environment/scenario it seems a process largely based on balancing a scale of sorts where each action can likely be intuitively understood as more good or more evil, yet in the context of the grand scheme or 'greater good' the inherent good or evil quality/value of each action becomes harder to quantify when weighed against a combination of other deeds and the sum of these again weighed against the 'nobility' of the desired goal.

I realize i used a scale in this example and that is a mechanical object, but the careful balancing element seems more like an organic(?) process, especially considering the use heavily subjective terms and the user of the system's personal ideas of these terms, and their perception of others' ideas etc.

ETA: I'd argue that human morals tend to be irrational, because (in large part) they don't need to be rational. Ultimately they stem from the necessity of /getting along with each other/ in a social species which relies on conspecific interactions for day to day survival. Natural selection has finely honed so many unconscious behaviors that we get along quite well, considering. Likewise, it is the fact that so many of these behaviors are unconsciously fine tuned that stepping in with reason can actual screw things up. The important thing about ethics is knowing when to reason things out, and knowing when to see these unconscious behaviors are most useful and shove the rational mind /out of the way/.

I agree completely.  I think for the sake of this fanfiction Harry understands the cognitive science behind the behavior you mentioned which lubricates/facilitates co-existence among human animals, yet as we have transcended the common animal in many ways some of these subconscious behaviors he may see as relics no longer necessary to our survival as a species, but now as a hindrance to our development and advancement as a people.  That's just my idea about how mor!harry might regard the issue given the things his character says regarding his 'Patronus 2.0' and subjects connected.

It also has to be considered that, as many writers, Yudowsky is using this story as an Aesopian foil for his own beliefs about how humans ought to behave (e.g. see his science fiction on the Less Wrong site). And not necessarily with any single character as Author Avatar either.

[Kai]

So, who does Madam Bones believe Quirrell is?

My initial thought was it might have been Sirius Black (has to be a Most Ancient and Noble House, after all), but that doesn't fit, as it was established in the HPMOR canon that everyone thought Sirius guilty, not a hero.  I also considered his brother, Regulus, who turned traitor and died while fighting Voldemort, but the dates don't fit, either.  It seems to be someone who went to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle.

The Harry Potter Wiki is almost useless in this regard, and of course, the Noble Houses are at least in part an Elizier invention, so trying to figure out even which house we suspect he is from is not east.

What we do know is that the Noble Houses are: Greengrass, Malfoy, Longbottom (?), Potter, Black (?).  That's three, possibly four other old, mostly "pure-blood" and politically influential families, that need to be accounted for, as Bones said there was 7 - 8, if Quirrell's identity is included.  I cannot go back and search through the series right now, as my time is limited, but I'm willing to bet if we went through the whole series, we'd find seven or eight families named as being Noble Houses.  Yudowsky's put too much thought into this for something like that to be merely an off-the-cuff statement.

Quirrell's comments to Hermione are also interesting, for those of you who have read Elizier's shorter fiction.  In particular, a certain fantasy story about his concerning a Dark Lord who needs to be vanquished.... all I'm saying is that Quirrell was probably not being entirely untruthful when talking to her.

Mr Hat and Cloak remains the most likely suspect for the Memory Charm/Duel gambit, given his proven previous skill at these, but the identity of Mr Hat and Cloak remains a mystery.  There is one canon character who is known to be exceedingly good with memory charms, who has not yet made an appearance, though.  A certain Defence Against the Dark Arts professor.... Just a suggestion, though, since we still need to account for how Hat and Cloak knew to pick those two students to have a duel to cause a political crisis, that it would set Lord Lucuis "I would burn all of magical Britain down for my son" Malfoy and Harry "I cannot stand down from threats on my friends" Potter against each other. 

It might be an idea to establish who Potter told his conversation with Lucius Malfoy to, and work up a list of potential suspects back from that.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Hat and Cloak is Quirrell, which cannot be discounted.  He has an apparent skill for fake identities, after all.  Or someone else we know under another name, too.

Knowing that Yudowsky has read and continues to read other Harry Potter fanfic, it's likely that he is using a similar scheme. Longbottom and Potter are usually two of the lesser noble houses, the status of these determined by how "pure" the bloodline is.