= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zachary_Kurtz comments on What big goals do we have? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
only to deny that higher order goals existed (achieve basic survival, without regards to ethical system).
So it's just another God-of-the-gaps argument: this aspect of human behaviour is mysterious, therefore God. Only it's a gap that we already know a lot about how to close.
The 'God-of-the-gaps' argument is thrown around very frequently where it doesn't fit.
No, theists reason that this aspect of human behavior requires God to be fully coherent, therefore God. Instead of just accepting that their behavior is not fully coherent.
Evolution designed us to value things but it didn't (can't) give us a reason to value those things. If you are going to value those things anyway, then I commend your complacency with the natural order of things, but you might still admit that your programming is incoherent if it simultaneously makes you want to do things for a reason and then makes you do things for no reason.
(If I sound angry it's because I'm furious, but not at you cithergoth. I'm angry with futility. I'll write up a post later describing what it's like to be 95% deconverted from belief in objective morality.)
Sure it did. The reason to value our terminal values is that we value our terminal values. For example, I want to exist. Why should I continue to want to exist? Because if I stop wanting to exist, I'll probably stop existing, which would be bad, because I want to exist.
Yes, this is a justificatory loop, but so what? This isn't a rhetorical question. So what? Such loops are neither illogical nor incoherent.
The incoherence is that I also value purpose. An inborn anti-Sisyphus value.
Sisyphus could have been quite happy about his task; pushing a rock around is not intrinsically so bad, but he was also given the awareness that what he did was purposeless. It's too bad he didn't value simply existing more than he did. Which is the situation in which I'm in, in which none of my actions will ever make an objective difference in a completely neutral, value-indifferent universe.
(If this is a simulation I'm in, you can abort it now I don't like
I know, but assuming you're a human and no aliens have messed with your brain, it's highly unlikely that this value is a terminal one. You may believe it's terminal, but your belief is wrong. The solution to your problem is simple: Stop valuing objective purpose.
Can you expand on this please? How do you know it's highly unlikely?
First, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing evolution would select for. Our brains may be susceptible to making the kind of mistake that leads one to believe in the existence of (and the need for) objective morality, but that would be a bias, not a terminal value.
Second, we can simply look at the people who've been through a transition similar to byrnema's, myself included. Most of us have successfully expunged (or at least minimized) the need for an Objective Morality from our moral architecture, and the few I know who've failed are badly, badly confused about metaethics. I don't see how we could have done this if the need for an objective morality was terminal.
Of course I suppose there's a chance that we're freaks.
I think you're wrong here. It is possible for evolution to select for valuing objective morality, when the environment contains memes that appear to be objective morality and those memes also help increase inclusive fitness.
An alternative possibility is that we don't so much value objective morality, as disvalue arbitrariness in our preferences. This might be an evolved defense mechanism against our brains being hijacked by "harmful" memes.
I worry there's a sampling bias involved in reaching your conclusion.
Bravo! We came up with this solution simultaneously -- possibly the most focused solution to theism we have.
My brain is happy with the proposed solution. I'll see if it works...
I'm updating this thread, about a month later.
I found that I wasn't able to make any progress in this direction.
(Recall the problem was the possibility of "true" meaning or purpose without objective value, and the solution proposed was to "stop valuing objective value". That is, find value in values that are self-defined.)
However, I wasn't able to redefine (reparametrize?) my values as independent of objective value. Instead, I found it much easier to just decide I didn't value the problem. So I find myself perched indifferently between continuing to care about my values (stubbornly) and 'knowing' that values are nonsense.
I thought I had to stop caring about value or about objective value .. actually, all I had to do was stop caring about a resolution. I guess that was easier.
I consider myself having 'progressed' to the stage of wry-and-superficially-nihilist. (I don't have the solution, you don't either, and I might as well be amused.)
I don't know what to say except, "that sucks", and "hang in there". :)
Thank you, but honestly I don't feel distressed. I guess I agree it sucks for rationality in some way. I haven't given up on rationality though -- I've just given up on [edited] excelling at it right now. [edited to avoid fanning further discussion]
If my experience is any guide, time will make a difference; there will be some explanation you've already heard that will suddenly click with you, a few months from now, and you'll no longer feel like a nihilist. After all, I very much doubt you are a nihilist in the sense you presently believe you are.
It's very annoying to have people project their experiences and feelings on you. I'm me and you're you.
How odd. I remember that one of the key steps for me was realizing that if my drive for objective purpose could be respectable, than so could all of my other terminal values like having fun and protecting people. But I don't think I've ever heard someone else identify that as their key step until now... assuming we are talking about the same mental step.
It seems like there's just a big library of different "key insights" that different people require in order to collapse transcendent morality to morality.
That was totally awesome to watch. Thanks byrnema and Furcas!
If it's any consolation, you're likely to be a lot happier out the other side of your deconversion. When you're half converted, it feels like there is a True Morality, but it doesn't value anything. When you're out the other side you'll be a lot happier feeling that your values are enough.
Yeah, with your comment I do see the light at the end of the tunnel. What it has pointed out to me is that while I'm questioning all my values, I might as well question my value of 'objective' value. It should be neurologically possible to displace my value of "objective good" to "subjective good". However, I'm not sure that it would be consistent to remain an epistemological realist after that, given my restructured values. But that would be interesting, not the end of the world.
I don't understand this. Can you say it again with different words? I am specifically choking on "designed" and "reason."
We're the product of evolution, yes? That's what I meant by 'designed'.
When I drive to the store, I have a reason: to buy milk. I also have a reason to buy milk. I also have a reason for that. A chain of reasons ending in a terminal value given to me by evolution -- something you and I consider 'good'. However, I have no loyalty to evolution. Why should I care about the terminal value it instilled in me? Well, I understand it made me care. I also understand that the rebellion I feel about being forced to do everything is also the product of evolution. And I finally understand that there's no limit in how bad the experience can be for me as a result of these conflicting desires. I happen to be kind of OK (just angry) but the universe would just look on, incuriously, if I decided to go berserk and prove there was no God by showing there is no limit on how horrible the universe could be. How's that for a big goal?
I imagine that somebody who cares about me will suggest I don't post anything for a while, until I feel more sociable. I'll take that advice.
Why would you feel differently about God? It always struck me that if God existed he had to be a tremendous asshole given all the suffering in the world. Reading the old testament certainly paints a picture of a God I would have no loyalty to and would have no reason to care about his terminal values. Evolution seems positively benevolent by comparison.
You shouldn't care about your values because they're instilled in you by evolution, your true alien Creator. It is the same mistake as believing you have to behave morally because God says so. You care about your values not because of their historical origin or specifically privileged status, but because they happen to be the final judge of what you care about.
Is this a fair summary:
Or is this closer:
I am guessing the former. Feel free to take a good break if you want. We'll be here when you get back. :)
What would you infer from my choice? I honestly cannot tell the difference between the two statements.
Well, the difference is mostly semantic but this is a good way to reveal minor differences in definitions that are not inherently obvious. If you see them as the same than they are same for the purposes of the conversation which is all I needed to know. :)
The reason I asked for clarification is that this sentence:
Can be read by some as:
To which I immediately thought, "Wait, if it is the reason, why isn't that the reason?" The problem is just a collision of the terms "design" and "reason." By replacing "design" with "cause" and "reason" with "purpose" your meaning was made clear.