byrnema comments on What big goals do we have? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: cousin_it 19 January 2010 04:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (92)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: byrnema 19 January 2010 07:33:58PM *  3 points [-]

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.

Comment author: mattnewport 19 January 2010 07:43:36PM *  7 points [-]

However, I have no loyalty to evolution. Why should I care about the terminal value it instilled in me?

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.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 19 January 2010 11:50:16PM *  5 points [-]

However, I have no loyalty to evolution. Why should I care about the terminal value it instilled in me?

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.

Comment author: MrHen 19 January 2010 07:37:46PM *  1 point [-]

Is this a fair summary:

Evolution caused my value in X but has not provided a convincing reason to continuing valuing X.

Or is this closer:

Evolution caused my value in X but has not provided a convincing purpose to doing X.

I am guessing the former. Feel free to take a good break if you want. We'll be here when you get back. :)

Comment author: byrnema 19 January 2010 07:44:21PM 0 points [-]

What would you infer from my choice? I honestly cannot tell the difference between the two statements.

Comment author: MrHen 19 January 2010 07:56:59PM 1 point [-]

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:

Evolution designed us to value things but it didn't (can't) give us a reason to value those things.

Can be read by some as:

Evolution [is the reason we] value things but it didn't (can't) give us a reason to value those things.

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.