= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on Rationality Quotes: February 2010 - 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 (322)
My mistake was to post this here. I haven't thought about it, just shared what I found interesting. I just found that quote thought-provoking. I was never going to consider his musings as factual or truth-claims. As far as I can tell, he doesn't either. It's metaphysics. It is appealing on an poetic level.
On a side note, I'm not sure what Dawkins believes, but I know that he does indeed extent the concept of biological evolution to encompass other systems like culture and thought. If I remember right, he actually thinks it is an universal phenomena that even applies to physics.
http://www.universaldarwinism.com/Dawkins%20Richard.htm
Richard Dawkins - Applying Darwinian Evolution to Physics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTfgQG5Yn8
I don't think it was so bad to post something that spurred such a discussion. It wasn't off-topic, just wrong (or Not Even Wrong) in an argument-worthy way.
Normally, I think karma is a reasonably good guide to writing here, but in this case I find myself both approving of the fact that you posted this, and approving of the massive downvoting (which I added to). Odd.
Thanks, as I wrote here, I'll just listen and learn now. Next time I'll hopefully think about it, if I might actually be able to add something valuable. This is certainly not the usual forum where some uneducated guy like me can just chat about anything he might not even understand properly. Which is very good, less noise.
I'm happy the original quote at least caused some debate.
Okay, but just to be clear, those are still different from believing in "evolution" of the truth of the counterfactuals I described. Yes, the thoughts held by people evolve, but that's not the same thing as believing that "the possibility of biological evolution in a counterfactual sense" evolved.
I'm not sure what you are on about. I'll read up on the links you provided tomorrow. So bear with me. As I understand it, the whole point is that the laws of physics, or rather what gives rise to them, is equal to the structure we describe as and by the use of mathematics. Our interpretation of these patterns as physics, or living things, are just necessary abstractions drawn by our minds. The territory really is math, our map are the things.
Um, any thoughts on reading the past exchanges?
I'm serious on this. I apologize for my naivety in thinking I could participate in such a discussion and for posting this quote in the first place. Reading some of your exchanges, and especially the one between Splat and Steven Landsburg (03 February 2010), opened my eyes about how little I really know and that I'm completely unable to judge any claims being made regarding this topic. Most of it is indeed far over my head. I'll retreat to further studying, educating myself, and listen and learn what you people have to say. So please ignore my previous comments.
I'm happy that the original quote at least caused some, hopefully enlightening, debate.