Vladimir_Nesov comments on The scourge of perverse-mindedness - Less Wrong

95 Post author: simplicio 21 March 2010 07:08AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (249)
Tags: science philosophy

Comments (249)

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

Comment author: BenAlbahari 21 March 2010 02:20:27PM 17 points [-]

You only included the last sentence of Dawkins' quote. Here's the full quote:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

The universe is perverse. You have to learn to love it in spite of that.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 22 March 2010 12:44:18PM 15 points [-]

The universe is perverse. You have to learn to love it in spite of that.

What? Why would you love the indifferent universe? It has to be transformed.

Comment author: Nisan 23 March 2010 02:03:18AM *  7 points [-]

Right. Materialism tells us that we're probably going to die and it's not going be okay; the right way to feel good about it is to do something about it.

Comment author: BenAlbahari 22 March 2010 01:04:00PM 2 points [-]

My attitude is easier to transform than the universe's attitude.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 22 March 2010 01:14:07PM *  10 points [-]

Maybe easier, but is it the right thing to do? Obvious analogy is wireheading. See also: Morality as Fixed Computation.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 22 March 2010 01:28:45PM *  3 points [-]

Emotions ≠ preferences. It may be that something in the vague category "loving the universe" is (maybe depending on your personality) a winning attitude (or more winning than many people's existing attitudes) regardless of your morality. (Of course, yes, in changing your attitude you would have to be careful not to delude yourself about your preferences, and most people advocating changing your attitude don't seem to clearly make the distinction.)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 22 March 2010 01:35:49PM *  6 points [-]

I certainly make that distinction. But it seems to me that "loving" the current wasteland is not an appropriate emotion. Wireheading is wrong not only when/because you stop caring about other things.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 22 March 2010 02:37:20PM *  9 points [-]

But it seems to me that "loving" the current wasteland is not an appropriate emotion.

Granted. It seems to me that the kernel of truth in the original statement is something like "you are not obligated to be depressed that the universe poorly satisfies your preferences", which (ISTM) some people do need to be told.

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 23 March 2010 02:56:32AM *  8 points [-]

Since when has being "good enough" been a prerequisite for loving something (or someone)? In this world, that's a quick route to a dismal life indeed.

There's the old saying in the USA: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." The sentiment carries just as well, I think, for the universe as a whole. Things as they are may be very wrong indeed, but what does it solve to hate the universe for it? Humans have a long history of loving not what is perfect, but what is broken--the danger lies not in the emotion, but in failing to heal the damage. It may be a crapsack universe out there, but it's still our sack of crap.

By all means, don't look away from the tragedies of the world. Figuratively, you can rage at the void and twist the universe to your will, or you can sit the universe down and stage a loving intervention. The main difference between the two, however, is how you feel about the process; the universe, for better or worse, really isn't going to notice.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit