= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - 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 (600)
"There is no intangible stuff of goodness that you can divorce from life and love and happiness in order to ask why things like that are good. They are simply what you are talking about in the first place when you talk about goodness."
And then the long arguments are about why your brain makes you think anything different.
This is less startling than your more scientific pronouncements. Are there any atheists reading this that find this (or at first found this) very counterintuitive or objectionable?
I would go further, and had the impression from somewhere that you did not go that far. Is that accurate?
I'm a cognitivist. Sentences about goodness have truth values after you translate them into being about life and happiness etc. As a general strategy, I make the queerness go away, rather than taking the queerness as a property of a thing and using it to deduce that thing does not exist; it's a confusion to resolve, not an existence to argue over.
To be clear, if sentence X about goodness is translated into sentence Y about life and happiness etc., does sentence Y contain the word "good"?
Edit: What's left of religion after you make the queerness go away? Why does there seem to be more left of morality?
No, nothing, and because while religion does contain some confusion, after you eliminate the confusion you are left with claims that are coherent but false.