= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on Helpless Individuals - 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 (235)
Answered here. No, that humans are smarter than chimpanzees does not imply that the music you like is objectively better than other music, nor does it having the capacity to be worked at for years.
(I am given caution by having heard similar arguments from rock musicians who have fifty Frank Zappa albums. Technical complication is an emotional button for art to press, that humans have and chimps don't, but that does not make it the highest of all possible buttons.)
I did not use the highlighted phrase in my comment. You will have to spell out an argument that what I said implies that, because I don't see it. You'll have to start by telling me what "objectively better" means.
And then, assuming you're actually disagreeing with me about something specific, you'll have to tell me why the argument I presented is wrong. Which of my predictions do you disagree with, and by how much?
Your comment makes detailed claims of inherent superiority of the fans of the music you like. Are you claiming that doesn't constitute such a claim?
A claim that X utilizes more intellectual resources than Y does not constitute a claim that X is "objectively better" than Y, no.