Will_Newsome comments on Exclude the supernatural? My worldview is up for grabs. - Less Wrong

24 Post author: r_claypool 25 June 2011 03:46AM

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: Will_Newsome 26 June 2011 04:07:42AM *  0 points [-]

Right. It gets kind of funny, though, when you chase that a little further onto a tangent. Human minds think that "without moving parts" is simple because of their mechanical intuitions, and humans got their mechanical intuitions because they evolved in a universe with straightforward physical laws. Or! Human minds think "without moving parts" is simple because of their mechanical intuitions, and human minds got their mechanical intuitions because mechanical intuition is a convergent property of minds, and wherever you have a mind you will find mechanical intuition, via non-fallacious teleology. Put another way, that minds were preceded by some evolutionary process is questionable, or contingent and trivial if "true". Given the latter interpretation, pointing out that human minds evolved is just the genetic fallacy. Given the former interpretation, though, the latter can conceivably be called the teleological fallacy. Dissolving the debate requires resolving the inherent logical uncertainty, and that is a little trickier than some seem to think.

Comment author: Peterdjones 26 June 2011 02:51:11PM 3 points [-]

Put another way, that minds were preceded by some evolutionary process is questionable, or contingent and trivial if "true". Given the latter interpretation, pointing out that human minds evolved is just the genetic fallacy. Given the former interpretation, though, the latter can conceivably be called the teleological fallacy. Dissolving the debate requires resolving the inherent logical uncertainty, and that is a little trickier than some seem to think.

I didn't follow that.