Rationality Quotes November 2012
Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (898)
Sean Davis discussing political polling.
Specifically, as part of the recent conservative criticism of Nate Silver.
I'd like everyone to be far more skeptical of those who are instinctively skeptical of math.
Yes, and one of the best ways to do this is to reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.
It seems like calling into salience the notion of "those who use math to intimidate" would tend to increase the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.
If we increase the social penalty on people who use math to intimidate we will decrease the number of people who use math to intimidate and so on net might reduce the perception among those with low math skills that people with strong math skills use math to intimidate.
Changing the underlying reality seems like a rather roundabout and unreliable method of changing people's perceptions.
In LessWrong terms, this is about the most horrible thing you can say about a society. It reads like an introductory quote to some hyper-Machiavellian book on advertising or political campaigning. Up-voted!
If this wasn't on LW (and on the rationality quotes thread!) it would deserve to go on the rationality quotes thread.
Davis' statement was not a generalised admonition concerning reasoning, but a statement made with the bottom line written (he was justifying ignoring Nate Silver). It's not entirely accurate to characterise it in general terms.
I suggest we put this debate on hold, until say November, 6. ;)
-- Siderea
(Hat-tip to Nancy Lebovitz.)
Train self to perceive the word "but" as an alarm bell. When tempted to use it in an argument, immediately abort sentence and reflect on whether to swap the clauses before and after it, or even save the latter for a more appropriate time. (I imagine a lot of people here already do that.)
I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it. -George Carlin
You could replace "Pope" with "President" in that quote, and it's still true.
"I have the same height as the Empire State Building, I just don't tower as many feet from the ground."
Interpreting Carlin charitably, he is talking about moral or rational authority, not about authority in the sense of power over others.
Ta-Nehisi Coates
K.C. Cole
If you're consistently in your right mind you can safely create the means of your own extinction, with the knowledge that you are sufficiently sane not to use it to extinguish yourself. This can come in handy when the means of your own extinction has significant non-extinction related uses.
Nietzsche, The Gay Science
The Dialogues Between Bokonon and Koheleth
We shouldn't edit humanity to remove depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and other mental illness?
No thanks - instead, let's avoiding totally pointless wasting of human capability.
I think the questions relevant to the quote would be should we avoid editing out crying at cute kitten videos, sitting with your grandmother while she tells you the same story for the 21st time, wearing a "kiss me I'm Polish" pin on st. patrick's day, laughing at three stooges movies, and swooning when a nice boy writes you doggerel or gives you an "Oh Henry" candy bar.
In rewriting the part of the code that evolution put in, all sorts of idiosyncratic behavior will be written out. The fact that the root idio means self, personal, private will not make it any easier to replace the evolved code with rationalized, readable, maintainable code without losing all sorts of behaviors whos purpose is nearly unknowable when looking at the existing code.
Since anxiety, depression, and especially schizophrenia are features of humanity which exist to a negative degree only in some of us, it will probably be possible to fix these by writing patches that operate on the relevant minds that have these features, and will not reqiure touching the evoluion-written code.
You shouldn't carelessly think you are necessarily wise enough to edit humanity without destroying it in the process. Things like "depression" "anxiety" "schizophrenia" are probably not neatly packed away in tidy little boxes you can remove from your brain without any side-effects at all.
This has been somewhat discussed at Devil's offers
I'm not saying that disentangling what we want to preserve will be easy. But the quote speaks in absolutes - fixing the code that causes schizophrenia or Capgras syndrone is prohibited because that would destroy our humanity.
It's conflating the problem of Hidden Complexity of Wishes with Justification-for-being-hit-on-the-head-every-day.
The quote neither speaks in absolutes nor does it prohibit anything.
Quotes must be compact and pithy to be quotable. If a quote refers to "advanced humans of the future," it is quite reasonable to expect they are talking about healthy, typical humans, and not referring to the repair of defects that only occur in some humans.
The quote expresses a wistful sense of loss at a choice to clean out the evelved code that makes up our kernel. It doesn't prohibit anything.
If we're using "humanity" to mean human values, this quote seems simply false (presuming that value stability is a solved problem by then).
If we're using the word to mean the architecture of baseline humans, it seems somewhere between false and irrelevant depending on what features of that architecture we care about.
If we're using it to mean some kind of metaphysical quality of human nature, it seems entirely unverifiable.
Even if you think the essence of the quote is wrong, that "we" would be better off if all the poets and street performers were making good livings in the white economy, don't you think the quote is valuable for pointing up an important question that many of us working on coding intelligence may need to answer some day?
Wait, what? I was talking about self-modification, not social normativity. It might be a point about the latter in context, but it isn't out of context; I was responding to the words you presented, not the ones in the source.
And my objection isn't that it raises the wrong question, but that it closes that question with a wrong answer.
What's the quote have to do with whether we want to be street performers? Do you think that self-modifying humans would try to make themselves want to work in offices instead of street performance, or something?
I found the quote amusing specifically because of this ambiguity (modulus your first point - the question of values seems tangential to me).
I found the mix of optimism (ie. the assumptions that no extinction type events will occur, and that there will be a continuous descendant type relationship between generations far into our future, etc...) and pessimism (ie, the assumption that, on a large enough time scale, most architectural components traceable to now-humans will become obsolete) poignant.
Why would you judge your morality by the quality of it's coding?
-related by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion
Versions of this quote have been posted twice before; the best version of the quote includes the friend's reply to Wittgenstein: http://lesswrong.com/lw/94r/rationality_quotes_january_2012/5kib
"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"
"The real value of an education has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:
"This is water."
--- David Foster Wallace in his commencement speech to Kenyon College, This is Water. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.
I read this quote as saying that we don't get educations in order to do things, but rather to have an awareness of things. I personally don't do that, with most things. I think this quote smacks of ivory-towerism.
Duplicate.
My mistake, I searched but didn't see it.
--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Rationality challenge: Understand why I posted it here.
Bonsu Rationality Challenge: Reinvent the meaning of "God" I used to ironman the position. Start by ironmaning it yourself.
It's an example of how even absurd amounts of research can fail to move a religious thought. I think too many people will fail to get the joke and the potential for abuse is too high.
For decision-theoric reasons, the dark lords of the matrix give superhumanly good advice about social organization to religious people in ways that look from inside the simulation like supernatural revelations; non-religious people don't have access to these revelations so when they try to do social organization it ends in disaster.
Obviously.
Seems legit.
A key of Marxist thought is the rejection of the idea of God. The Marxist morality that drove the Russian revolutionaries was different than Christian morality.
I don't the an inherent problem with blaming the Russian revolution on that change in morality. It's a bit like putting the blame that the crusades happened on Christianity.
Did the (nominal) Christians who did violent and terrible things forget God too?
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn doesn't speak about "why people do violent things?" in the quote but about why the Russian revolution happened.
Meta-level point: It is possible to steel-man someone's position into an argument that they would not actually endorse. I think that might be what you are doing here.
I'm trying to be more whimsical in my posting on LW, but I'm not sure that "rationality," "optimization," or any other special virtue in this community is advanced by this provocative post or its religious-language framing.
On the bottom line(http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/thebottomline/)/[politics as a mindkiller:
Source: Bill Clinton, in an appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (episode date: September 20, 2012). The quoted material appears at about the 6:50 mark.
Sting
H.L. Mencken
"Some magic bullets from the past"
-- George Weinberg commenting on Mencius Moldbug, “The magic of symmetric sovereignty”
(Not that I think that's a valid general principle, but I do feel that way about many of the thought experiments I see proposed on LW.)
DBZ Abridged on the lack of consequence concerning death in the series. Tien's supposed to be the only serious character in the series. That's the joke.
Edit: Perhaps I should explain this quote... I simply thought that Yamcha served as a good representation of most people's reactions... and Tien as a representation of "Um. It's no biggie." The rest of this series finale went off without a hitch as all characters realized "Wait. There are almost no consequences here. There may never be? What's the use in grieving!"
Charles Babbage
I suppose we don't know if this is true, since it doesn't yet exist. BTW, what has this to do with rationality?
Computers have revolutionized most fields of science. I take it as a general "yay science/engineer/computers" quote.
“Must a name mean something?" Alice asked doubtfully.
Of course it must," Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh; "my name means the shape I am - and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.”
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Neil deGrasse Tyson
I used to agree, but that part of my philosophy recently became unsettled.
The Last Psychiatrist bats another one out of the park:
CrimethInc (Not exactly a bastion of rationality, but they do have some good stuff now and again.)
--Mencius Moldbug on an experiment that has interesting results
William Blake
-- Yvain, “Why I Hate Your Freedom”
--Prime Function Aki Zeta-Five, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Removing all those glands and hormones (assuming they are pars pro toto for our evolved urges), what would be left? A frontal lobe staring at the wall?
William Blake
Teachings of Diogenes
Charles Mackay from "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"
--Michael Gazzaniga
Regarding brain architecture.
--Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
For some reason, I interpreted Girl 1 to be a Boy.
--Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning Was... the Commandline
From "Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine"
I would like to upvote the Feynman quote. I am not interested in upvoting the Stephenson quote. I think it would be better if these quotes were in separate comments, as recommended in the post.
I would like to upvote the Stephenson quote, and not the Feynman quote.
I would like to abstain from voting on them, but to do so in separate posts.
-John Maynard Keynes
David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
What is this "moral progress" you speak of Earth monkey?
So why is this down voted? If anyone is confused by this challenge to moral progress which they consider perfectly obvious they should read Against Moral Progress and a related text dump, then argue their case there.
If this is about the tone, well we disagree on taste. I think applause lights need to be challenged on their emotional affect as well as their implied argument.
I downvoted because it implies moral progress is meaningless, rather than nonexistant.
Of course, I would probably downvote a bald claim that moral progress doesn't hapen anyway.
One form of moral progress that doesn't look the same as "random walk plus retrospective teleology", is the case where some inconsistency of moral views is resolved.
For example, some dudes say that it's self-evident that all men are created equal. Then somebody notices that this doesn't really jive with the whole slavery thing. So at least some of what gets called moral progress is just people learning to live up to their own stated principles.
Another way of looking at it is that there is little difference between the terminal values of me vs a mediaeval lord, but the lord is very confused about what instrumental values best achieve his terminal values (he wants the best for the peasants, but thinks that that is achieved by the application of strong discipline to prevent idleness, so values severe discipline).
By this reasoning, abolishing slavery was moral progress, but declaring that all men are equal was moral regress.
If the fallacy is slavery, then moral progress. What if the fallacy is that all men are created equal?
By your measure, hypocritical values dissonance, we morally regressed when some dudes said it was self-evident that all men are created equal, and have indeed been morally regressing ever since, since affirmative action and so forth are accompanied by ever greater levels of hypocrisy and pretense. While the abolition of slavery reduced one form of hypocritical values dissonance, other forms of hypocritical values dissonance have been increasing.
Example: Female emancipation, high accreditation rates for females. Most successful long lived marriages are quietly eighteenth century in private, and most people, whether out of sexism or realism, quietly act as if female credentials are less meaningful than equivalent male credentials. Your criterion is neutral as to whether we do this out of sexism or realism. Either way, by your criterion, it is an equally bad thing, and there is a mighty lot of it going on.
I would call “moral progress” the process whereby a society's behaviours and their CEV get closer to each other than they used to be. And this looks pretty much like it, to me.
I don't think violence has declined. State violence has increased. Further, since we are imprisoning a lot more people, looks like private violence has increased, supposing, as seems likely, most of them are being reasonably imprisoned.
Genghis Khan and the African slave trade cannot remotely match the crimes of communism.
And if it has declined, Xenophon would interpret this as us becoming pussies and cowards. Was Xenophon more violent and cruel than any similarly respectable modern man? Obviously. But he was nonetheless deservedly respectable. We rightly call the ten thousand brave, not criminal.
Social acceptance of brave, honorable, and manly violence has greatly diminished, and so brave, honorable and manly violence has greatly diminished. But vicious, horrifying, evil and depraved violence, for example petty crime and the various communist mass murders, has enormously increased.
I have read Pinker's arguments in detail in his book. I don't think Homer would have agreed. I bet this is not approaching Homer's CEV, this is self-domestication of humans. In any case mind sharing how you implemented CEV checking on a mere human brain?
I meant, our behaviour being closer to our CEV than Homer's behaviour was to his CEV, if that makes sense. (Are you thinking of anything in particular about Homer or was it an arbitrary example?)
I wouldn't, but I can roughly guess what the result would be. (Likewise, I couldn't implement Solomonoff induction on any brain, but I still guess general relativity has less complexity than MOND.) If I had no way of guessing whether a given action is more likely to be good or to be bad, how should I ever decide what to do?
I don't think that makes sense. Also, I am pretty sure that Xenophon's behavior (massacre and pillage the bad guys and abduct their women) was a lot closer to his moral ideal than our behavior is to Xenophon's moral ideal.
Further, the behavior Xenophon describes others of the ten thousand performing is astonishingly close to his moral ideal, in that astonishing acts of heroism were routine, while the behavior I observe around me exhibits major disconnect from our purported moral ideals, for example the John Derbyshire incident, though, of course, Xenophon was doubtless selective in what incidents he though worthy to record.
That's actually the best definition of "moral progress" that I've seen. A big step up from "more like the values that I currently wish to signal having", the default definition.
People on Lesswrong saying their CEV includes X or leads to Y, are not using the term technically but as a poetic way of saying X and Y look about right to me and I'm confident I'm not wrong. Substituting that into the definition makes it much less impressive for human use. And if you check writing on CEV you see the definition is nearly circular for technical use in FAI design.
Just not true. The writing on CEV does a lot to constrain technical thinking about FAI design. It isn't a complete solution, nor is it presented as one but it certainly does rule out a lot (most) proposals for how an FAI should be designed and created. It simply doesn't fit the definition "circular".
(I had previously ignored this comment but upvotes as of now suggest that it may be successful in being actively misleading! As such, rejecting it seems more important.)
Is this a possible use of 'CEV?' So far as I understand CEV, it's not possible that it could change: our CEV is what we would want given all the correct moral arguments and all the information. Assuming that 'all the information' and 'all the correct moral arguments' are constants, how could the CEV of one society differ from that of another?
The only way I can think of is if the two societies are composed of fundamentally different kinds of beings. But the idea of moral progress you describe assumes that this is not the case.
Because he's not a monkey, he's an ape.
I suggest the downvoting was due to quibbling about the word "moral" when:
The usage was peripheral, the more active phrase there was "technological progress." But "moral progress" does have a referent, morality is merely as perceived, it's subjective, that's all. Konkvistador, "moral progress" is something made up by Earth monkeys, and only applies to Earth monkeys dealing with Earth monkeys.
It may have no meaning for one who is not an Earth monkey.
The conclusion, the point of the quote, was ignored. That conclusion is, at least, interesting (to this Earth monkey!).
Yes. Even the point of the quote is subjective. "Should" could imply morality, i.e., we "should" take it personally, maybe we are "bad" if we don't.
However, it can be interpreted to mean something objective. I.e., we "should take it personally" means that we have been affected personally.
We have a choice, reading, to derive value and meaning, or to criticize and find fault. We may also see both, i.e., value and error, and both of these depend on the interpretive choices we make. The statement is just a pile of letters, without the meanings Earth monkeys supply to their arrangement.
It is highly likely that every down-voter was an Earth monkey.
It usually means we now have a greater understanding of what we value.
[edited for clarity.]
Eh, no we don't.
See how easy it is to simply assert something? Let's now try actual arguments. First read the comments I linked to in the daughter comment, also feel free to provide links and references to material you think I should read. Then once we've closed the inferential gap and after we restate the other's case without straw manning it we can really start talking.
You asked. I answered. Whether it is correct is one thing, but you asked what it meant.
Ok. In the context of the question I assumed you believed in moral progress. Do you?
I believe we better understand our utility function and how to implement it than most civilizations have historically.
Or, more accurately, you and I would be non-existent and some other group of beings would be quasi-immortal.
And yet they couldn't even defeat the Spartans or keep Savonarola from taking power.
To be fair, with a general like Napoleon, how could the Spartans lose?
Fixed typo.
Anonymous
— Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age
Of course it's easy to say one has no morals at all when the morals in question are so much more complicated - they'll seem permissive by your ability to manipulate them in contrived edge cases. This complication, though, is for adaptation to the real world - they have something useful to say about very real cases that Victorian morality completely chokes and dies on.
But that's not really in conflict with the point of the quote, is it?
Something Positive
Henry David Thoreau
-Descartes, Discourse on method part 6.
-Aristosophy. I like to think this is about the Robot's Rebellion.
"
On confirmation bias
If a man objects to truths that are all too evident, it is no easy task finding arguments that will change his mind. This is proof neither of his own strength nor of his teacher's weakness. When someone caught in an argument hardens to stone, there is just no more reasoning with them.
Epictetus, Discourses I.5.1-2 (page 15 of this edition) (original Greek, with alternate translations at the link)
John Maynard Keynes
Previously quoted on LW, but not in a quotes thread. I was reminded of it by this exchange.
Thomas Huxley
-- Adam Savage
If this were true, the ancient Greeks would've had science.
Paul Graham
Thomas Sowell
False.
I mean, grain of truth, yes, literally true, no. You can shock the hell out of people and distinguish yourselves quite well by doing rational things.
Paul Krugman says something similar
(Very close to the end of Ricardo's Difficult Idea] )
Well, it is similar insofar as "reciting the contents of a standard textbook" and "doing rational things" are similar.
Mileage varies.
Cliff Pervocracy
While I think there's some truth to this, it's easy for me to come up with examples of things I've done that never made sense to myself.
Fair point. I can't really think of anything I've done that didn't make at least some sort of sense at the time, but I can think of at least one thing I've done where I seriously have to strain to see how it ever could have made sense to me (though I remember feeling like it did). Looking back on it, I feel like I was carrying the idiot ball.
--xkcd.
Quote from Peter Watts' Blindsight.
About the prospects of a fight against a superintelligence:
I thought this book was really good up until the ending, which was beyond predictable-- yet I had the impression it was meant to be quite the surprise.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/loved-ones-recall-local-mans-cowardly-battle-with,772/
I find both the ironic and straightforward meaning of this quote to be meaningful.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 13
But if my (not a mathematician) friend says that god spoke to him in a dream, and gave him a proof of the Goldbach conjecture, and he has the proof and it's valid, then I would think something more interesting than a typical dream was going on.
What I've observed in myself about reports of "God" doing something I'll describe as "insufficient curiosity." I have frequently not asked how the person identified the source as "God."
White beard, what? No, I've assumed, way too easily, that their actual experience doesn't matter.
And this could also be quite interesting if the person is a mathematician. Depends on what is more important to us, solving the unsolved math problem, and perhaps understanding heuristics, or coming up with evidence that something unexpected is going on. Can't explain it? Goddidit. Q.E.D.
But then the dream is doing zero work: your friend could simply say God told him the proof of the conjecture, and your situation is the same - if the proof checks out then you need to compare base rate for gods delivering math proofs and your friend secretly having a hobby of being a mathematician and succeeding etc to see whether it changes your beliefs.
And delivering a mathematical proof is surely not what >99% of God's previous statements were doing.
Anzai & Simon
(This version is from Wikipedia.)
--Borderlands 2
Excellent game BTW. It's better than Diablo 3 at what Diablo 3 is supposed to be (kill-loot-repeat), and it has good and actually funny writing, and passable shooter mechanics.
(House, MD deals with moral grandstanding)
-Sennett Forell, Foundation and Empire
Source: Andrew Sullivan in an otherwise fairly bland political post
More often than not it hits you first.
-- A dialogue by Philip Gasper
New Yorker article on David Deutsch
(I saw this on Scott Aaronson's blog)
--Carl Sagan
Jason Brennan, Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know
Sean Thomason
Teachings of Diogenes
This works until the king sends armed men to confiscate your vegetables.
What king ever sent armed men to confiscate the vegetables of one poor dude?
Damn near every one of them through the systemical implementation of taxation?
You can't get blood from a stone. So sometimes it pays to be a stone.
EDIT: Anyway, this is missing the point. Diogenes is preaching self-sufficiency and a variant of keeping your identity small. Sycophancy isn't a reliable way to hold onto one's vegetables and one's dignity.
But you can destroy the stone, and put something you can get blood from in its place.
"Once, Chuang Tzu was fishing the P’u River when the King of Ch’u sent two of his ministers to announce that he wished to entrust to Chuang Tzu the care of his entire domain.
Chuang Tzu held his fishing pole and, without turning his head, said: 'I have heard that Ch’u possesses a sacred tortoise which has been dead for three thousand years and which the king keeps wrapped up in a box and stored in his ancestral temple. Is this tortoise better off dead and with its bones venerated, or would it be better off alive with its tail dragging in the mud?'
'It would be better off alive and dragging its tail in the mud,' the two ministers replied.
'Then go away!' said Chuang Tzu, 'and I will drag my tail in the mud!'"
--Bertrand Russell, "Philosophy's Ulterior Motives". (The context is Descartes' philosophy and the obviously fallacious proofs he offers of the existence of God and the external world.)
I think men whose reasoning powers are that good are few and far between. (Women too, I'm not trying to be some sort of sexist here.)
Or laziness, or lack of time, or honest error. Multiple causes can have the same effect, and hanlons razor comes into play/
"Bias" can include those flaws, especially how the word is used on this site
In which Winnie-the-Pooh tests a hypothesis about the animal tracks that he is following through the woods:
Alex Tabarrok
"His mother had often said, When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. She had emphasized the corollary of this axiom even more vehemently: when you desired a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it." - Lois McMaster Bujold, writer (b. 1949)
When I am speaking to people about rationality or AI, and they ask something incomprehensibly bizarre and incoherent, I am often tempted to give the reply that Charles Babbage gave to those who asked him whether a machine that was given bad data would produce the right answers anyway:
But instead I say, "Yes, that's an important question..." and then I steel-man their question, or I replace it with a question on an entirely different subject that happens to share some of the words from their original question, and I answer that question instead.
What does this mean?
Steel man
See also.
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?s=911f001b47b040ac5997321714c0244b&p=7081969&postcount=8
“It was designed to look like one” does sound like a connection to me.
-Epicurus
I need help on this: I'm torn between finding this argument to be preposterous, and being unable to deny the premises or call the argument invalid.
At the very least, even assuming there's no reason to worry about your own death, you would probably still care about the deaths of others -- at least your friends and family. Given a group of people who mutually value having each other in their lives, death should still be a subject of enormous concern. I don't grant the premise that we shouldn't be concerned about death even for ourselves, but I don't think that premise is enough to justify Epicurus's attitude here.
Of course, for most of human history, there genuinely wasn't much of anything that could be done about death, and there's value in recognizing that death doesn't render life meaningless, even if it's a tragedy. But today, when there actually are solutions on the table, this quote sounds more in complacency than acceptance. Upvoted though, because it points to an important cluster of questions that's worth untangling.
You are allowed to have preferences about things that don't coexist with you.
Fair enough, but I think Epicurus' point might be rephrased thus:
-not really Epicurus
If that's right, it's not so much a question of being concerned about things you don't coexist with. He's saying that it's irrational to be concerned about things which are impossible and inconceivable.
That's stupid, of course. Of course, people die. But I have a hard time seeing where the argument actually goes wrong. I am regrettably susceptible to philosophical nonsense of every kind.
This argument implicitly assumes that we can't meaningfully talk about things not in the present.
It's linguistic trickery, like saying prisoners can't escape because if they escape they're not really prisoners now are they?
That's a good point, but it's not a solution (so much as a repitition) of the problem. How is it possible that prisoners can escape? Or that ships can sink?
I'm not saying I actually doubt that ships can sink, prisoners can escape, and people can die. That would be insane. My problem is that I have a hard time denying the force of the argument.
I don't think that's the kind of linguistic trickery it is. It's more like:
The dead person's body exists, but the dead person's mind/consciousness no longer does. If you equivocate by calling both of those things "the person", then they seem to simultaneously be dead and not dead. If you stop equivocating, the problem goes away.
Try this one:
EDIT: Changed some details because they were distracting.
In your imagination.
Look! I made a pretty picture to help!
As I said here, imaginary cheese doesn't belong in the Cheese circle. Imaginary cheese is not a kind of cheese.
Yes, I think I also just deny premise 2. Some words work like that: former presidents, for example, are not presidents.
The problem is in #2. Imaginary cheese is not a kind of cheese.
Edit: I'm not entirely sure this is where I saw it first, but this forum post (ironically, on a Catholic forum of some sort, apparently discussing whether certain games such as Magic are evil...) makes the argument excellently.
Edit2: In fact, I daresay an excerpt from said post is good enough to post as a rationality quote on its own, which I will now do.
Wonder what the author of that post was banned for.