= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on The Third Alternative - 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 (78)
It's ugly, though. "They" is a plural. I just used it in my last post, but I didn't like doing it; now it is gender-sensitive, but ungrammatical.
I also used the phrase "a new man", because "a new person" doesn't have the history of use that invokes the noble/creepy feelings that I wanted to communicate. I couldn't think of any gender-neutral way around it.
If we took a vote, I'd vote for "it". It also has a nice, dehumanizing ring to it, which would probably be good, given our anthropic tendencies.
When you are speaking of people, "anthropic" is the right stance!
What an anthropic thing to say!
"Anthropic" means human-centric. I want humans to think of "people" as a more general term, not as a synonym for "human".
People are human.
That's not a statement with a true/false value; it's a philosophical/ethical assertion.
In any case, regardless of whether that statement is extensionally true at present, it will not be in the future, and we need to prepare for that future in advance.
Additionally, philosophy routinely finds it useful to ask hypothetical questions. Equipping ourselves with mental categories that make us incapable of comprehending hypotheticals about people from most possible worlds will lead to error.