= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on An argument against indirect normativity - 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 (25)
I think I understand X, and it seems like a legitimate problem, but the comment I think you're referring to here seems to contain (nearly) all of X and not just half of it. So I'm confused and think I don't completely understand X.
Edit: I think I found the missing part of X. Ouch.
Yeah. The idea came when I was lying in a hammock half asleep after dinner, it really woke me up :-) Now I wonder what approach could overcome such problems, even in principle.
If the basilisk is correct* it seems any indirect approach is doomed, but I don't see how it prevents a direct approach. But that has it's own set of probably-insurmountable problems, I'd wager.
* I remain highly uncertain about that, but it's not something I can claim to have a good grasp on or to have thought a lot about.