wedrifid comments on Excluding the Supernatural - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 September 2008 12:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (124)
Tags: epistemology naturalism reductionism religion antitheism joy supernatural mind_projection_fallacy

Comments (124)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Phil_Goetz5 12 September 2008 01:45:51AM 18 points [-]

Once, in a LARP, I played Isaac Asimov on a panel which was arguing whether vampires were real. It went something like this (modulo my memory): I asked the audience to define "vampire", and they said that vampires were creatures that lived by drinking blood.

I said that mosquitoes were vampires. So they said that vampires were humanoids who lived by drinking blood.

I said that Masai who drank the blood of their cattle were vampires. So they said that vampires were humanoids who lived by drinking blood, and were burned by sunlight.

I (may have) said that a Masai with xeroderma pigmentosum was a vampire. And so on.

My point was that vampires were by definition not real - or at least, not understandable - because any time we found something real and understandable that met the definition of a vampire, we would change the definition to exclude it.

(Strangely, some mythical creatures, such as vampires and unicorns, seem to be defined in a spiritual way; whereas others, such as mermaids and centaurs, do not. A horse genetically engineered to grow a horn would probably not be thought of as a "real" unicorn; a genenged mermaid probably would be admitted to be a "real" mermaid.)

Comment author: wedrifid 19 December 2011 06:20:39AM *  31 points [-]

My point was that vampires were by definition not real - or at least, not understandable - because any time we found something real and understandable that met the definition of a vampire, we would change the definition to exclude it.

Nonsense. If there was a creature that:

  • Used to be a normal living human
  • Still looks human
  • Has the same internal organs but none of them are functioning
  • Isn't vulnerable to hemlock
  • Has more strength than could plausibly attributed to humans according to our understanding of genetics
  • Has teeth which extend to fangs and then retract.
  • Can only be sustained by blood.
  • Definitely doesn't glitter. Ever.
  • Physically cannot enter people's houses due to physical restraint that seems to be only operating on the creature. Exception - can enter people's houses if invited.
  • Starts behaving like the human that they used to be except with extreme sociopathic and homicidal tendencies.
  • Is unaffected by getting stabbed in the chest by anything but a wooden stake. (Wooden stake kills him.)
  • Burns when exposed to sunlight, holy water or religious symbols.
  • Instantly turns to dust when staked, decapitated or sufficiently burnt via the aforementioned causes.

... then basically everyone would agree it was a vampire. LARPy Asimov is just being annoying when he tries to spin the question about the universe into a question about semantics.

Comment author: dlthomas 19 December 2011 06:02:12PM 0 points [-]
  • Definitely doesn't glitter. Ever.

... then basically everyone would agree it was a vampire.

Except some Twilight fans.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit