You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

SilasBarta comments on SUGGEST and VOTE: Posts We Want to Read on Less Wrong - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: lukeprog 07 February 2011 02:51AM

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

Comments (102)

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

Comment author: lukeprog 07 February 2011 05:09:39AM 1 point [-]

Do you think this is possible right now? Would this be a joke post that you want to read, or something?

Comment author: beriukay 07 February 2011 11:40:07AM 1 point [-]

I hope it isn't a joke. I can see great use for a deconstruction of the many philosophical questions, failed philosophies, and most importantly, some kind of status report of more modern thought.

We've all heard Hume, Kant and Descartes, to name a few. But their ideas were formed long before the Scientific Revolution, which I arbitrarily deem to be the publishing of the Origin of the Species. It would be nice to point people arguing old school deontology, for example, to Wei Dei's chapter: True Answers About Why Good Will Alone Is Insufficient.

Comment author: Larks 07 February 2011 05:06:11PM 1 point [-]

Suppose acting out of concern for the morality of my future selves was moral.

For a reductio, assume moral motive was sufficient for moral action. Suppose you self-modified yourself into a paperclipper, who believed it was moral to make paperclips. Now, post-modification you could be moral by making paperclips. Recognising this, your motive in self-modifying is to help your future self to act morally. Hence, by our Kantian assumption, the self-modification was moral. Hence it is moral to become a paperclipper!

Comment author: Perplexed 07 February 2011 11:40:16PM *  0 points [-]

In some ways I like this idea, but in some ways I don't think it would work. Suppose, for example, that I produce a post entitled "The real reason why philosophical realism sucks". The post consists of 20 lines or so of aphorisms, each a link to a more complete philosophical argument. Cool, potentially informative, and very likely useful as a reference. But how would you discuss a posting like that in the comments?