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.

Peterdjones comments on A Defense of Naive Metaethics - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Will_Sawin 09 June 2011 05:46PM

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

Comments (294)

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

Comment author: Will_Sawin 13 June 2011 05:08:08PM 1 point [-]

I don't understand what you mean, here. I'm not sure what you mean by 'true' or 'useful', I guess. I'm talking about true claims in this sense.

I mean what you mean by "true", or maybe something very similar.

By "useful" I mean "those claims that could help someone come to a decision about their actions"

Which one is that, and what does everybody already know it to mean?

It's what people say when they say "should" but don't precede it with "if". Some people on lesswrong think it means:

[you should do X] = [X maximizes this complicated function that can be computed from my brain state]

Some think it means:

[you should do X] = [X maximizes whatever complicated function is computed from my brain state]

and I think:

[you should do X] = [the statement that, if believed, would cause one to do X]

Comment author: Peterdjones 23 June 2011 01:37:48PM 1 point [-]

or rather [you should do X] = [the statement that, if believed, would cause one to do X if one were an ideal and completely non akrasic agent]

Comment author: Will_Sawin 23 June 2011 02:10:52PM 1 point [-]

Correct.