= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobertLumley comments on Can't Pursue the Art for its Own Sake? Really? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (14)
I don't think he's wrong - your "higher value" in this instance is being more rational. You have a positive utility function for being a more rational person, not because of the consequences of it (for which you also presumably have a positive utility function) but because you want to be more rational. That's not wrong, it's just another "higher value".
Logic is a method of moving from syllogisms to conclusions. It doesn't necessarily say what those syllogisms should be, and obviously people with different syllogisms will reach different conclusions.
By this logic is there anyone who doesn't have a higher value?
I would argue that no, there isn't.
Except for maybe some people with brain injury in the "right" areas. Their behaviour will probably be influenced by extreme apathy.
Yeah, it seems like most people who want to pursue rationality are running into infinite recursion, it seems like they're doing it because they feel like it.
Up VOTE! Super helpful first paragraph. You rock, thank you. Being more rational is my higher goal than being rational. I subordinate my desire to be rational as I conceive it currently, to my desire to become more rational.
I'm a bit confused about the second. I agree with it. I just don't know why you bring it up
edit: why the down vote? I'm curious.