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.

wedrifid comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

42 Post author: Costanza 29 December 2011 11:23PM

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

Comments (265)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 30 December 2011 01:20:12AM 2 points [-]

So in Eliezer's meta-ethics he talks about the abstract computation called "right", whereas in e.g. CEV he talks about stuff like reflective endorsement. So in other words in one place he's talking about goodness as a formal cause and in another he's talking about goodness as a final cause. Does he argue anywhere that these should be expected to be the same thing?

Not explicitly. He does in various places talk about why alternative considerations of abstract 'rightness' - some sort of objective morality or something - are absurd. He does give some details on his reductionist moral realism about the place but I don't recall where.

Incidentally I haven't seen Eliezer talk about formal or final causes about anything, ever. (And they don't seem to be especially useful concepts to me.)

Comment author: [deleted] 30 December 2011 02:15:15AM 0 points [-]

Incidentally I haven't seen Eliezer talk about formal or final causes about anything, ever. (And they don't seem to be especially useful concepts to me.)

Aren't "formal cause" and "final cause" just synonyms for "shape" and "purpose", respectively?

Comment author: endoself 30 December 2011 08:44:16PM 1 point [-]

Basically, but Aristotle applied naive philosophical realism to them, and Will might have additional connotations in mind.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 30 December 2011 09:12:23PM 0 points [-]

naive philosophical realism

Sweet phrase, thanks. Maybe there should be a suite of these? I've noticed naive physical realism and naive philosophical (especially metaphysical) realism.