= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
magfrump comments on The Relation Projection Fallacy and the purpose of life - 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 (40)
If we're naming fallacies, then I would say that this post commits the following:
The Linguistic Consistency Fallacy: claiming, implicitly or otherwise, that a word must be used in the same way in all instances.
A word doesn't always mean the same thing even if it looks the same. People who worry about the purpose of life aren't going to be immediately reassured once you point out that they're just missing one of the relata. "Oh, silly me, of course, it's a three-place relation everywhere else, so of course I was just confused when I was using it here". If you ask people who are worrying about the purpose or meaning of life, "Purpose for whom?", in my experience they tend to say something like "Not for anyone in particular, just sort of "ultimate" purpose". Now, "ultimate purpose" may well be a vague concept, or one that we get somehow tricked into caring about, but it's not simply an example of people making a trivial mistake like leaving off one of the relata. People genuinely use the word "purpose" in different (but related) ways.
That said, the fact that everywhere else we use the word "purpose" it is three-place is certainly a useful observation. It might make us think that perhaps the three-place usage is the original, well-supported version, and the other one is a degenerate one that we are only using because we're confused. But the nature of that mistake is quite different.
If you think I'm splitting hairs here, think about whether this post feels like a satisfying resolution to the problem. Insofar as I still feel the pull of the concept of "ultimate purpose", this post feels like it's missing the point. It's not that "ultimate purpose" is just a misuse of the word "purpose", which, by the Linguistic Consistency Fallacy, must be used in the same way everywhere, it's that it's a different concept which is, for various reasons, a confused one.
FWIW I think "2-Place and 1-Place Words" is a bit dubious for similar reasons. Both this post and that make the crucial observation that we have this confusing concept that looks like it's a good concept "partially applied", but use this to diagnose the problem as incorrect usage of a concept, rather than viewing it as a perhaps historical account of how that confused concept came about.
Like I said, sort of splitting hairs, but it makes all the difference if you're trying to un-confuse people.
What I think of the post as saying, rather than "purpose has only the meaning (to english speakers) of a ternary relation," is that "when one normally asks about something's purpose, one implicitly uses its structure as a ternary relation, and since you haven't established a ternary relation here you aren't going to get a satisfying answer that way."
I think I agree with you on at least one point, though, which is that "words" are really not the problem object; the sentence "what is the meaning of life?" is grammatically correct and not logically invalid and is somewhat a different use of the word purpose. The core object in these constructions I think is cognitive algorithms; in particular the "hear the word purpose, search for Z" algorithm breaks down when purpose changes meaning to no longer involve the same sorts of X,Y,Z.