= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wei_Dai 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)
I think bryjnar is saying there may be two different concepts of purpose, which share the same word, with the grammatically 3-nary "purpose" often referring to one concept and the grammatically 2-nary "purpose" often referring to the other. This seems plausible to me, because if the 2-nary "purpose" is just intended to be a projection of the 3-nary "purpose", why would people fail to do this correctly?
Why have brilliant people failed at these before?
Maybe 2-naryish thinking about intentions in general is somehow useful. Maybe this has something to do with how we come up with new uses for things and spot other optimizer-thingies before they kill us. Maybe the brain makes new discoveries by confusing language with new meanings from time to time but unfortunately this can be a failure mode too.
Maybe it really is just a simple logical fallacy. The brain came up with the 2-nary grammatical shortcut, and didn't properly keep it separate from the original 3-nary concept.