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.

Gavin comments on The Relation Projection Fallacy and the purpose of life - Less Wrong Discussion

67 Post author: Academian 28 December 2012 04:14AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (40)
Tags: relativism relation projection fallacy

Comments (40)

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

Comment author: Wei_Dai 28 December 2012 07:33:24PM *  19 points [-]

Suppose I find a piece of strange-looking code on my computer and ask, "Does this code have a purpose?" The following seem to be reasonable possible answers:

  1. Yes, it was written to serve some useful function.
  2. No, it's a functionally null piece of code that the programmer forgot to remove.
  3. No, it seems to be the result of some kind of copying error.
  4. Yes, it's a backdoor deliberately inserted by a previous intruder.
  5. No, it's a security vulnerability that the original programmer accidentally created.

The following do not seem to be reasonable answers:

  • a) Yes, it's an accidental vulnerability whose purpose for an attacker is to use it to hack my machine.
  • b) Yes, its purpose is for me to show off my testing/debugging skills to my boss.

It seems that at least in some cases when I ask "Does this thing have a purpose?" the kind of answer I'm looking for includes "someone deliberately created it" but excludes "it's valuable for someone". If "Does life have a purpose?" is like this, whether or not other people value my life wouldn't to be relevant to answering it.

Comment author: Gavin 30 December 2012 05:25:23AM *  6 points [-]

There's a stick lying on the ground in the woods. It previously was unknown by any agent, so it was purposeless.

I pick it up and start using it to steady myself as I hike. Now, it's a walking stick. Its purpose to me is to help me walk. I didn't create it. But I started using it, thereby creating a new entity--though the stick itself is physically unchanged.

In the computer example, the vulnerability gains purpose the moment that an intruder becomes aware of it. Previously, it merely had potential purpose.

What you're calling the act of "creation" can be as simple as the creation of an "intent to use" connection in the mind of an agent.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit