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.

Qiaochu_Yuan comments on Amending the "General Pupose Intelligence: Arguing the Orthogonality Thesis" - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: diegocaleiro 13 March 2013 11:21PM

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

Comments (22)

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

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 14 March 2013 07:03:52PM 0 points [-]

In what sense is this a 'rationalist' position?

Comment author: beoShaffer 14 March 2013 07:19:35PM 1 point [-]

In the sense of moral rationalism. The fact that rationalist can be used to refer to rationality or rationalism is unfortunate, but IIRC (to busy to search for it) we've had a few debates about terminology and decided that we currently are using the least bad options.

Comment author: FiftyTwo 14 March 2013 11:01:21PM *  1 point [-]

Indeed. Its a problem of language evolution.

To summarise a few centuries of Philosophy very briefly: A lng tie ago there were Rationalists who thought everything could be proven by pure reason, and Empiricists who depended on observation of the external world. Because Reason was often used in contrast to emotion (and because of the association with logic and mathematics) "Rational" evolved into a general word for reasonable or well argued. The modern rationalist movement is about thinking clearly and coming to correct conclusions, which can't really be done by relying exclusively on pure reason. (Hence why moral rationalists in the original sense don't really exist anymore)