= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Unknowns comments on A Basic Problem of Ethics: Panpsychism? - 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 (16)
This assumes that I can't care about something without first giving it a physical definition. But this is not true. I care about myself, and I care about myself even if I do not yet know the physical properties that define me. So I can also say "I care about atoms for their own sake if they are sufficiently similar to me", even if I do not yet know what it would take for them to be sufficiently similar to me.
It's not that one has to have their one true definition all laid out before any progress can be made.
But if one cannot make any physical predictions if all atoms are "fleem" rather than not fleem, it's usually better to take a break from worrying about whether atoms are fleem. You might just be getting sidetracked by the ol' blegg/rube problem.
I can't make any physical prediction from the fact that I am myself, rather than someone else. It doesn't stop me from caring about myself more than about other people.
I think you are confusing a lack of highly available consequences of being you, with a known lack of consequences.