= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
torekp comments on Philosophical differences - 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 (28)
It seems to me that pop philosophy is being compared to rigorous academic science. Philosophers make great effort to undertand each others' frameworks. Controversy and disagreement abound, but exercising the mind in predicting consequences using mental models is fundamental to both scientific progress AND everyday life. You and I may disagree on our metaphysical views, but that doesn't prevent us from exploring the consequences each viewpoint predicts. Eventually, we may be able to test these beliefs. Predicting these consequences in advance helps us use resources effectively (as opposed to testing EVERY possibility scientifically). (Human) philosophy is an important precursor to science.
I'm also glad to see in other comments that the AI case has greater uncertainty than the sleeper cell case.
Having made one counterpoint and mentioned another, let me add that this was a good read and a nice post.
Right. Which leads to a complementary suggestion to the OP author's
In addition, we should zoom out, to find consequences of the intuitions (when combined with known or discoverable facts). That's where the interesting stuff happens.