= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SquirrelInHell comments on Rationality Reading Group: Part V: Value Theory - 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 (31)
Hmm. So maybe let's state the issue in a more nuanced way.
We have argument A and counter-argument B.
You adjust argument A in direction X to make it stronger and more valuable to argue against.
But it is not enough to apply the same adjustment to B. To make B stronger in a similar way, it might need adjusting in direction -X, or some other direction Y.
Does it look like it describes a bug that might have happened here? If not, feel free to drop the issue.
I'm afraid your description here is another thing that may have "not enough concreteness" :-). In your analogy, I take it A is "simple moral theories are too neat to do any real work in moral philosophy" and X is what takes you from there to "simple moral theories can't account for all of human values", but I'm not sure what B is, or what direction Y is, or where I adjusted B in direction X instead of direction Y.
So you may well be right, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying with enough clarity to tell whether you are.
You caught me red handed at not being concrete! Shame on me!
By B I meant applying the idea from "Say not 'Complexity'".
You adjusting B in direction X is what I pointed out when I accused you of changing my original comment.
By Y I mean something like our later consensus, which boils down to (Y1) "we can use the heuristic of 'simple doesn't work' in this case, because in this case we have pretty high confidence that that's how it really is; which still doesn't make it a method we can use for finding solutions and is dangerous to use without sufficient basis"
Or it could even become (Y2) "we can get something out of considering those simple and wrong solutions" which is close to Gram_Stone's original point.