bramflakes comments on On Terminal Goals and Virtue Ethics - LessWrong

67 Post author: Swimmer963 18 June 2014 04:00AM

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

Comments (205)

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

Comment author: bramflakes 16 June 2014 09:18:44PM *  0 points [-]

Hm? Why doesn't Rare Earth solve this problem? We don't have the tech yet to examine the surfaces of exoplanets so for all we know the foreign-Earth candidates we've got now will end up being just as inhospitable as the rest of them. "Seemingly life capable" isn't a very high bar at the minute.

Now, if we did have the tech, and saw a bunch of lifeless planets that as far as we know had nearly exactly the same conditions as pre-Life Earth, and people started rattling off increasingly implausible and special-pleading reasons why ("no planet yet found has the same selenium-tungsten ratio as Earth!"), then there'd be a problem.

I don't see why you need to posit exotic scenarios when the mundane will do.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 June 2014 09:21:22PM 1 point [-]

I don't see why you need to posit exotic scenarios when the mundane will do.

Neither do I, hence my current low credence in a Great Filter and my currently high credence for, "We're just far from the mean; sometimes that does happen, especially in distributions with high variance, and we don't know the variance right now."

Comment author: bramflakes 16 June 2014 09:53:23PM 0 points [-]

Well I agree with you on all of that. How is it non-causal?

Or have I misunderstood and you only object to the "aliens had FOOM AI go wrong" explanations but have no trouble with the "earth is just weird" explanation?

Comment author: [deleted] 16 June 2014 10:01:38PM 1 point [-]

How is it non-causal?

It isn't. The people who affirmatively believe in the Great Filter being a real thing rather than part of their ignorance are, in my view, the ones who believe in a noncausal model.