No plot spoilers here, just wanted to flag a bit of poor reasoning that shows up in Chapter 39: > I shouldn't have believed it even for all of thirty seconds! Because if people had souls there wouldn't be any such thing as brain damage, if your soul could go...
A common background assumption on LW seems to be that it's rational to act in accordance with the dispositions one would wish to have. (Rationalists must WIN, and all that.) E.g., Eliezer: > It is, I would say, a general principle of rationality - indeed, part of how I define...
Donald Regan's masterful (1980) Utilitarianism and Co-operation raises a problem for traditional moral theories, which conceive of agents as choosing between external options like 'push' or 'not-push' (options that are specifiable independently of the motive from which they are performed). He proves that no such traditional theory T is adaptable,...
In the case you describe, the "HSC content" is just that Jesus is magic. So there's no argument being offered at all. Now, if they offer an actual argument, from some other p to the conclusion that Jesus is magic, then we can assess this argument like any other. How the arguer came to believe the original premise p is not particularly relevant. What you call the "defeater critique", I call the genetic fallacy.
It's true that an interlocutor is never going to be particularly moved by an argument that starts from premises he doesn't accept. Such is life.
The more interesting question is whether the arguer herself should... (read more)
Yes, that's the idea. I mean, (2) is plausibly true if the "because" is meant in a purely causal, rather than rationalizing, sense. But we don't take the fact that we stand in a certain psychological relation to this content (i.e., intuiting it) to play any essential justifying role.
Thanks for following up on this issue! I'm looking forward to hearing the rest of your thoughts.
I'm not sure what you have in mind here. We need to distinguish (i) the referent of a concept from (ii) its reference-fixing "sense" or functional role. The way I understood your view, the reference-fixing story for moral terms involves our (idealized) desires. But the referent is "rigid" in the sense that it's picking out the content of our desires: the thing that actually fills the functional role, rather than the role-property itself.
Since our desires typically aren't themselves about our desires, so it will turn out, on this story, that morality is not "about" desires. It's about "love, friendship," and all that jazz. But there's a story... (read more)
Correct. Eliezer has misunderstood rigid designation here.
Jonathan Ichikawa, 'Who Needs Intuitions'
Elizabeth Harman, 'Is it Reasonable to “Rely on Intuitions” in Ethics?
Timothy Williamson, 'Evidence in Philosophy', chp 7 of The Philosophy of Philosophy.
The debate over intuitions is one of the hottest in philosophy today
But it -- at least the "debate over intuitions" that I'm most familiar with -- isn't about whether intuitions are reliable, but rather over whether the critics have accurately specified the role they play in traditional philosophical methodology. That is, the standard response to experimentalist critics (at least, in my corner of philosophy) is not to argue that intuitions are "reliable evidence", but rather to deny that we are using them as evidence at all. On this view, what we appeal to as evidence is not the psychological fact of my having an intuition, but rather the propositional content... (read more)
And this responds to what I said... how?
It's a nice parable and all, but it doesn't seem particularly responsive to my concerns. I agree that we can use any old external items as tokens to model other things, and that there doesn't have to be anything "special" about the items we make use of in this way, except that we intend to so use them. Such "derivative intentionality" is not particularly difficult to explain (nor is the weak form of "natural intentionality" in which smoke "means" fire, tree rings "signify" age, etc.). The big question is whether you can account for the fully-fledged "original intentionality" of (e.g.) our thoughts and intentions.
In particular, I don't see anything in the above excerpt that addresses intuitive doubts about whether zombies would really have meaningful thoughts in the sense familiar to us from introspection.
This is somewhat absurd
More than that, it's obviously incoherent. I assume your point is that the same should be said of zombies? Probably reaching diminishing returns in this discussion, so I'll just note that the general consensus of the experts in conceptual analysis (namely, philosophers) disagrees with you here. Even those who want to deny that zombies are metaphysically possible generally concede that the concept is logically coherent.
No plot spoilers here, just wanted to flag a bit of poor reasoning that shows up in Chapter 39:
I shouldn't have believed it even for all of thirty seconds! Because if people had souls there wouldn't be any such thing as brain damage, if your soul could go on speaking after your whole brain was gone, how could damage to the left cerebral hemisphere take away your ability to talk?
This is a surprisingly common fallacy. Just because X depends on Y, it doesn't follow that X depends on nothing but Y. A phenomenon may involve more than just its most obvious failure point.
To illustrate: Suppose I'm trapped in a box, and my... (read more)
A common background assumption on LW seems to be that it's rational to act in accordance with the dispositions one would wish to have. (Rationalists must WIN, and all that.)
E.g., Eliezer:
It is, I would say, a general principle of rationality - indeed, part of how I define rationality - that you never end up envying someone else's mere choices. You might envy someone their genes, if Omega rewards genes, or if the genes give you a generally happier disposition. But [two-boxing] Rachel, above, envies [one-boxing] Irene her choice, and only her choice, irrespective of what algorithm Irene used to make it. Rachel wishes just that she had a disposition to choose differently.
And more recently, from AdamBell:
... (read 507 more words →)I [previously] saw Newcomb’s Problem
Donald Regan's masterful (1980) Utilitarianism and Co-operation raises a problem for traditional moral theories, which conceive of agents as choosing between external options like 'push' or 'not-push' (options that are specifiable independently of the motive from which they are performed). He proves that no such traditional theory T is adaptable, in the sense that "the agents who satisfy T, whoever and however numerous they may be, are guaranteed to produce the best consequences possible [from among their options] as a group, given the behaviour of everyone else." (p.6) It's easy to see that various forms of rule or collective consequentialism fail when you're the only agent satisfying the theory -- doing what would be best if... (read 437 more words →)
It's not unusual to count "thwarted aims" as a positive bad of death (as I've argued for myself in my paper Value Receptacles), which at least counts against replacing people with only slightly happier people (though still leaves open that it may be worthwhile to replace people with much happier people, if the extra happiness is sufficient to outweigh the harm of the first person's thwarted ends).