LESSWRONG
LW

All of analyticsophy's Comments + Replies

Things you are supposed to like
analyticsophy-10

As long as my average expected utility over all choices available goes up, I'm down to get more goals, and even loose old ones. But if my average expected utility goes down, then screw getting a new value. Though in general, adding a new value does not imply getting rid of an old one; as long as you keep all your old values there is no danger in adding a new one.

Reply
3PhilGoetz
But - this is your utility using a new function. If you can get more utility by changing your utility function, just change it to something easy, like "I value lying on my back in bed." (Wait, I already value that pretty highly...)
6Alicorn
"1+1=giraffe" isn't meaningless. It means that if you add one and one, you get a giraffe. Everyone knows that's where giraffes come from.
0Ronny Fernandez
If there is a difference between undecidable and meaningless, and a statement can be shown to be undecidable, then we need to accept that not every meaningful statement is true or false at least in the case of the natural numbers.
0Ronny Fernandez
So does that mean that we should reject the principle of excluded middle? If so, that means that our standard logics are useless for dealing with mathematical (if not all) reasoning. Intuitionistic logic might be better suited at dealing with these sorts of issues, but it seems strange that some meaningful statements might be neither true nor false.
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy20

"There is no particular word limit. It's too many words, and too overwrought, for what it's saying, which is simply the often-made point that overreaction to child abuse scares can itself be damaging." Sorry sir, but if you had simply read my introduction a bit more carefully you might have noticed that from the very beginning I make it clear that my aim is to give an example of how completely un-beneficial moral judgements can enter our culture and become rooted if they hide in our taboo box.

Reply
-1Richard_Kennaway
Moral judgements against pedophilia are "completely un-beneficial"? And they are "hiding"? No-one openly expresses them? What planet did you just arrive from?
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy30

Wait I misunderstood what you were asking, sorry. No, I specifically argue that sex involving a non-consenting partner is always going to be traumatic for that member of the ordeal.

Reply
4Eugine_Nier
Why? Do you also believe that being touched non-consensually should always be traumatic? (Yes there exist cultures were being touched by a random member of the opposite sex or a member of an untouchable caste is considered traumatic). What's so special about touching with sexual overtones, and aren't the sexual overtones themselves cultural?
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy-20

I don't disagree, but i think the situation becomes drastically different when we are talking about sexual desires. Again, I don't have anything better than moderate familiarization with Kinsey to back that up.

Reply
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy-40

I would say quite the opposite, as would Dr. Kinsey from what i understand.

Reply
6drethelin
I think you're completely failing to take into account culture and soft pressure and the effect they have on forcing people to do what they don't want to. A) Children are CONSTANTLY made to do things they don't want to do by parents and other adults. Schoolwork, cleaning their room, eating their vegetables, etc. etc. IF a child does not want to have sex but is dutiful and thinks it's expected of them, they will probably do it anyway. The same thing can also easily happen with the influence of other children, where kids are constantly and easily tricked into believing that something they find uncomfortable or weird is the right thing to do. B) Someone can be extremely uncomfortable with what they're doing and you could EASILY not recognize it, if they're too scared to show it. I have known this to happen with an adult, and a child would be massively more susceptible to it. The heuristic "Don't molest children if they tell you not to" just does not work to prevent this. The massive difference in power and knowledge between the two parties is a core part of the problem. While the lovely situation you want to envisage where all parties respect and like each other equally, and know all about sex and are 100 percent consensual might be possible, it does not seem likely.
3Normal_Anomaly
You mean criminalized.
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy00

Yes, absolutely would. The only thing i think i would loose in doing so is showing that there is much more to our distaste of pedophiles than the obvious harms they cause.

Reply
1MatthewBaker
edit button :)
3analyticsophy
Wait I misunderstood what you were asking, sorry. No, I specifically argue that sex involving a non-consenting partner is always going to be traumatic for that member of the ordeal.
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy20

Also, I don't understand why it say's my page does not exist. I might just try again.

Reply
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy20

It means precisely that it works well with what we already consider to be beneficial thanks to our genetic and memetic predispositions.

Reply
The Phobia or the Trauma: The Probem of the Chcken or the Egg in Moral Reasoning.
analyticsophy30

I'm sorry, I'm new honestly, and I'm not trolling. I thought I might have that sort of reaction. Sorry about the word count I also didn't know the distinction between discussion and main post. Expect not to have similar problems with me in the future.

Reply
4Richard_Kennaway
It's not that it's too many words for a discussion post. There is no particular word limit. It's too many words, and too overwrought, for what it's saying, which is simply the often-made point that overreaction to child abuse scares can itself be damaging; along with staring hard enough at something in plain sight that it vanishes, as in the adjacent thread on the meaning of life. How did you arrive at LessWrong, and why did you choose to write this as your first posting here?
Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
analyticsophy00

There are a couple things, I would like to apply my informationalist ontology to the vast variety of issues that are being considered here, I think it would be of great help but i won't do that till I have some massive charma. I think it's a novel ontology and i would like for it be used by others. I also hope to see if I can't use some Dennett to help out all of the qualiaphiles that seem to hang out here. I love Yudcowsky (w/e his name is) but I can't help but feel like he's a little naive to modern philosophy's success. I think Quine and Davidson could... (read more)

Reply
-2Peterdjones
Schools, plural. You can solve the Agrippa trilemma by appeal to arbitrary rules--but whose arbitrary rules? Maybe you can justify non arbitrary hypothesis selection rules--but how? Circularly? With regress? There are reasons why philosophy remains "unsolved"
Welcome to Less Wrong! (2010-2011)
analyticsophy30

Hello Less Wrong.

I am a philosopher that is apparently concerned with precisely your mission statement. To improve the art of human rationality, I am here to help an be helped towards that aim

Reply
0NancyLebovitz
Welcome. Can you be more specific about what you'd like to be doing differently?