I don’t think claims about how something seems to me need independent substantiation.
Oh, come on...
That there is a definite and uniform LW ethics is not a default: such a claim needs support itself.
But that’s not the claim under discussion. The claim that we’re (well, I’m—you kind of aren’t) discussing is that there is a definite and uniform position that one person, namely Eliezer, has laid out in a sequence. I’m not sure how you are supposed to prove that absence of something, in this case a change of mind, by the way...
It seems to consist of someone thinkign aloud and changing their mind.
Wait, did I miss something? Which change of mind are you referring to?
Not in the sense that he announced a change of mind. More an overall drift.
Well, drift from where to where, then?
The situation would be much better if there were some discernable end point or trajectory to the drift.
You do realise that, being asked twice, you have failed to provide any substantiation of the claim(s) you’re making...
I don’t think claims about how something seems to me need independent substantiation.
That there is a definite and uniform LW ethics is not a default: such a claim needs support itself.
Oh, come on...
But that’s not the claim under discussion. The claim that we’re (well, I’m—you kind of aren’t) discussing is that there is a definite and uniform position that one person, namely Eliezer, has laid out in a sequence. I’m not sure how you are supposed to prove that absence of something, in this case a change of mind, by the way...
That is more of a default; OTOH, I have laid out, in the other subthread, how he has actually embraced four different positions.
Huh. Might as well stake my own position then. Humean sentimentalist/emotivist here, what up?
The logical structure of ethical claims.