This is probably correct relative to the average person’s conception of evolution but probably not relative to the average LW reader?
Like even if you’re just looking at chemical evolution, which is literally just some chemicals floating upwards and others not, I wouldn’t bat an eye if you said “chemical evolution is a process that selects/produces amino acids and nucleotides” or even that “chemical evolution wants amino acids and nucleotides”
“Process” and “wants to” are in the map, not the territory. I don’t think anyone needs any justification for pointing that discrepancy out. Even if “process” and “wants to” are useful heuristics, I would not be miffed if LW posts resurfaced from time to time to remind everyone that we are not living in the territory here. I explain this in more detail in my response to Razied’s comment.
Every single word you might ever use about something in the real world is in the map, not the territory. It is semantically empty to point this out for three specific words.
This is probably correct relative to the average person’s conception of evolution but probably not relative to the average LW reader?
Like even if you’re just looking at chemical evolution, which is literally just some chemicals floating upwards and others not, I wouldn’t bat an eye if you said “chemical evolution is a process that selects/produces amino acids and nucleotides” or even that “chemical evolution wants amino acids and nucleotides”
“Process” and “wants to” are in the map, not the territory. I don’t think anyone needs any justification for pointing that discrepancy out. Even if “process” and “wants to” are useful heuristics, I would not be miffed if LW posts resurfaced from time to time to remind everyone that we are not living in the territory here. I explain this in more detail in my response to Razied’s comment.
Every single word you might ever use about something in the real world is in the map, not the territory. It is semantically empty to point this out for three specific words.