As one self-contained point (which doesn’t bear most of my intuition, isn’t strong in itself), I don’t see how finer details about the way brain actually works (e.g. roles of pleasure/desire) can be important for this question. The fact that this is apparently going to be important in the planned sequence tells me that it’ll probably go in a wrong direction. Similarly, emphasis on science, where the sheer load of empirical facts can distract from the way they should be interpreted.
Just as a preview, I don’t think the neuroscience of pleasure and desire are crucial for metaethics either, but they are useful for illustrative purposes of what possible moral reductions could mean. They can bring some clarity to our thinking about such matters. But yes, of course it matters hugely how one interprets the cognitive science relevant to metaethics.
Multiple people made optimistic noises about the sequence, equally without explicit substantiation (we all have too little data to craft explicit reasons from). My honest expectation is that the sequence will go badly in some slightly subtle fashion that will produce confusion, little new understanding, and some debate. Maybe not, but that’s what I expect more.
I guess shokwave meant that this fact reflects badly on LW’s current state more than it reflects badly on Nesov. I kinda agree with that, and would love to read a blog that met Nesov’s standards :-)
I have a bad feeling about this.
Can you unpack the feeling to get more detail about what you intuit the problem is?
As one self-contained point (which doesn’t bear most of my intuition, isn’t strong in itself), I don’t see how finer details about the way brain actually works (e.g. roles of pleasure/desire) can be important for this question. The fact that this is apparently going to be important in the planned sequence tells me that it’ll probably go in a wrong direction. Similarly, emphasis on science, where the sheer load of empirical facts can distract from the way they should be interpreted.
Just as a preview, I don’t think the neuroscience of pleasure and desire are crucial for metaethics either, but they are useful for illustrative purposes of what possible moral reductions could mean. They can bring some clarity to our thinking about such matters. But yes, of course it matters hugely how one interprets the cognitive science relevant to metaethics.
wtf? You are like a black box that has something negative to say about every single post on Less Wrong. Lower your standards.
Multiple people made optimistic noises about the sequence, equally without explicit substantiation (we all have too little data to craft explicit reasons from). My honest expectation is that the sequence will go badly in some slightly subtle fashion that will produce confusion, little new understanding, and some debate. Maybe not, but that’s what I expect more.
This is a more reasonable and measured reply. Negative comments are great, so long as they have substance.
Positive ones don’t have to have substance? ;)
Data point: I have often voted comments up just for being amusing. One of those was negative, but most were positive.
I care about this garden.
I very much look forward to your posts on metaethics, which will hopefully be vastly superior to lukeprog’s posts.
I downvoted your comment because Nesov’s ability or inability to write good posts on metaethics is irrelevant to whether lukeprog’s posts are good.
I would’ve voted this comment up instead of down if you had not included the suggestion “Lower your standards”.
Raise your standards. A lot.
ETA: Full disclosure: Am a transhumanist.
That is a fact about posts on LessWrong, not a fact about Vladimir_Nesov.
I don’t see why it matters either way but it is quite clearly an alleged fact about Vladimir_Nesov.
I guess shokwave meant that this fact reflects badly on LW’s current state more than it reflects badly on Nesov. I kinda agree with that, and would love to read a blog that met Nesov’s standards :-)
Probably both. Luke’s contributions are among the best of those around. Even though they are nothing on Yvain’s or Eliezer’s back in the day.