Searle says his life’s work is to explain how things like “money” and “human rights” can exist in “a world consisting entirely of physical particles in fields of force”;
Someone should tell him this has already been done: dissolving that kind of confusion is literally part of LessWrong 101, i.e. the Mind Projection Fallacy. Money and human rights and so forth are properties of minds modeling particles, not properties of the particles themselves.
That this is still his (or any other philosopher’s) life’s work is kind of sad, actually.
I guess my phrasing was unclear. What Searle is trying to do is generate reductions for things like “money” and “human rights”; I think EY is trying to do something similar and it takes him more than just one article on the Mind Projection Fallacy. (Even once you establish that it’s properties of minds, not particles, there’s still a lot of work left to do.)
Or maybe Searle is tackling a much harder version of the problem, for instance explaining how things like human rights and ethics can be binding or obligatory on people when they are “all in the mind”, explaining why one person should be beholden to another’s mind projection.
Note that “should be beholden” is a concept from within an ethical system; so invoking it in reference to an entire ethical system is a category error.
Also, I feel that the sequences do pretty well at explaining the instrumental reasons that agents with goals have ethics; even ethics which may, in some circumstances, prohibit reaching their goals.
Someone should tell him this has already been done: dissolving that kind of confusion is literally part of LessWrong 101, i.e. the Mind Projection Fallacy. Money and human rights and so forth are properties of minds modeling particles, not properties of the particles themselves.
That this is still his (or any other philosopher’s) life’s work is kind of sad, actually.
I guess my phrasing was unclear. What Searle is trying to do is generate reductions for things like “money” and “human rights”; I think EY is trying to do something similar and it takes him more than just one article on the Mind Projection Fallacy. (Even once you establish that it’s properties of minds, not particles, there’s still a lot of work left to do.)
Or maybe Searle is tackling a much harder version of the problem, for instance explaining how things like human rights and ethics can be binding or obligatory on people when they are “all in the mind”, explaining why one person should be beholden to another’s mind projection.
Note that “should be beholden” is a concept from within an ethical system; so invoking it in reference to an entire ethical system is a category error.
Also, I feel that the sequences do pretty well at explaining the instrumental reasons that agents with goals have ethics; even ethics which may, in some circumstances, prohibit reaching their goals.
Not necessarily. Many approaches to this problem try to lever an ethical “should” off a rational “should”.