Downvoted for using on-standard terms without referencing or defining them clearly.
So the terminology used is in fact pretty standard in mainstream philosophical contexts. Notions of final and efficient causes date back to Aristotle, and was discussed in a lot of detail by Aquinas. This seems like an example of making presumptions about a field where one should do a little research first (and is the sort of thing that gives the impression that many LW people just don’t know much philosophy beyond a very narrow approach).
Now, there’s a valid reason for downvoting which is that notions of final cause are just not useful. They are the sort of thing that’s barely coherent, has teleology almost built in, and reflects more human cognitive predilections than much about the universe. So that’s a possible reason for downvoting. At the same time though, OP seems to have made some effort to discuss notions of final cause in the context of whether they are cognitively useful, which might make them more reasonable as potential shortcuts.
So the terminology used is in fact pretty standard in mainstream philosophical contexts. Notions of final and efficient causes date back to Aristotle, and was discussed in a lot of detail by Aquinas. This seems like an example of making presumptions about a field where one should do a little research first (and is the sort of thing that gives the impression that many LW people just don’t know much philosophy beyond a very narrow approach).
Now, there’s a valid reason for downvoting which is that notions of final cause are just not useful. They are the sort of thing that’s barely coherent, has teleology almost built in, and reflects more human cognitive predilections than much about the universe. So that’s a possible reason for downvoting. At the same time though, OP seems to have made some effort to discuss notions of final cause in the context of whether they are cognitively useful, which might make them more reasonable as potential shortcuts.