User Profile

star0
description3
message42

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Suggest best book as an introduction to computational neuroscience

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
9

Nature publishes an article about alternative therapy

3y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
31

Help with relevant rational decision making research ideas

3y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
2

Recent Comments

Learning social dynamics from the book Game is like trying to learn science from clickbait media.

Try David Buss: Evolutionary psychology - the new science of mind (newest edition)

First of all thats wrong level of analysis. There is nothing relativistic about the theory of relativity itself. Proper analogy would be *between* theories/ontologies/belief systems not in terms of the content of those theories.

No reference frame makes Newtons, Thomas Youngs, Augustine-Jean Fresn...(read more)

Is this supposed be little cute side notion or powerful counterargument?

Its possible to have better and worse ontologies even if philosophers cant solve what is the right theory of truth. One could answer to the liars paradox based on Russells, Tarskis, Kripkes or Priests ideas but this is irrelev...(read more)

> To state P is to imply "P is true". If you didn't think your theory was better, why state it?

Im not advocating some big grand theory of ethics but a rational approach to ethical problems given the values we have. I dont think its needed or even possible to solve some big general questions first....(read more)

Since we agree that this is true, but you still keep insisting that "you have to **solve** (funny to use this word because this task is still work in progress after thoussands of years) the general questions first get to an "interesting" object-level ethical propositions" as you wrote in the beginn...(read more)

Thanks for your answer. My 20 cents:

There are no both necessary and sufficient conditions for the perfect foundational general ethical theories. Would be interested hearing your arguments if you think otherwise. Give me an example to refute this. This does not mean that there cant be general guide...(read more)

You are partly trying to carve nature in clear categories, and it does not care about your intent doing so. There are general answers to general questions but when being more specific your nice clean and clear general answer can be problematic. Im in no way forced to keep defending universalism if ...(read more)

I have not stated that I do not undestand the terms.This should be very clear. I have stated that the question is not interesting to me because its too general. BUT because you keep insisting I still gave an answer to you while very clearly stating that if you would like to be more specific I could...(read more)

Well yes, I think morality is related to the wellbeing of the organism interested about the morality in the first place. There are reasons why forcefully cutting my friends arm vs hair is morally different. The difference is the different effects of cutting the limb vs hair to the nervous system of...(read more)

Thats a way too simplistic way to think about this. One has to stand on the shoulders of giants to be intellectual in the first place. Also there is this thing called scientific consensus and there are reason why its usually rational to lean ones opinions in line with scientific consensus- not becau...(read more)