tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post6127062184206378006..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Apropos of the Guardian pieceRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8627802827730007222010-03-23T08:55:42.980+11:002010-03-23T08:55:42.980+11:00I don't think you'll be disappointed, JJ. ...I don't think you'll be disappointed, JJ. :-)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05840059127758081545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-35514407233010724382010-03-23T06:31:34.274+11:002010-03-23T06:31:34.274+11:00"There's an excellent Greg Egan short-sto..."There's an excellent Greg Egan short-story about a guy who is faced with the prospect of choosing all of his preferences and tastes ab initio."<br /><br />And thanks to that little tip from Colin and Dr. Blackford, I've now requested a book with that short story. Yay!J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3725629830113182352010-03-22T11:21:06.774+11:002010-03-22T11:21:06.774+11:00Yes! :-)Yes! :-)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05840059127758081545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61686863399616267812010-03-22T11:05:02.383+11:002010-03-22T11:05:02.383+11:00For those who don't know, "DM" is Da...For those who don't know, "DM" is David Mabus, a well-known internet troll. You'd think he'd have better things to do, even by his standards, than turn his attention to this little part of the net.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43710706827365397272010-03-22T11:01:57.987+11:002010-03-22T11:01:57.987+11:00It's called "Reasons to be Cheerful"...It's called "Reasons to be Cheerful".Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-86715814363186427942010-03-22T08:48:27.888+11:002010-03-22T08:48:27.888+11:00Um, anyway ...
Russell, assuming it were to becom...Um, anyway ...<br /><br />Russell, assuming it were to become possible, could it ever be rational to *change* our desires - say, for desires that we had a greater prospect of fulfilling? Maybe I could downgrade my tastes in food and wine to cheaper alternatives, or my taste in women to ... aye, anyway, you get the picture.<br /><br />I guess one might argue that this would be in pursuit of our ultimate higher-order preference, i.e. to satisfy our preferences, whatever they might be!<br /><br />(There's an excellent Greg Egan short-story about a guy who is faced with the prospect of choosing all of his preferences and tastes ab initio. Clever punchline too, though I can't remember the title...)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05840059127758081545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-32144116268663613732010-03-21T08:39:58.500+11:002010-03-21T08:39:58.500+11:00Russell,
I agree with your basic position, but I...Russell, <br /><br />I agree with your basic position, but I suspect you're wrong to talk about "deepest desires". I believe you are making something akin to a genetic fallacy. You are careful to avoid the evolutionary genetic fallacy; once e.g. our sexual desire sets in it becomes its own cause, regardless of its distal cause. However, the same thing happens at the neurological level. Once a desire has developed, it becomes its own cause, regardless of what desire caused it. <br /><br />The brain the is not a hierarchical deductive machine toiling to fulfill some final ends; it is a dynamic, learning neural net trying to predict fulfillment. Once a desire is built up (often irrationally), it becomes just as much an attractor for the neural net as its causes were, and may persist long past the demise of the desires that caused it. Granted, there are more basic and endemic desires, but they are not the Aristotelian final that our actions are aimed at. What matters is more the strength and consistency of the desire, and to a lesser extent its plasticity - least of all its origins. <br /><br />Perhaps I misread you, though - blog posts certainly are brief.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Yairיאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87122604217848357032010-03-21T02:06:56.296+11:002010-03-21T02:06:56.296+11:00you are a little lying idiot...
How tall are yo...<i>you are a little lying idiot...</i> <br /><br /> How tall are you DM? If memory serves Russell is a good 6 foot in the old measure. That's not little by any standard, and it was the only measure upon which you had a chance of attacking him. Because he's way too smart for you to even understand the tid-bits he drops by the table, for the smart ones to devour. You're probably just angry because you haven't yet found a morsel that was so empty of substance that you could swallow it. Bon apetite!Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63302227422909253782010-03-20T16:20:33.760+11:002010-03-20T16:20:33.760+11:00I thought it was a fine article. I even said so as...I thought it was a fine article. I even said so as Brian72 attests. My only quibble was that you used the word creature. (A creature is created by a creator). Smuggling in creationism, you turncoat you. ;)<br /><br /> Keep up the good work.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49980744362587844912010-03-20T12:58:00.955+11:002010-03-20T12:58:00.955+11:00Yes,600 words is a tight constraint. But I thought...Yes,600 words is a tight constraint. But I thought you did a fine job, although I have a graduate degree in philosophy, which may allow me to better fill the conceptual gaps, as it were.<br /><br />I was once asked by an editor from Playboy to write a 750-word condensed version of a 4,400-word article I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer.<br /><br />I did it, yet it was frustrating.<br /><br />I do have some thoughts on our use of the word "reason" (especially a moral reason), and how it can mean one thing to a Humean, and another to a moral realist, but I'll save that for another time.<br /><br />CheersCharles Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09934402450298584577noreply@blogger.com