Gregory's Server@mcc A lot of the issue is also to do with being deliberately sloppy about 'possible' like, do you mean modality, and if so which one? Or is it some kind of quantification, and if so what are the details? Or is it a simple predicate? - eg doing moral reasoning that treats an imagined 10^80 possible intelligences in cyberheaven as real actual present existing people, which is nonsense.
|
6 comments
 @flaviusb @mcc "aesthetic of logic" is a good way to put it because so much of that world is about performing intelligence, believing in and trying to be superhumanly smart kids who alone can stand against the invented enemy, even-superer-humanly smart computers. just a weird sad intellectual limb to have climbed out onto. @jplebreton @flaviusb @mcc it's not exactly the same, but "aesthetic of logic" reminds me of a similar thing called scientism, which is basically the "aesthetic of science". Philosophers apparently like to accuse each other of being scientistic but I've found it a useful concept to have in mind to rebut some arguments that art ultimately just appeals to the authority of the arguer's misunderstanding of science.  @jplebreton @flaviusb @mcc Tema Okun could have spared herself and the left nonprofit world a lot of trouble by replacing most of her pamphlet on white supremacy culture with a big arrow pointing to Less Wrong.  @theryusui @flaviusb ok so you say this but the first season of Discovery actually had a subplot where a group of "logic extremists" logicked themselves into being a Vulkan alt-right and started assassinating people. (and… I guess probably Spock would have slapped them, but he didn't get cast until season 2! So instead Spock's sister had to do it…) |
@mcc They have to selectively move between meanings of 'possible' at different parts of their argument and their deliberate sloppiness (and logically invalid moves) are disguised with a heavy layer of the aesthetic of logic.