Great article, but I might be biased since I’m also a fan of Chapman. I find the comments to be fascinating.
It seems to me that people read your article and think, “oh, that’s not new, I have a patch for that in my system.”
However. I think the point you and Chapman are trying to make is that we should think about these patches at the interface of rationality and the real world more carefully. The missing connection, then, is people wondering, why? Are you trying to:
simply argue that the problem exists?
propose a comprehensive approach?
propose a specific instance of the approach? connect stronger to the operations of human hardware?
And, would 3) end up looking itself like a patch?
Also, very curious to hear your thoughts on normativity. That’s usually the subject of ethics, so would the discussion become meta ethical?
Great article, but I might be biased since I’m also a fan of Chapman. I find the comments to be fascinating.
It seems to me that people read your article and think, “oh, that’s not new, I have a patch for that in my system.”
However. I think the point you and Chapman are trying to make is that we should think about these patches at the interface of rationality and the real world more carefully. The missing connection, then, is people wondering, why? Are you trying to:
simply argue that the problem exists?
propose a comprehensive approach?
propose a specific instance of the approach? connect stronger to the operations of human hardware?
And, would 3) end up looking itself like a patch?
Also, very curious to hear your thoughts on normativity. That’s usually the subject of ethics, so would the discussion become meta ethical?