Dan_Moore comments on Revisiting torture vs. dust specks - Less Wrong

5 [deleted] 08 July 2009 11:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (64)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dan_Moore 09 July 2009 01:43:26PM 0 points [-]

Hello. I think the Escalation Argument can sometimes be found on the wrong side of Zeno's Paradox. Say there is negative utility to both dust specks and torture, where dust specks have finite negative utility. Both dust specks and torture can be assigned to a 'infliction of discomfort' scale that corresponds to a segment of the real number line. At minimal torture, there is a singularity in the utility function - it goes to negative infinity.

At any point on the number line corresponding to an infliction of discomfort between dust specks and minimal torture, the utility is negative but finite. The Escalation Argument begins in the torture zone, and slowly diminishes the duration of the torture. I believe the argument breaks down when the infliction of discomfort is no longer torture. At that point, non-torture has higher utility than all preceding torture scenarios. If it's always torture, then you never get to dust specks.

Comment author: cousin_it 09 July 2009 03:00:31PM *  2 points [-]

Then your utility function can no longer say 25 years of torture is preferable to 50 years. This difficulty is surmountable - I believe the original post had some discussion on hyperreal utilities and the like - but the scheme looks a little contrived to me.

Comment author: Dan_Moore 10 July 2009 09:34:56PM 0 points [-]

To me, a utility function is a contrivance. So it's OK if it's contrived. It's a map, not the territory, as illustrated above.

I take someone's answer to this question at their word. When they say that no number of dust specks equals torture, I accept that as a datum for their utility function. The task is then to contrive a function which is consistent with that.