= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (539)
This post is a continuation of a discussion with Stefan Pernar - from another thread:
I think there's something to an absolute morality. Or at least, some moralities are favoured by nature over other ones - and those are the ones we are more likely to see.
That doesn't mean that there is "one true morality" - since different moral systems might be equally favoured - but rather that moral relativism is dubious - some moralities really are better than other ones.
There have been various formulations of the idea of a natural morality.
One is "goal system zero" - for that, see:
http://rhollerith.com/blog/21
Another is my own "God's Utility Function":
http://originoflife.net/gods_utility_function/
...which is my take on Richard Dawkins idea of the same name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God'sutilityfunction
...but based on Dewar's maximum entropy principle - rather than on Richard's selfish genes.
On this site, we are surrounded by moral relativists - who differ from us on the issue of the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
I do agree with them about one thing - and it's this:
If it were possible to create a system - driven by self-directed evolution where natural selection played a subsidiary role - it might be possible to temporarily create what I call "handicapped superintelligences":
http://alife.co.uk/essays/handicapped_superintelligence/
...which are superintelligent agents that deviate dramatically from gods utility function.
So - in that respect, the universe will "tolerate" other moral systems - at least temporarily.
So, in a nutshell, we agree about there being objective basis to morality - but apparently disagree on its formulation.
With unobjectionable values I mean those that would not automatically and eventually lead to one's extinction. Or more precisely: a utility function becomes irrational when it is intrinsically self limiting in the sense that it will eventually lead to ones inability to generate further utility. Thus my suggested utility function of 'ensure continued co-existence'
This utility function seems to be the only one that does not end in the inevitable termination of the maximizer.
Not really. You don't need to co-exist with anything if you out-compete them then turn their raw materials into paperclips.
The fate of a maximiser depends a great deal on its strength relative to other maximisers. It's utility function is not the only issue - and maximisers with any utility function can easily be eaten by other, more powerful maximisers.
If you look at biology, replicators have survived so far for billions of years with other utility functions. Do you really think biology is "ensuring continued co-existence" - rather than doing the things described in my references? If so, why do you think that? - the view doesn't seem to make any sense.