= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Furcas comments on A Less Wrong singularity article? - 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 (210)
Look, it's not very complicated: When you see Eliezer write "morality" or "oughts", read it as "human morality" and "human oughts".
Um, that's what I just said: "presumably you are talking about ought<human>".
We were then talking about the meaning of ought<alien>.
There's also the issue of whether to discuss ought<human(2000BC)> and ought<human(2000AD)> - which are evidently quite different - due to the shifting moral zeitgeist.
Well then, I don't understand why you would find statements like "There are no alien [human oughts]" and "They don't see [human morality] differently from us" bizarre-sounding.
Having established EY meant ought<human>, I was asking about ought<alien>.
Maybe you are right - and EY misinterpreted me - and genuinely thought I was asking about ought<human><alien>.
If so, that seems like a rather ridiculous question for me to be asking - and I'm surprised it made it through his sanity checker.
It isn't that simple either. Human morality contains a significant component of trying to coerce other humans into doing things that benefit you. Even on a genetic level humans come with significantly different ways of processing moral thoughts. What is often called 'personality', particularly in the context of 'personality type'.
The translation I find useful is to read it as "Eliezer-would-want". By the definitions Eliezer has given us the two must be identical. (Except, perhaps if Eliezer has for some reason decided to make himself immoral a priori.)