Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

byrnema comments on Max Tegmark on our place in history: "We're Not Insignificant After All" - Less Wrong

18 [deleted] 04 January 2010 12:02AM

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

Comments (68)

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

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 04 January 2010 06:48:35PM 1 point [-]

Er... if you answered why you care, I'm failing to find where you did so. Listing what you care about doesn't answer the question.

I don't think it's controversial that 'why do you care about that' is either unanswerable, or answerable only in terms of something like evolution or neurochemestry, in the case of terminal values.

Comment author: byrnema 04 January 2010 07:43:40PM *  0 points [-]

Listing what you care about doesn't answer the question.

There is a subtext to this question, which is that I believe we typically assume -- until it is demonstrated otherwise -- that our values are similar or overlap significantly, so it is natural to ask 'why do you value this' when maybe we really mean 'what terminal value do you think you're optimizing with this'? Disagreements about policy or 'what we should care about' are then often based on different beliefs about what achieves what than different values. It is true that if our difference in caring turns out to be based upon different values, or weighting values differently, then there's nothing much to discuss. Since I do value knowledge too, I wanted to further qualify how Wei Dai values knowledge, because I don't see how nudging the far future one way or another is going to increase Wei Dei's total knowledge.