Strange7 comments on Overcoming the mind-killer - Less Wrong

10 Post author: woozle 17 March 2010 12:56AM

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

Comments (126)

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

Comment author: Strange7 26 March 2010 01:45:33AM 2 points [-]

Point 3 again arises from a misunderstanding of my definition of suffering; such an action would hugely amplify subjective suffering, not eliminate it.

So, how much suffering would you say an unoccupied volume of space is subject to? A lump of nonliving matter? A self-consistent but non-instantiated hypothetical person?

Comment author: woozle 26 March 2010 12:54:24PM 0 points [-]

It's true that there would be no further suffering once the destruction was complete.

This is a bit of an abstract point to argue over, but I'll give it a go...

I started out earlier arguing that the basis of all ethics was {minimizing suffering} and {maximizing freedom}; I later dropped the second term because it seemed like it might be more of a personal preference than a universal principle -- but perhaps it, or something like it, needs to be included in order to avoid the "destroy everything instantly and painlessly" solution.

That said, I think it's more of a glitch in the algorithm than a serious exception to the principle. Can you think of any real-world examples, or class of problems, where anyone would seriously argue for such a solution?

Comment author: Strange7 26 March 2010 01:06:56PM 1 point [-]

The classic one is euthanasia.

Comment author: woozle 27 March 2010 02:22:16AM 0 points [-]

Your example exposes the flaw in the "destroy everything instantly and painlessly" pseudo-solution: the latter assumes that life is more suffering than pleasure. (Euthanasia is only performed -- or argued for, anyway -- when the gain from continuing to live is believed to be outweighed by the suffering.)

I think this shows that there needs to be a term for pleasure/enjoyment in the formula...

...or perhaps a concept or word which equates to either suffering and pleasure depending on signage (+/-), and then we can simply say that we're trying to maximize that term -- where the exact aggregation function has yet to be determined, but we know it has a positive slope.