= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelVassar comments on Only humans can have human values - 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 (159)
I find that careful introspection always dissolves the conceptual frames within which my preferences are formulated but generally leaves the actionable (but not the non-actionable) preferences intact.
I don't follow. Can you give examples? What's a conceptual frame, and what's an actionable vs. non-actionable preference? I infer the actionable/non-actionable distinction is related to the keep/don't keep decision, but the terminology sounds to me like it just means "a preference you can satsify" vs. "a preference you can't act to satisfy".
And, also, could you give an example of a conceptual frame which got dissolved?
Free will vs. determinism, deontology vs. utilitarianism.
Could you give an example of an actionable preference that stays intact? Preferably one that is not evolutionary, because I agree that those are mostly indissoluble.