PhilGoetz comments on Some Thoughts Are Too Dangerous For Brains to Think - Less Wrong

15 Post author: WrongBot 13 July 2010 04:44AM

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

Comments (311)

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

Comment author: Psychohistorian 13 July 2010 05:51:16AM *  3 points [-]

Not to evoke a recursive nightmare, but some utility function alterations appear to be strictly desirable.

As an obvious example, if I were on a diet and I could rewrite my utility function such that the utilities assigned to consuming spinach and cheesecake were swapped, I see no harm in making that edit. One could argue that my second-order utility (and all higher) function should be collapsed into my first-order one, such that this would not really change my meta-utility function, but this issue just highlights the futility of trying to cram my complex, conflicting, and oft-inconsistent desires into a utility function.

This does raise an interesting issue: if I'm a strictly selfish utilitarian, do I not want my utility function to be that which will attain the highest expected utility? Selfishness is not necessary; it just makes the question much simpler.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 13 July 2010 12:10:53PM 2 points [-]

Anorexia could be viewed as an excessive ability to rewrite utility functions about food.

If you don't have the ability to include context, the biological blind god may serve you better than the memetic blind god.