SilasBarta comments on Open Thread, August 2010-- part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (369)
lol, yeah, that's the impression I got in the OB days. When there was discussion about renaming the site, I half-seriously thought it should be called "Eliezer Yudkowsky and the backup squad" :-P
Oh man, just you wait! I'm almost done with one. Here's the title and summary:
Title: Morality as Parfitian-filtered Decision Theory? (Alternate title: Morality as Anthropic Acausal Optimization?)
Summary: Situations like the Parfit's Hitchhiker problem select for a certain kind of mind: specifically, one that recognizes that an action can be optimal, in a self-interested sense, even if it can no longer cause any future benefit. A mind that can identify such actions might place them in a different category which enables it to perform them, in defiance of the (futureward) consequentialist concerns that normally need to motivate it. Our evolutionary history has put us through such "Parfitian filters", and the corresponding actions, viewed from the inside, feel like "the right thing to do"; we are unconvinced by arguments that point out the lack of a future benefit -- or our estimates of the magnitude of what future benefits do exist is skewed upward. Therein lies the origin of our moral intuitions, as well as the basis for creating the category "morality" in the first place.
I know I've been mentioning Good and Real constantly since I read it, but this sounds a bit like the account of human decision theory (morality) in G&R...
I've made about six different 3-paragraph posts about G&R in the past three weeks, so I think you're safe ;-)
And yes, it does draw heavily on Drescher's account of the overlap between "morality" and "acting as if recognizing subjunctive acausal means-end links" (which I hope to abbreviate to SAMEL without provoking a riot).
Anyone know how to do linked footnotes? Where you have a link that jumps to the bottom and one at the bottom that jumps back to the point in the text? I suppose I could just do [1], [2], etc., but I figure that would annoy people.
I'm looking forward to that one! I can't guarantee that I'll agree with all of it (it will depend on how strong you make some of the claims in the middle) but I can tell I'll be engaged either way.
My first impression from the titles was that the 'Alternative' one was far better. But on reflection it sounds like the first title would be more accurate.
That sounds like a follow-up or generalization of your blog post on Parfit's Hitchhiker and intellectual property. I look forward to it!