wedrifid comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 02:33PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (600)
Tags: siai evidence

Comments (600)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2010 06:37:30AM *  4 points [-]

each copy of him only cares about its anticipated experiences, not about the other copies, and that this is morally the right thing to do... in other words, if he expects to continue to exist, he doesn't care about other copies that cease to exist.

But that is crazy and false, and uses 'copies' to in a misleading way. Why would I assume that?

Even so, given these two suppositions, I suspect it would not affect his behavior in the slightest, showing that he would be acting as though QI is certainly false,

This 'least convenient possible world' is one in which Robin's values are changed according to your prescription but his behaviour is not, ensuring that your conclusion is true. That isn't the purpose of inconvenient worlds (kind of the opposite...)

and therefore as though there is a good chance that MWI is false.

Not at all. You are conflating "MWI is false" with a whole different set of propositions. MWI != QS.

Comment author: Unknowns 13 August 2010 06:40:23AM 0 points [-]

Many people in fact have those values and opinions, and nonetheless act in the way I mention (and there is no one who does not so act) so it is quite reasonable to suppose that even if Robin's values were so changed, his behavior would remain unchanged.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 August 2010 07:18:11AM 0 points [-]

The very reason Robin was brought up (by you I might add) was to serve as an ad absurdum with respect to intellectual disrespect.

One problem I have with your argument here is that you appear to be saying that if XiXiDu doesn't agree with you, he must be stupid (the stuff about low g etc.). Do you think Robin Hanson is stupid too, since he wasn't convinced?

In the Convenient World where Robin is, in fact, too stupid to correctly tackle the concept of QS, understand the difference between MWI and QI or form a sophisticated understanding of his moral intuitions with respect to quantum uncertainty this Counterfactual-Stupid-Robin is a completely useless example.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit