= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on Morality as Parfitian-filtered Decision Theory? - 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 (270)
Not quite - this would imply that tolerance-difference is fungible, and it's not. We can make trade-offs in our decision-making, but that requires conscious effort and it's a process more akin to barter than to money-trading.
Diamonds are not fungible - and yet they have prices. Same difference here, I figure.
What's the price of one red paperclip? Is it the same price as a house?
That seems to be of questionable relevance - since utilities in decision theory are all inside a single agent. Different agents having different values is not an issue in such contexts.
That's a big part of the problem right there: humans aren't "single agents" in this sense.
Humans are single agents in a number of senses - and are individual enough for the idea of revealed preference to be useful.
From the page you linked (emphasis added):
However, even if you ignore that, WARP is trivially proven false by actual human behavior: people demonstrably do sometimes choose differently based on context. That's what makes ordinal utilities a "spherical cow" abstraction.
(WARP's inapplicability when applied to real (non-spherical) humans, in one sentence: "I feel like having an apple today, instead of an orange." QED: humans are not "economic agents" under WARP, since they don't consistently choose A over B in environments where both A and B are available.)
The first sentence is true - but the second sentence doesn't follow from it logically - or in any other way I can see.
It is true that there are some problems modelling humans as von Neumann–Morgenstern agents - but that's no reason to throw out the concept of utility. Utility is a much more fundamental and useful concept.
WARP can't be used to predict a human's behavior in even the most trivial real situations. That makes it a "spherical cow" because it's a simplifying assumption adopted to make the math easier, at the cost of predictive accuracy.
That sounds to me uncannily similar to, "it is true that there are some problems modeling celestial movement using crystal spheres -- but that's no reason to throw out the concept of celestial bodies moving in perfect circles."
There is an obvious surface similarity - but so what? You constructed the sentence that way deliberately. You would need to make an analogy for arguing like that to have any force - and the required analogy looks like a bad one to me.
Sure - but whay you claimed was a "spherical cow" was "ordinal utilities" which is a totally different concept.