Perplexed comments on Morality as Parfitian-filtered Decision Theory? - Less Wrong

24 Post author: SilasBarta 30 August 2010 09:37PM

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

Comments (270)

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

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 31 August 2010 06:21:46PM 0 points [-]

I dislike all examples involving omniscient beings.

I would also prefer to assume that natural selection endowed us with sub-conscious body language and other cues which make us very bad at lying.

The only thing Omega uses its omniscience for is to detect if you're lying, so if humans are bad at convincing lying you don't need omniscience.

Also, "prefer to assume" indicates extreme irrationallity, you can't be rational if you are choosing what to believe based on anything other than the evidence, see Robin Hanson's post You Are Never Entitled to Your Opinion. Of course you probably didn't mean that, you probably just meant:

Natural selection endowed us with sub-conscious body language and other cues which make us very bad at lying.

Say what you mean, otherwise you end up with Belief in Belief.

Comment author: Perplexed 31 August 2010 06:30:24PM 2 points [-]

As I have answered repeatedly on this thread, when I said "prefer to assume", I actually meant "prefer to assume". If you are interpreting that as "prefer to believe" you are not reading carefully enough.

One makes (sometimes fictional) assumptions when constructing a model. One is only irrational when one imagines that a model represents reality.

If it makes you happy, insert a link to some profundity by Eliezer about maps and territories at this point in my reply.

Comment author: Oscar_Cunningham 31 August 2010 07:45:14PM 1 point [-]

Heh, serve me right for not paying attention.