Sideways comments on Value Deathism - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 October 2010 06:20PM

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

Comments (118)

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

Comment author: Sideways 30 October 2010 07:22:17PM 0 points [-]

Other concepts that happen to also be termed "values", such as your ancestors' values, don't say anything more about comparative goodness of the future-configurations, and if they do, then that is also part of your values.

I'm having difficulty understanding the relevance of this sentence. It sounds like you think I'm treating "my ancestors' values" as a term in my own set of values, instead of a separate set of values that overlaps with mine in some respects.

My ancestors tried to steer their future away from economic systems that included money loaned at interest. They were unsuccessful, and that turned out to be fortunate; loaning money turned out to be economically valuable. If they had known in advance that loaning money would work out in everyone's best interest, they would have updated their values (future-configuration preferences).

Of course, you could argue that neither of us really cared about loaning at interest; what we really cared about was a higher-level goal like a healthy economy. It would be convenient if we could establish a restate our values in a well-organized hierarchy, with a node at the top that was invariant on available information. But even if that could be done, which I doubt, it would still leave a role for available information in deciding something as concrete as a preferred future-configuration.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 30 October 2010 07:38:06PM 3 points [-]

Of course, you could argue that neither of us really cared about loaning at interest; what we really cared about was a higher-level goal like a healthy economy. It would be convenient if we could establish a restate our values in a well-organized hierarchy, with a node at the top that was invariant on available information.

That's closer to the sense I wanted to convey with this word.

But even if that could be done, which I doubt, it would still leave a role for available information in deciding something as concrete as a preferred future-configuration.

Distinction is between a formal criterion of preference and computationally feasible algorithms for estimation of preference between specific plans. The concept relevant for this discussion is the former one.