= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Science vs. art - 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 (34)
No one seems to have picked up on what I see as the main point of this post, so let me rephrase it in a Yudkowskian way:
Do you expect a Bayesian master to place intrinsic value on knowledge? If so, why?
Jeffreyssai sure as hell does. Does that answer your question?
Not the "why" part. And I'd rather know your opinion than Jeffreyssai's.
In that case, I guess the answer would be "no, but I expect them to place the same sort of value on knowledge as they do on art (in addition to the obvious instrumental value of knowledge)". I like reading new proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem in much the same way I like seeing new artwork by Sandro Del Prete. I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you here - I think I'm mostly saying that I'm not really sure what "intrinsic" value means.
An elegant proof of the Riemman Hypothesis that forms spontaneously in the Andromeda Galaxy has no value to me, any more than a sequel to Mostly Harmless that forms spontaneously in the Andromeda Galaxy, but either would have value if there were people around to enjoy them
Actually, I feel the best response might be "taboo 'instrinsic' and 'instrumental'".
We are getting taboo-happy here.
The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values is crucial in moral reasoning. The fact that we don't seem to be able to distinguish between them is a very big problem for moral reasoning.