Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

DaFranker comments on The curse of identity - Less Wrong

125 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 17 November 2011 07:28PM

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

Comments (298)

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

Comment author: DaFranker 26 July 2012 08:07:51PM *  1 point [-]

Perhaps you should read (or re-read more carefully) the A Human's Guide to Words sequence.

The term good, by your description, describes something real and natural. Again by your description, X being "real and natural" is required for being able to think of X.

How does any of this reject the statement that "There is no point in eventspace that has the natural 'Good' property"? (which I infer to be the intended meaning of the statement you can "fundamentally wrong")

That some event, decision, action, thing, X is "good" is a property of the mind, of the map. If there is a Red-Nosed Wiggin in front of you, and knowledge of this fact rates as +2 on your utility function, this is a property of your utility function, not of the Red-Nosed Wiggin or of the spacetime field "in front of you".

With my understanding of proper or common usage of the term "good", there is no case where "good" is an inherent property of the territory that is unbreakable, unviolable, and definitely belongs to the territory itself, such that no map could ever model this as "not good" without being testably and verifiably wrong.

(I don't really expect a response from the author this comment replies to, but would greatly appreciate any help, hints, tips or constructive criticism of some kind on my above reasoning)