= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on A response to "Torture vs. Dustspeck": The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - 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 (100)
You have probably misread. The counterintuitive fact is that there are two kinds of (finitely) bad events A and B, B only very slightly worse than A, such that there is a finite number of Bs which is worse than any (possibly infinite) number of As. Explained in detail in the Unknown's comment linked above.
"there must exist some bad event such that no number of ever-so-slightly-less-bad events can be as bad as a finite number of the bad events." is not an equivalent statement to "there are two kinds of (finitely) bad events A and B, B only very slightly worse than A, such that there is a finite number of Bs which is worse than any (possibly infinite) number of As." -- It removes the finiteness of the "original" bad event. That's very significant.
Unknown's comment really doesn't bear relevance to my position, as I actively rejected the notion of the asymptotic limit for the dustspecks. (Hence my rejection of the "logistic" rather than "logarithmic".)
I have refered to Unknown's comment not because I thought you accepted asymptotic limit of cumulative disutility, but because this was providing the context in which the statement
was made. The "original" bad event corresponds to a stubbed toe in the linked comment, something whose disutility is certainly finite. Infinite disutilities were mentioned nowhere in the debate and finite badness of the former event is also clear from that the latter event (finitely bad) is said to be "ever-so-slightly-less-bad" than the former.
If my view of logarithmic quantification for suffering is valid, then the stubbed-toe would be of vastly greater 'anti-utilon' quantity than the dust-speck in the eye; and torture that much moreso.
That holds true and relevant under Unknown's context and metrics, but not under mine; a stubbed-toe plus a dust-specking is "ever so slightly worse" than a stubbed-toe alone -- but because this has no asymptotic limit, Unknown's 'counterintuitive result' is irrelevant; it does not manifest.
Is it meant to be a refutation of my claim that disutility of a stubbed toe is finite? Else, I don't see the relevance.
Remember that originally you have written that it (more precisely Zack_M_Davis's restatement of it) is not counter-intuitive, not that it is irrelevant. Irrelevance was never disputed.