= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bakkot comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - 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 (1430)
This line gave me the impression that you thought I was saying I want my definition of "person", for the moral calculus, to include things like "worthwhile".Which was not what I was saying -
I wasn't saying anything about the desirability of traits for people in general. I was talking about the desirability of traits in the definition of the word "person", so that it would be an accurate and useful definition.
I'd want my definition of the word "person" to be such that included virtually all adults (eta: but also thinking aliens, and certain strong AI's), but not, say, pigs. This makes it difficult to also include babies.
Intended as a tangential observation about my perceptions of people. (Some of them really are easier for me to model as objects running a machiavellian routine.)
Ah, my mistake. (That's what I'd originally figured, but then Estarlio seemed to be saying the same thing, so I thought perhaps I'd been unclear.)