orthonormal comments on If You Were Brilliant When You Were Ten... - Less Wrong

24 Post author: AspiringKnitter 27 December 2011 02:33AM

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

Comments (68)

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

Comment author: orthonormal 27 December 2011 06:18:21PM *  5 points [-]

Whatever morality is or is not, shouldn't it be implied by what we want and the laws of thought?

This is basically the EY/lukeprog school of thought on metaethics, isn't it? Your preferences, delicately extrapolated to better match the laws of logic, probability theory and (advanced) decision theory, are the ideal form of what reductionists mean when they talk about morality.

Now, not everyone on LW agrees with this contention, which is why ethics is a perennial topic of discussion here.

Comment author: torekp 28 December 2011 02:48:54AM 2 points [-]

This is basically the EY/lukeprog school of thought on metaethics, isn't it?

If so, I've overestimated EY's agreement with my take on it. I see both the preferences of extrapolated-me and actual-me as effects of partly common causes, some (my case) or all (his case) reflecting my good. What extrapolated-me seeks is not good because he seeks it, but because (for examples) it promotes deep personal relationships, or fun, or autonomy. These are the not-so-strange attractors (dumb question: does chaos theory literally apply here?) that explain the evolution of my values with increasing knowledge and experience.

I think I remember EY saying something along the same lines, so maybe we don't differ.

Comment author: endoself 28 December 2011 03:06:36AM *  2 points [-]

This sounds exactly like what EY believes. Even the language is similar, which is nontrivial due to the difficulty of expressing this idea clearly in standard English. Did you start believing this after reading the metaethics sequence?

Comment author: torekp 29 December 2011 11:44:54PM 2 points [-]

No, but maybe we were inspired by some of the same sources. I think it was David Zimmerman's dissertation which got me started thinking along these lines.

Comment author: orthonormal 28 December 2011 02:59:41AM 0 points [-]

Well, the concepts get messy, but I think we're speaking of the same thing. It's the bit of data in volition-space to which my current brain is a sort of pointer, but as it happens there are a lot of criteria that correspond to it; it's not a random point in volition-space, most other human brains point to fairly similar bits, etc.