steven0461 comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong

25 [deleted] 14 April 2012 09:08PM

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

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: steven0461 17 April 2012 02:07:34AM 2 points [-]

Relevant quote from Morality as Fixed Computation:

But the key notion is the idea that what we name by 'right' is a fixed question, or perhaps a fixed framework. We can encounter moral arguments that modify our terminal values, and even encounter moral arguments that modify what we count as a moral argument; nonetheless, it all grows out of a particular starting point. We do not experience ourselves as embodying the question "What will I decide to do?" which would be a Type 2 calculator; anything we decided would thereby become right. We experience ourselves as asking the embodied question: "What will save my friends, and my people, from getting hurt? How can we all have more fun? ..." where the "..." is around a thousand other things.

So 'I should X' does not mean that I would attempt to X were I fully informed.

Comment author: thomblake 17 April 2012 12:24:18PM 0 points [-]

Thanks - I hope you're providing that as evidence for my point.

Comment author: steven0461 17 April 2012 08:10:41PM *  0 points [-]

Sort of. It certainly means he doesn't define morality as extrapolated volition. (But maybe "equate" meant something looser than that?)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 20 April 2012 05:19:44AM 1 point [-]

Aghhhh this is so confusing. Now I'm left thinking both you and Wei Dai have furnished quotes supporting my position, User:thomblake has interpreted your quote as supporting his position, and neither User:thomblake nor User:gjm have replied to Wei Dai's quote so I don't know if they'd interpret it as evidence of their position too! I guess I'll just assume I'm wrong in the meantime.