Eneasz comments on When is Winning not Winning? - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Eneasz 22 May 2012 04:25PM

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

Comments (60)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eneasz 23 May 2012 05:56:07PM -1 points [-]

It seems the majority of people who disagree with this post do so on the basis of rationality being a tool for achieving ends, but not for telling you what ends are worth achieving.

I disagree. As is written, "The Choice between Good and Bad is not a matter of saying 'Good!' It is about deciding which is which." And rationality can help to decide which is which. In fact without rationality you are much more likely to be partially or fully mistaken when you decide.

What does "better" mean? "Better" for who?

That's part of the question we're trying to answer. As for the "for who" part I would answer with "ideally, all sentient beings."

Comment author: Armarren 23 May 2012 06:50:44PM *  2 points [-]

As often happens, it is to quite an extent a matter of definitions. If by an "end" you mean a terminal value, then no purely internal process can change that value, because otherwise it wouldn't be terminal. This is essentially the same as the choice of reasoning priors, in that anything that can be chosen is, by definition, not a prior, but a posterior of the choice process.

Obviously, if you split the reasoning process into sections, then posteriors of a certain sections can become priors of the sections following. Likewise, certain means can be more efficiently thought as ends, and in this case rationality can help you determine what those ends would be.

The problem with humans is that the evolved brain cannot directly access either core priors or terminal values, and there is not guarantee that they are even coherent enough to be said to properly exists. So every "end" that rises high enough into the conscious mind to be properly reified is necessarily an extrapolation, and hence not a truly terminal end.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 10 June 2012 07:00:02PM *  1 point [-]

If by an "end" you mean a terminal value, then no purely internal process can change that value, because otherwise it wouldn't be terminal.

A notion of "terminal value" should allow possibility of error in following it, including particularly bad errors that cause value drift (change which terminal values an agent follows).

Comment author: RomeoStevens 23 May 2012 09:24:34PM *  0 points [-]

Some of your terminal values can modify other terminal values though. Rational investigation can inform you about optimal trade-offs between them.

Edit: Tradeoffs don't change that you want more of both A and B. Retracted.