= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Rationality Quotes January 2013 - 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 (604)
Nice try. The problem with your definition is that freedom, for example, is fundamentally a deontological concept. If you don't agree, I challenge you to give a non-deontological definition.
What is a deontological concept and what is a non-deontological concept?
After thinking about it some more, I think I have a better way to explain what I mean.
What is freedom? One (not very good but illustrative) definition is the ability to make meaningful choices. Notice that this means respecting someone else's freedom is a constraint on one's decision algorithm not just on one's outcome, thus it doesn't satisfy the VNM axioms.
It sounds to me like you're implicitly enforcing a Cartesian separation between the physical world and the algorithms that agents in it run. Properties of the algorithms that agents in the world run are still properties of the world.
I don't see why I'm relying in it anymore than than the VNM-utiliterian is.
I thought I had made that clear in my second sentence:
Um, no. I can't respond to a challenge to give a non-X definition of Y if I don't know what X means.