Eugine_Nier comments on No Universally Compelling Arguments in Math or Science - Less Wrong

30 Post author: ChrisHallquist 05 November 2013 03:32AM

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

Comments (227)

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

Comment author: dspeyer 05 November 2013 04:24:28PM 7 points [-]

Even a token effort to steelman the "universally" in "universally compelling arguments" yields interesting results.

Consider a mind that thinks the following:

  • I don't want to die
  • If I drink that poison, I'll die
  • Therefore I should drink that poison

But don't consider it very long, because it drank the poison and now it's dead and not a mind anymore.

If we restrict our observations to minds that are capable of functioning in a moderately complex environment, UCAs come back, at least in math and maybe elsewhere. Defining "functioning" isn't trivial, but it isn't impossible either. If the mind has something like desires, then a functioning mind is one which tends to get its desires more often than if it didn't desire them.

If you cleave mindspace at the joints, you find sections for which there are UCAs. I don't immediately see how to get anything interesting about morality that way, but it's an avenue worth pursuing.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 November 2013 05:46:02AM *  -2 points [-]

Consider a mind that thinks the following:

  • I don't want to die
  • If I drink that poison, I'll die
  • Therefore I should drink that poison

But don't consider it very long, because it drank the poison and now it's dead and not a mind anymore.

This argument also puts limits on the goals the mind can have, e.g., forbidding minds that want to die.

I don't immediately see how to get anything interesting about morality that way, but it's an avenue worth pursuing.

Start by requiring the mind to be able to function in an environment with similar minds.