army1987 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: [deleted] 07 November 2013 10:34:12AM 5 points [-]

So, I guess the point of EY's metaethics can be summarized as ‘by “morality” I mean the token, not the type’.

(Which is not a problem IMO, as there are unambiguous words for the type, e.g. “values” -- except insofar as people are likely to misunderstand him.)

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 07 November 2013 07:28:10PM 2 points [-]

‘by “morality” I mean the token, not the type’

Especially because the whole point is to optimize for something. You can't optimize for a type that could have any value.