= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on AALWA: Ask any LessWronger anything - 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 (611)
(nods) OK. Accepting that claim as true, I agree that you should endorse wireheading.
(Also that you should endorse having everyone in the world suffer for the rest of their lives after your death, in exchange for you getting a tuna fish sandwich right now, because hey, a tuna fish sandwich is better than nothing.)
Do you believe that nobody else in the world "terminally" cares about the well-being of others?
No, because I care (instrumentally) about the well-being of others in the future as well, and knowing that they'll be tortured, especially because of me, would reduce my happiness now by significantly more than a tuna sandwich would increase it.
That's a difficult question to answer because of the difficulties surrounding what it means for someone to care. People's current values can change in response to introspection or empirical information - and not just instrumental values, but seemingly terminal values as well. This makes me question whether their seemingly terminal values were actually their terminal values to begin with. Certainly, people believe that they terminally care about the well-being of others, and if believing that you care qualifies as actually caring, then yes, they do care. But I don't think that someone who'd experience ideal wireheading would like anything else more.
What is the terminal goal which the well-being of people after your death achieves?
Oh, sure, you shouldn't endorse knowing about it. But it would be best, by your lights, if I set things up that way in order to give you a tuna-fish sandwich, and kept you in ignorance. And you should agree to that in principle... right?
(nods) In the face of that uncertainty, how confident are you that your seemingly terminal values are actually your terminal values?
(nods) I'm inclined to agree.
Knowing that the people I care about will have a good life after I'm gone contributes to my current happiness.
No, because I also care about having true beliefs. I cannot endorse being tricked.
Given the amount of introspection I've done, having discussed this with others, etc, I'm very highly confident that my seemingly terminal values actually are my terminal values.
No trickery involved. There's simply a fact about the world of which you're unaware. There's an Vast number of such facts, what's one more?
I mean, I can't endorse myself as being better off not knowing something rather than knowing it.
Even if not-knowing that thing makes you happier?
I can face reality.
I'm not asking whether you can. I'm asking whether you endorse knowing things that you would be happier not-knowing.
If something would affect me if I knew about it, I would prefer to know about it so I can do something about it if I can. I wouldn't genuinely care about the people I care about if I would rather not know about their suffering.