Actually, let me ask you a different, more basic question. Are you making a statement about reality or are you just redefining happiness to mean "whatever people prefer" so that your claim becomes a tautology?

Also, consider this statement: "Regardless of whether people currently think so, being high on heroin would be preferred by people high on heroin who have gotten over their hangups about it."

Comment author: blacktrance 22 July 2014 01:37:32AM * -2 points [-]

Are you making a statement about reality or are you just redefining happiness to mean "whatever people prefer" so that your claim becomes a tautology?

No, happiness is a range of mental states, and it's possible to express a preference of not being happy, just like it's theoretically possible to express any preferences.

As for heroin, it has considerable side effects that are a significant drawback to using it. On the other hand, something like wireheading is indeed a preferable state.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 July 2014 02:46:48AM 4 points [-]

So then we come back to the question: how do you know?

Comment author: blacktrance 22 July 2014 03:07:34AM * -2 points [-]

Because pleasure feels good and pain feels bad. Outside of those, there's no sufficient grounding for what should be sought or avoided.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 July 2014 03:25:34AM 4 points [-]

Outside of those, there's no sufficient grounding for what should be sought or avoided.

And how do you know that?

Human range of emotional states is considerably more complicated than a single pain - pleasure axis.

Comment author: blacktrance 22 July 2014 03:44:22AM -2 points [-]

And how do you know that?

Because I wouldn't know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Comment author: Lumifer 22 July 2014 04:30:10AM 2 points [-]

Because I wouldn't know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

And you, then, assume that since you wouldn't know, no one could possibly do.

Moreover, you insist that everyone who thinks in more complex terms than just pleasure and pain is mistaken in their beliefs and really wants just pleasure and nothing but pleasure.

Correct?

Comment author: blacktrance 22 July 2014 04:41:11AM * -1 points [-]

I've heard numerous people try to justify other values numerous times, but never successfully. Moreover, it's not a matter of me not knowing, it's a matter of someone who says "This is good even though it's not pleasurable" doesn't give any convincingly motivating justification for it.

continue this thread »

Comment author: wedrifid 22 July 2014 04:05:54AM 1 point [-]

Because I wouldn't know what it would mean for a situation to be good or desirable except in relation to pleasure/pain. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

I don't believe you. I believe that if caught unawares (without the time to rationalise) you will rapidly and intuitively make value judgements about things and convey them both via word and deed. For example you will not act as if you are perfectly OK for billions of (relative) innocents to be slaughtered so long as you are wired to feel pleasure regardless of that occurrence. You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into 'far-mode' (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.

No insult intended. My skepticism means "I don't believe you are as insane as you claim you are."

Comment author: blacktrance 22 July 2014 04:38:05AM -1 points [-]

You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into 'far-mode' (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.

You've set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, "You're verbalizing in far mode, so I don't believe you". FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.

continue this thread »

Comment author: wedrifid 22 July 2014 03:40:42AM * 1 point [-]

Because pleasure feels good and pain feels bad. Outside of those, there's no sufficient grounding for what should be sought or avoided.

You are missing out on a world of possibilities. I hope, at least, that you speak only for yourself? Because not everyone considers pleasure and pain to be in opposition and even among those of us that appreciate both to an extreme degree, not everyone considers them at the top of the list of experiences worth seeking.

On the other hand, something like wireheading is indeed a preferable state.

There are far more interesting things that can be done with wires[1] and electrical current than overloading a dopamine or opiate reward or pleasure center. How boring!

[1] For example, a tesla coil that uses electronic nipple clamps as a control circuit.

Comment author: Toggle 21 July 2014 10:50:41PM 5 points [-]

Being a member of the Star Trek Borg Collective is preferred by all members of the Borg Collective who have gotten over their hangups about it.

And yet.

Lumifer comments on Open thread, July 21-27, 2014 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (160)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (160)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login