= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
So8res comments on On Caring - 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 (272)
That sounds like a failure of the thought experiment to me. When I run the bird thought experiment, it's implicitly assumed that there is no transportation cost in/out of the time experiment, and the negative aesthetic cost from imagining myself in the mess is filtered out. The goal is to generate a thought experiment that helps you identify the "intrinsic" value of something small (not really what I mean, but I'm short on time right now, I hope you can see what I'm pointing at), and obviously mine aren't going to work for everyone.
(As a matter of fact, my actual "bird death" thought experiment is different than the one described above, and my actual value is not $3, and my actual cost per minute is nowhere near $1, but I digress.)
If this particular thought experiment grates for you, you may consider other thought experiments, like considering whether you would prefer your society to produce an extra bic lighter or an extra bird-cleaning on the margin, and so on.
You didn't give details on how or how not to set up the thought experiment. I took it to mean 'your spontaneous valuation when imagining the situation' followed by n objective'multiplication'. Now my reaction wasn't that of aversion, but I tried to think of possible reactions and what would follow from that.
Nothing wrong with mind hacks per se. I have read your productivity post. But I don't think they don't help in establishing 'intrinsic' value. For personal self-modification (motivation) it seems to work nice.