DeVliegendeHollander comments on Open Thread, Jun. 15 - Jun. 21, 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Gondolinian 15 June 2015 12:02AM

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

Comments (302)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 16 June 2015 08:52:10AM *  3 points [-]

Well, this locking does not really seem to work well for me. I know that ideal terminal values should be along the lines of wanting other people to be happy, but I really struggle to go from the fact that some signals in some brains are labelled happiness to the value that these signals matter. Since I have a typically depressive personality, not really caring about myself being happy, I cannot really care about others being happy as well and thus terminal values are not found. The struggle is largely that if certain brain signals like happiness are not inherently marked with little XML tags "yes you should care about this" where does the should, the value come from?

The closest thing I can get is something similar to nationalism extended over all humankind - we all are 22nd cousins or something so let's be allies and face this cold cruel lifeless universe together or something similarly sentimental. But it isn't a terminal value, it is more like a bit of a feeling of affection. A true utilitarian would even care about a sentient computer being happy, or a sentient computer suffering or dying, and I just cannot figure out why.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 16 June 2015 03:05:18PM 0 points [-]

Since I have a typically depressive personality, not really caring about myself being happy, I cannot really care about others being happy as well and thus terminal values are not found.

Well. Thinking about it I realize that for your kind of personality a falling back to carng and following goals indeed doesn't seem necessary. On the other hand the arbitrariness of nihilism isn't that different from the passivity from depression - so in a way maybe you already did lock back into the same pattern anyway?