Caledonian2 comments on Something to Protect - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (75)
Lots of things act without having any sort of goals. Does fire have a goal of reducing high-energy compounds into oxidized components and free energy? No, but it does it anyway.
You can limit 'action' to intentional events only, I suppose.
However, how does declaring that goals are arbitrary rule out assertions about necessary starting points?
If the goals already developed are incompatible with each other, rationality isn't going to help much. If they're incompatible with rationality, it really isn't going to help. But no helping is possible.
Rationality is required to form a coherent model (however incomplete or imperfect) of the world. To take an action with the intention of bringing about a specific result requires a coherent model. Ergo...
An incoherent actor can't be said to have any goals at all.