hairyfigment comments on Is Morality Given? - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 July 2008 08:12AM

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

Comments (96)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: hairyfigment 20 August 2011 01:35:48AM 1 point [-]

By your Devil's logic here, we would expect at least part of human nature to accord with the whole of this 'stone tablet'. I think we could vary the argument to avoid this conclusion. But as written it implies that each 'law' from the 'tablet' has a reflection in human nature, even if perhaps some other part of human nature works against its realization.

This implies that there exists some complicated aspect of human nature we could use to define morality which would give us the same answers as the 'stone tablet'.

Comment author: Arandur 20 August 2011 04:27:35AM 1 point [-]

Which sounds like that fuzzily-defined "conscience" thing. So suppose I say that this "Stone tablet" is not a literal tablet, but is rather a set of rules that sufficiently advanced lifeforms will tend to accord to? Is this fundamentally different than the opposite side of the argument?

Comment author: hairyfigment 21 August 2011 03:14:01AM 0 points [-]

Well, that depends. What does "sufficiently advanced" mean? Does this claim have anything to say about Clippy?

If it doesn't constrain anticipation there, I suspect no difference exists.

Comment author: Arandur 21 August 2011 05:35:12PM 0 points [-]

Ha! No. I guess I'm using a stricter definition of a "mind" than is used in that post: one that is able to model itself. I recognize the utility of such a generalized definition of intelligence, but I'm talking about a subclass of said intelligences.

Comment author: hairyfigment 21 August 2011 05:54:09PM 3 points [-]

Er, why couldn't Clippy model itself? Surely you don't mean that you think Clippy would change its end-goals if it did so (for what reason?)

Comment author: Arandur 22 August 2011 12:46:04AM 5 points [-]

... Just to check: we're talking about Microsoft Office's Clippy, right?

Comment author: Alicorn 22 August 2011 01:02:16AM 5 points [-]
Comment author: Arandur 22 August 2011 01:05:30AM 1 point [-]

Oh dear; how embarrassing. Let me try my argument again from the top, then.

Comment author: orthonormal 06 September 2011 01:34:17PM 1 point [-]

Actually, this is what we're really talking about, not MS Word constructs or LW roleplayers.