conchis comments on Post Your Utility Function - Less Wrong

28 Post author: taw 04 June 2009 05:05AM

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

Comments (273)

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

Comment author: pjeby 06 June 2009 04:06:41PM -1 points [-]

Utility is about the territory in the same sense that the map is about the territory; the map tells us the way the territory is, utility tells us the way we want the territory to be. Us non-wireheaders want an accurate map because it's the territory we care about.

I am only saying that the entire stack of concepts you have just mentioned exists only in your map.

Supposing utility is not about the territory but about the map, we get people who want nothing more than to sabotage their own mapmaking capabilities.

Permit me to translate: supposing utility is not about the (portion of map labeled) territory but about the (portion of map labeled) map, we get people who want nothing more than to sabotage their own mapmaking capabilities.

Does that make it any clearer what I'm saying?

This is a "does the tree make a sound" argument, and I'm on the, "no it doesn't" side, due to using a definition of "sound" that means "the representation of audio waves within a human nervous system". You are on the "of course it makes a sound" side, because your definition of sound is "pressure waves in the air."

Make sense?

Comment author: conchis 06 June 2009 04:19:20PM *  1 point [-]

This is a "does the tree make a sound" argument, and I'm on the, "no it doesn't" side, due to using a definition of "sound" that means "the representation of audio waves within a human nervous system". You are on the "of course it makes a sound" side, because your definition of sound is "pressure waves in the air."

I've been trying to be on the "it depends on your definition and my definition sits within the realm of acceptable definitions" side. Unfortunately, whether this is what you intend or not, most of your comments come across as though you're on the "it depends on the definition, and my (PJ's) defintion is right and yours is wrong" side, which is what seems to be getting people's backs up.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 June 2009 04:29:58PM 0 points [-]

This confusion is dissolved in the post Disputing Definitions.

Comment author: conchis 06 June 2009 04:32:50PM *  0 points [-]

Which confusion? I didn't think I was confused. Now I'm confused about whether I'm confused. ;)

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 June 2009 04:40:14PM 0 points [-]

You mentioned this confusion as possibly playing a role in you and Eby talking past each other, the ambiguous use of the word "utility".

Comment author: conchis 06 June 2009 04:59:44PM *  1 point [-]

OK, cool. Now, given that we've already identified that, what does Disputing Definitions tell us that we don't already know?