saturn 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: saturn 07 June 2009 12:17:08AM 1 point [-]

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

As far as I can tell, you're saying that there is no territory, or that the territory is irrelevant. In other words, solipsism. You've overcome the naive map/territory confusion, but only to wind up with a more sophisticated form of confusion.

This isn't a "does the tree make a sound" argument. It's more like a "dude... how do we even really know reality is really real" argument. Rationality is entirely pointless if all we're doing is manipulating completely arbitrary map-symbols. But in that case, why not leave us poor, deluded believers in reality to define the words "map", "territory", and "utility" the way we have always done?

Comment author: pjeby 07 June 2009 03:58:22AM 0 points [-]

In other words, solipsism.

No, general semantics. There's a difference.

Comment author: saturn 07 June 2009 10:49:45PM *  2 points [-]

Can you point out the difference?

Even though "this is not a pipe", the form of a depiction of a pipe is nevertheless highly constrained by the physical properties of actual pipes. Do you deny that? If not, how do you explain it?