You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nornagest comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

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

Comments (866)

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

Comment author: Nornagest 07 January 2014 08:49:45PM 1 point [-]

If you can persuade someone to alter (not merely ignore) a value they believe to have been terminal, that's good evidence that it wasn't a terminal value.

Comment author: drethelin 07 January 2014 09:04:07PM 2 points [-]

This is only true if you think humans actually hold coherent values that are internally designated as "terminal" or "instrumental". Humans only ever even designate statements as terminal values once you introduce them to the concept.

Comment author: Nornagest 07 January 2014 09:29:19PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think we disagree.

To clarify, I suspect most neurotypical humans may possess features of ethical development which map reasonably well to the notion of terminal values, although we don't know their details (if we did, we'd be most of the way to solving ethics) or the extent to which they're shared. I also believe that almost everyone who professes some particular terminal (fundamental, immutable) value is wrong, as evidenced by the fact that these not infrequently change.

Comment author: Randy_M 08 January 2014 03:45:52PM 1 point [-]

If terminal values are definitionally immutable, than I used the wrong term.