= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Baughn comments on To capture anti-death intuitions, include memory in utilitarianism - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
You can keep patching the function, someone will likely find a way around it... or, if not, it'll be some time before we feel safe that no-one will.
It's not the same function we're actually implementing, though.
Successive approximation? At least this keeps what we're looking for without making having children be as bad as murder.
Well...
Honestly, I'm not quite sure about that one. Making a child, knowing ve'll eventually die? When there are probably other universes in which that is not the case? I don't feel very safe in judging that question, one way or the other.
1) I'm a lot less confident in the existence of true immortality. The second law of thermodynamics is highly generalizable, and to get around it you need infinite enthalpy sources.
2) I like living enough to prefer it and then dying to never living. I think I can give my kids enough of a head start that they'll be able to reach the same choice.