= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Open thread, July 21-27, 2014 - 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 (160)
I don't believe you. I believe that if caught unawares (without the time to rationalise) you will rapidly and intuitively make value judgements about things and convey them both via word and deed. For example you will not act as if you are perfectly OK for billions of (relative) innocents to be slaughtered so long as you are wired to feel pleasure regardless of that occurrence. You may be able to verbally declare that kind of value if the situation is contrived enough for you to be thrown into 'far-mode' (abstract philosophical thinking) and can reframe everything into idealised hedonistic terms but if the scenario were more subtle and presented in a non-philosophical context you would act more like an actual human being.
No insult intended. My skepticism means "I don't believe you are as insane as you claim you are."
You've set this up for me to be impossible to refute, because no matter what I say, you can just say, "You're verbalizing in far mode, so I don't believe you". FWIW, if there were a being to be wired in such a way, that being would have no reason to care about the slaughter of innocents.
You aren't set up. To the extent that it would be difficult to repute by counterexample I consider the lack of a counter-example to be overwhelmingly weak evidence. I'm not entitled to that particular proof.
No reason and no capability. FWIW I do believe you might be inclined to self modifying into a being with your expressed preferences if given that opportunity.