Open thread, Sept. 1-7, 2014

polymathwannabe

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

Why does Eliezer love me?

In many articles, EY mentions that Death is bad, as if it's some terminal value. That even the loss of me, is somehow negative for him. Why?

I've been thinking that it's Suffering that should be minimized, in general. Death is only painful for people because of the loss others suffer. Yes, the logical conclusion is that we should completely destroy the universe, in a quick and painless manner. The "painless" part is the catch, of course, and it may be so intractable as to render the entire thought pointless. (That is, we cannot achieve this, so might as well give up and focus on making things better.)

Even outside of Suffering, I still do not see why an arbitrary person is to be valued. Again, EY seems to have this as some terminal value. Why?

I love my children, I love my family, I love some friends. After that, I don't really care all that much about individuals, except to the extent that I'd prefer them to not suffer. I certainly don't feel their existence alone is something that valuable, intrinsically.

Am I wicked or something? Am I missing some basic reasoning? I see my viewpoint may be viewed as "negative utilitarian", but I haven't come across anything in particular that makes such a position less desirable.

So, you say you have a "preference not to suffer" for everyone, but "preference not to die" only for a few people, if I read it correctly.

When you are asking how someone can have a "preference not to die" for everyone, I think you should also ask how you have a "preference not to suffer" for everyone, because to me it seems rather similar. I mean, the part of "preference not to ... for everyone" is the same, so we can ask whether this is realistic, or is just some kind of illusion, to create a better self-i... (read more)

4polymathwannabe12y

Living among billions of happy people who have realistic chances to meet their goals is a world I find much more desirable than a world where my friends and I are the only successful people in existence. On one hand, there's the cold utilitarian who only values other lives inasmuch as they further hir goals, and assigns no intrinsic worth to whichever goals they may have for themselves. This position does not coincide, but overlaps, with solipsism. On the other hand, there's what we could call the naïve Catholic who holds that more life is always better life, no matter in what horrid conditions. This position does not coincide, but overlaps, with panpsychism. The strong altruistic component of EY's philosophy is what sets it on a higher moral ground than Ayn Rand's. For all her support of reason, Rand's fatal flaw was that she failed to grasp the need for altruism; it was anathema to her, even if her brand of selfishness was strange in that she recognized other people's right to be selfish too (the popular understanding of selfishness is more predatory than even she allowed). EY agrees with Rand's position that every mind should be free to improve itself, but he doesn't dismiss cooperation. It makes perfect sense: The ferociously competitive realm of natural selection does often select for cooperation, which strongly suggests it's a useful strategy. I can't claim to divine his reasons, but the bottom line is that EY gets altruism. (As chaosmage suggested, it is not impossible that EY merely pretends to be an altruist so people will feel more comfortable letting him talk his way into world domination (ahem, optimization), but the writing style of his texts about the future of humanity and about how much it matters to him is likelier if he really believes what he says.) Still, the question stands: Why care about random people? I notice it's difficult for me to verbalize this point because it's intuitively obvious to me, so much so that my gut activates a red alar

5chaosmage12y

You don't know that he does. You only know that he says he does. Also, MIRI needs your donations! In all seriousness, it appears that he simply has a much larger circle of empathy than you do. Yours only includes yourself, children, family and friends, which sounds like (what Peter Singer has convincingly argued to be) the default setting that evolution presumably gave you a sense of empathy for because that'd promote the survival of your genes. But that circle can expand, and in fact it has tended to expand over the last couple of millenia. In Eliezer's case, it appears to include at least all humans. And why? Well, my suspicion is that people have a distaste for contradictions, and any arbitrary limit to empathy is inherently fraught with contradictions. ("Is it okay for a policeman to not care about you because you're not his friend?" "How many non-friends would you kill to save the life of a friend?" etc.) And maybe maybe Eliezer simply has a greater sensitivity to, and distaste for, contradictions than you do.