Molybdenumblue comments on Open Thread: September 2011 - LessWrong

5 Post author: Pavitra 03 September 2011 07:50PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (441)

Tags: open_thread

Comments (441)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: [deleted] 05 September 2011 07:11:37PM 8 points [-]

It is possible to harm childless elderly women, yes?

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 September 2011 07:59:33PM * 4 points [-]

Harms done to a person are things which would have reduced that person's ability to reproduce,

Are you saying that if someone enslaves you and forces you to breed, that doesn't constitute harm? But a woman not wanting to have fertile sex with you does constitute harm done to you?

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 September 2011 09:13:26PM 4 points [-]

Yes it does constitute a harm because they are depriving you of freedom, which interferes with the function of your evolved ability to choose.

You said that "Harms done to a person are things which would have reduced that person's ability to reproduce". Now you seem to be changing your claim.

That is not a harm done to you by someone else but a failure on your part.

You said that harms done to a person are things that reduce their ability to reproduce. A woman denying you fertile sex certainly reduces your ability to reproduce.

You're not being consistent with your own argument.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 September 2011 09:37:04PM 1 point [-]

You said that "Harms done to a person are things which would have reduced that person's ability to reproduce". Now you seem to be changing your claim.

What I originally wrote was this:

Therefore a harm to a living creature, being something that interferes with biological function, necessarily reduces its probability of reproduction. The flip side of this is that if something does not reduce the probability of reproduction, then it is not a harm.

I am clearly saying that a harm interferes with a biological function. I am not, in that statement, saying that a harm is anything at all that reduces a person's ability to reproduce. And now I am saying:

Yes it does constitute a harm because they are depriving you of freedom, which interferes with the function of your evolved ability to choose.

Notice the very close relationship between "harm ... being something that interferes with biological function..." and "...interferes with the function of..."

I don't seem to be changing my claim at all from the beginning to now. At worst, my wording slipped momentarily in some intervening comment. It really shouldn't be the sort of thing that you seize on for a criticism, if you're seriously trying to rebut my argument. Instead of opportunistically seizing on a specific slip in wording that I made somewhere in the middle of the argument, you should try to address the argument as it is stated from beginning to end.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 September 2011 09:47:17PM * 0 points [-]

Repeatedly throughout the comment I originally responded to, and now again in the text you quote above, --- you argue this:

a harm to a living creature [...] necessarily reduces its probability of reproduction.

And again you say:

If something does not reduce the probability of reproduction, then it is not a harm.

That's the whole core of your argument. If you are now denying this, SPEAK CLEARLY. Are you claiming the above two sentences as true, or do you consider them a misstatement or otherwise reject them?

Edited to add:

I am clearly saying that a harm interferes with a biological function.

Since every being is nothing but a group of biological functions, all you are doing is saying that harm to a being is something that interferes with it. Or the equivalent statement of "something that does not interfere with a being does not constitute harm to it".

Which is true but quite obvious, and doesn't justify any of your subsequent points about addiction being or not being harmful -- as addiction quite clearly DOES interfere with people's biological functions.;

Comment author: [deleted] 05 September 2011 09:59:55PM * -1 points [-]

Since every being is nothing but a group of biological functions,

The ultimate function of which (in each individual) is to enhance probability of reproduction.

all you are doing is saying that harm to a being is something that interferes with it.

And since the ultimate function of each function is to enhance probability of reproduction, then harms can in principle be measured by observing reproduction patterns. It would in practice be difficult to do this, but in principle it can be done.

Or the equivalent statement of "something that does not interfere with a being does not constitute harm to it".

You've completely left out the bit about reproduction, which is key.

Which is true but quite obvious,

It's obvious but also not everything I said.

and doesn't justify any of your subsequent points about addiction being or not being harmful -- as addiction quite clearly DOES interfere with people's biological functions.

I agree with the bit after the hyphen and this is why I think it almost certainly reduces the probability of reproduction. As I stated.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 05 September 2011 10:23:47PM 2 points [-]

You've completely left out the bit about reproduction, which is key.

I asked you explicitly about whether you believe the sentences that involved reproduction and you didn't answer. Previously you seemed to be denying them. Now you seem to be reaffirming them -- but never clearly enough.

You don't seem to want to convey clarity, and I don't have the time for this.

And since the ultimate function of each function is to enhance probability of reproduction,

By "ultimate" you just mean "something that had to get partially optimized by natural processes or we wouldn't be here discussing this".

And since the ultimate function of each function is to enhance probability of reproduction, then harms can in principle be measured by observing reproduction patterns.

We're Godshatter, which means that our minds don't consider "harm" or "good" a single thing, not even reproductive success.

If you are saying that theoretically our minds (or an artificial mind) could have been made to consider a single thing to be harm: failure in reproduction, then that's obviously true. An artificial mind could be considered to treat our reproductive success as the only metric for our well-being. One of the most obvious ways for an uFAI to destroy us: It can remove most of our brains and any other desire other than our reproductive drive, and keep us packed up as cattle to be bred (while doing us no "harm" by your definition, as we'd be enjoying reproductive success as its cattle)

But if you're saying that what actual real-life current-day people consider 'harm" is only what impedes their reproductive success, that's obviously and unquestionably false. If you truly believe that, then you must bite the bullet and accept that the above-mentioned cattle scenario doesn't constitute harm.

Once again your words reduce to either trivially true or obviously false.

Molybdenumblue comments on Open Thread: September 2011 - LessWrong

Article Navigation

Comments (441)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (441)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login