= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
....I don't see why. We can tell a story about how our desires came into being, through psychology and the like, but when we ask 'what do we do right now?' the calculation doesn't need to refer to those facts. It oughtn't - they aren't related to the moral calculation.
In response to
comment
by
on
Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic
In response to
comment
by
on
Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic
The logic of the context is just as important as the logic it contains.
I don't see why.
The post on the importance of macro-optimization over micro basically explains it. Macro optimization creats the context for micro optimization.
In response to
Macro, not Micro
I get it man, and I absolutely agree.
As a quick sidenote, the fact that there are patterns in micro functions that contain answers to the macro is something that things like Freemasonry are built off of (from what I've read of it at least). The first degree itself is about using different mason tools symbolically to help with everyday life.
Anyway, yeah, there is a heirarchy of logic that we should take into account so that we can learn what to apply ourselves to in the first place, and from there how to apply. You're definitely right in saying learning to be social is an important semi-macro application. Money may be the most tangible form of power, but people (the ones who give money its power in the first place) are the biggest source of power.
In response to
comment
by
on
Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic
I don't understand most of what you're saying.
You've said that according to [Qiaochu_Yuan] ethics is contextually based, although context itself doesn't matter.
In the last comment, you seemed to agree with the gist of the idea.
Ethics are inherently logical, not physical.
In your earlier comment, you said
But in this article I'm pretty sure he was addressing the commonly agreed upon 'most good for the most people' morality
The word 'but' sounded like a counter-argument. I don't see the counter argument. If you have found a problem with what Qiaochu_Yuan said, could you elucidate it please. Without referring to Marxism, or anything else political.
In response to
comment
by
on
Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic
To clear everything up: The first in the op argues morality as logic because it isn't logic "all the way down". Yuan is saying that all the way down doesn't matter because it works within its own context and that, that is all that matters. Obviously this is wrong; creating a context just so you can work within it to prove your point is known as a strawman. The logic of the context is just as important as the logic it contains.
In response to
comment
by
on
Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic
Your words have many connotations. 'Subjective' and 'relative' are often misunderstood at the best of times. If you could taboo these, we'd see where any real disagreement lay.
Also, I don't see any more disagreement here. 'Greatest good for the greatest number' is a calculation to be made. If that statement sums up all of ethics, then it is a logical fact, not a physical one. I can't shoot your fact to make it different. We can simply turn the criterion for 'good' into a computation, so that we input physical facts, and it comes out with advice on what to do next.
Even if this morality isn't grounded in the 'nature of the universe', if this is all that we care about, then the computation is still a logical thing(y). Even if evolution adapted us to desire this, if this statement is the summation of all ethical facts, then that wouldn't change the computation. Which computation we're interested in is a product of contingent facts, physical, evolutionary ones. This doesn't change the fact, that, when we compute the greatest 'good' for the greatest 'number', we're talking about a computation that's substrate neutral. And logical.
In response to
comment
by
on
Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic
You're probably right about the subjective/relative thing. He admits that things like this are contextually based while being marxist enough to say that the context itself doesn't matter, only that the logic is able to work within it.
Ethics are inherently logical, not physical. Obviously you can't shoot it but you can disprove their value easily enough by attacking what they're contingent on. Not all logic is created equal, and don't bring evolution into it. You can just as easily say that this is the common belief imprinted onto us by society only because the masters society us to be more easy to rule. Considering many other things, this is probably the case.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'm not sure that "structure of the search space" is quite what you want to be describing here, so much as "scope of the decision problem." Yes, when you're deciding what your morning routine will be, investing five minutes can result in savings of hours, spread over the year. But your morning routine is a small problem that is insulated from the rest of your life. The problem of your life's goal is a huge problem that informs the rest of your life- a small change there could result in savings of years.
Are you familiar with the Toyota Production System? One of the major components (Kaizen) could be described as the idea that no improvement is too small to implement. Many small changes can add up to a big change.
More generally, it's not at all clear to me why this post is "Macro, not Micro" instead of "Macro and Micro." Several sections seem confused: is it a mistake to systematically search for such trades, or should such trades be incorporated into your thought process? I think you would do better with a post discussing integrating the perspectives than a post contrasting the two.
Toyota makes cars, their macro optimization is already set. Imagine if they were using something other than the assembly line and just focused on micro optimizations within an outdated macro. They would run out of business within a year whereas if they used outdated micro optimzations they'd just experience a relatively mild loss