Matt Simpson was talking about people who have in fact reflected on their values a lot. Why did you switch to talking about people who think they have reflected a lot?
What "someone actually values" or what their "terminal values" are seems to be ambiguous in this discussion. On one reading, it just means what motivates someone the most. In that case, your claims are pretty plausible.
On the other reading, which seems more relevant in this thread and the original comment, it means the terminal values someone should act on, which we might ...
I suppose I might count as someone who favors "organismal" preferences over confusing the metaphorical "preferences" of our genes with those of the individual. I think your argument against this is pretty weak.
You claim that favoring the "organismal" over the "evolutionary" fails to accurately identify our values in four cases, but I fail to see any problem with these cases.
Hi.
I've read nearly everything on less wrong but except for a couple months last summer, I generally don't comment because a) I feel I don't have time, b) my perfectionist standards make me anxious about meeting and maintaining the high standards of discussion here and c) very often someone has either already said what I would have wanted to say or I anticipate from experience that someone will very soon.
There's the consequentialist/utilitarian click, and the intelligence explosion click, and the life-is-good/death-is-bad click, and the cryonics click.
I can find a number of blog posts from you clearly laying out the arguments in favor of each of those clicks except the consequentialism/utilitarianism one.
What do you mean by "consequentialism" and "utilitarianism" and why do you think they are not just right but obviously right?
d) should be changed to the sparseness of intelligent aliens and limits to how fast even a superintelligence can extend its sphere of influence.
Interesting, what about either of the following:
A) If X should do A, then it is rational for X to do A.
B) If it is rational for X to do A, then X should do A.
I'm a moral cognitivist too but I'm becoming quite puzzled as to what truth-conditions you think "should" statements have. Maybe it would help if you said which of these you think are true statements.
1) Eliezer Yudkowsky should not kill babies.
2) Babyeating aliens should not kill babies.
3) Sharks should not kill babies.
4) Volcanoes should not kill babies.
5) Should not kill babies. (sic)
The meaning of "should not" in 2 through 5 are intended to be the same as the common usage of the words in 1.
I don't think we anticipate different experimental results.
I find that quite surprising to hear. Wouldn't disagreements about meaning generally cash out in some sort of difference in experimental results?
On your analysis of should, paperclip maximizers should not maximize paperclips. Do you think this is a more useful characterization of 'should' than one in which we should be moral and rational, etc., and paperclip maximizers should maximize paperclips?
There's a lot more going on in that paper than an occasional reference to Penrose:
In this paper I argue that, contrary to Gödel’s assertion, his argument for the existence of “formally undecidable but intuitively true propositions” in the formal system of standard PA [Peano Arithmetic] (and other “systems” that are symbolically sufficient to formalise Intuitive Arithmetic recursively) is not clearly “constructive and intuitionistically unobjectionable”.
What do you think of this paper arguing that Godel's reasoning is not constructively valid?
Do you think that morality or rationality recommends placing no intrinsic weight or relevance on either a) backwards-looking considerations (e.g. having made a promise) as opposed to future consequences, or b) essentially indexical considerations (e.g. that I would be doing something wrong)?
Its painfulness.
After some medical procedure, there have been some patients for whom pain is not painful. When asked whether their pain is still there, they will report that the sensation of pain is still there just as it was before, but that they simply don't mind it anymore.
That feature of pain that their pain now lacks is what I am calling its painfulness and that is what is bad about pain.
Yes. And since being a maverick has a similar negative expectation for most working people, it seems well-placed to explain the slow spread of good ideas more generally as well.
Great post.
I agree that you identify a very good reason to take care in the use of gender-specific pronouns or anything else that is likely to create in-group, out-group effects.
I also think there probably was a fair amount of attitude polarization on the question of how acceptable it was to make the statement in question.
Under what conditions do you normally find it necessary to attempt to fully describe a goal?
Upvoted because I appreciate Alicorn's efforts and would like to hear additional rational presentations of views in the same neighborhood as her's.
I would bet I also upvoted some of the comments Alicorn is referring to as comments that perpetuate the problem.
disregard for the autonomy of people =/= thinking of someone in a way that doesn't include respect for his goals, interests, or personhood
I am reading the latter rather literally in much the same way RobinHanson seems to and as I think the author intended.
Nice. Tying the usage of words to inferences seems to be a generally useful strategy for moving semantic discussions forward.
CEV is not preference utilitarianism, or any other first-order ethical theory. Rather, preference utilitarianism is the sort of thing that might be CEV's output.