As a mathematician (in college) I see Mathematics as a reliable solution to the issue. In Mathematics we take all our proven knowledge & with that create a proof to a Problem. If we now were to find that the correct proof uses thing we didn't expect to be used we take these Elements & incorporate them into our new set of proven Knowledge. Hence Math people are somewhat of a Agent 3.
Another solution to the problem is that heat as heat is ontologically basic, because it is part of our "native representation". Because that is how we experience heat. It is heat-as-disordered-kinetic-energy which is just a model, not ontologically basic, and is one constrained and domain-specific way of looking at things.
Don't you find it strange that it's your ontology that keeps changing, yet there is always this native representation sitting there unchanged, and that it is thing upon which all of your cognition is based?
It may be worth reading https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Shut_up_and_multiply as well, as the concepts in these two articles overlap somewhat, and it may be a useful exercise to think about whether the two articles contradict each other or not, and why or why not.
"turn the universe into paperclips" is an in-reference and might not be suitable in a short article meant to introduce "rescuing the utility function" in isolation. At the very least, we should turn that into a link to an article on paper clip maximizers so that unfamiliar readers can know what the heck that sentence is supposed to mean. Alternatively, we could use a different example that doesn't rely on that background knowledge.
Are the them's in this sentence referring to different things? My guess is we're rescuing the theories and being nice to the people, but the differing them's are confusing.
Suggest modifying the first clause (possibly by moving the 'only' from the second into the first) to make clearer that "dealing with preverbal intuitions" is being contrasted with the situation in the previous sentence where not rescuing was an option.
Or just splitting this paragraph. I was starting to lose track of where I was by the end of it.
Did you mean to use "caloric" instead of "caloric fluid" here (and many following places)? I keep reading it like it's an adjective and expecting a following noun.
FYI, it's either "X is composed of Y" or "X comprises Y" (according to the dictionary definition, at least; the line between the two words is blurring in common tongue as "comprised" becomes a synonym for "composed").
(Edit: looks like I should have selected more anchor text.)
This image URL seems to be broken/expired. Does someone have access to a copy that they could rehost somewhere more reliable?
As a mathematician (in college) I see Mathematics as a reliable solution to the issue. In Mathematics we take all our proven knowledge & with that create a proof to a Problem. If we now were to find that the correct proof uses thing we didn't expect to be used we take these Elements & incorporate them into our new set of proven Knowledge. Hence Math people are somewhat of a Agent 3.
Another solution to the problem is that heat as heat is ontologically basic, because it is part of our "native representation". Because that is how we experience heat. It is heat-as-disordered-kinetic-energy which is just a model, not ontologically basic, and is one constrained and domain-specific way of looking at things.
Don't you find it strange that it's your ontology that keeps changing, yet there is always this native representation sitting there unchanged, and that it is thing upon which all of your cognition is based?
It may be worth reading https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Shut_up_and_multiply as well, as the concepts in these two articles overlap somewhat, and it may be a useful exercise to think about whether the two articles contradict each other or not, and why or why not.
"turn the universe into paperclips" is an in-reference and might not be suitable in a short article meant to introduce "rescuing the utility function" in isolation. At the very least, we should turn that into a link to an article on paper clip maximizers so that unfamiliar readers can know what the heck that sentence is supposed to mean. Alternatively, we could use a different example that doesn't rely on that background knowledge.
The page grows long. Perhaps it should be split into two or three pages?
Are the them's in this sentence referring to different things? My guess is we're rescuing the theories and being nice to the people, but the differing them's are confusing.
Suggest modifying the first clause (possibly by moving the 'only' from the second into the first) to make clearer that "dealing with preverbal intuitions" is being contrasted with the situation in the previous sentence where not rescuing was an option.
Or just splitting this paragraph. I was starting to lose track of where I was by the end of it.
Did you mean to use "caloric" instead of "caloric fluid" here (and many following places)? I keep reading it like it's an adjective and expecting a following noun.
FYI, it's either "X is composed of Y" or "X comprises Y" (according to the dictionary definition, at least; the line between the two words is blurring in common tongue as "comprised" becomes a synonym for "composed").
This is helpful! I don't think I've seen a clearer description of the assumptions behind CEV or what your metaethics are all about.
Candidate for my favorite piece of Eliezer-writing for the past 12 months.