They are presented with situations in which multiple alternatives are possible, and they select one. That is choosing. Their choices may be explained by psychological, environmental and/or chemical factors, but not explained away. See Explaining vs Explaining Away.
That is too easy. When you see “someone choose to X”, you’ll usually take it to mean that the bloke could’ve done otherwise, ergo, if he choose to do something that did him wrong, he’s responsible and hence, deserves the result he’s obtained.
Maybe you can stretch the definition of responsibility too (stretch away http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth ), but the idea that people could do otherwise, or deserve their fate if they chose to do something ‘wrong’, knowing it was wrong to do it … even barring the idea of a deserved fate, people often fall back to human nature, resorting to their heuristics and “general feeling about doing this or that”.
That’s not a choice. That’s more like a curse, when your environmental conditions are just right and strong enough to give such processes PREDOMINANCE over your own ‘rational’ sophisticated mind. In such cases, you won’t act rationally anymore; you’ve already been taken over, even if temporarily. We’ve been discussing akrasia and ego depletion a bit lately, this falls in the same category. Rationality is but the last layer of your mind. It floats over all those hardwired components of your mind. It is pretty fragile and artificial, at least when it comes to act rationally, as opposed to thinking rationally, or even easier, thinking about rationality.
So whether someone “choose it”, or not, whatever meaning is bestowed upon the word choice, is not the most important thing. It’s to understand why someone did something of a disservice to himself, and how he could be helped out of it, and if he should be helped out of it in the first place.
This question is totally meaningless for materialists and consequentialists. The entire business of attaching blame and deserts must be abandoned in favour of questions either to do with predictions about the world or to do with what will give the best total effect.
I’ll do a post on this when I’ve composed it, but the start of it is the case of Phineas Gage.
I think this is too extreme. Maybe blame and desert are best dispensed with, but it seems likely that we (our volitions) terminally disvalue interference with deliberate, ‘responsible’ choices, even if they’re wrong, but not interference with compulsions. Even if that’s not the case, it also seems likely that something like our idea of responsible vs. compulsive choice is a natural joint, predicting an action’s evidential value about stable, reflectively endorsed preferences, which is heuristically useful in multiple ways.
I don’t think that needs to be a terminal value. People’s deliberate choices provide information about what will actually make them happy; with compulsions, we have evidence that those things won’t really make them happy.
I agree that it’s useful to have words to distinguish what we want long-term when we think about it, and what we want short-term when tempted, and I’ve just done a post on that subject. However, I don’t see how that helps rescue the idea of blame and deserving.
I think this is too extreme. Maybe blame and desert are best dispensed with, but it seems likely that we (our volitions) terminally disvalue interference with deliberate, ‘responsible’ choices, even if they’re wrong, but not interference with compulsions. Even if that’s not the case, it also seems likely that something like our idea of responsible vs. compulsive choice is a (natural joint)[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/where-boundary.html], predicting an action’s evidential value about stable, reflectively endorsed preferences, which is heuristically useful in multiple ways.
They are presented with situations in which multiple alternatives are possible, and they select one.
This does not cut it. First, you need to additionally specify that they are fully aware of these multiple possibilities. When a man decides to cross the street and gets killed by junk falling from the sky, he didn’t choose to die.
Second, the word “select” fully encapsulates the mystery of the word “choose” in this context.
Third (I didn’t originally make this clear), I’m not looking for a fully reductive explanation of choice, so the “explaining away” discussion isn’t relevant. The statement “Believe me—they choose” appears to be attempting to communicate something, and I believe the payload is hiding in the connotation of “choose” (because the denotation is pretty tautological: people’s actions are the result of their choices).
Belatedly I recall prior discussion of connotation. I’ve edited my original reply to include the flashy LW keyword “ADBOC”.
So my statement was technically true, but you disagree with the connotations. If I state them explicitly, you will explain why you think they are wrong. Sounds like a sucker’s game to me and I doubt I have any responsibility for your connotations (I am assuming the you agree denotationally but oject connotatively).
In a sense you are butting in on another conversation—where connotations are linked and have grown in context.. My use of the word choose is related to infotropism’s descripiton of a hobo.
I have no idea where you connotations are—so you have all the cards.
However.
If you tell an addict—“One more injection in that vein and we will amputate your leg,” then he will inject.
When you are in the middle of an orgasium, come out of it, you want in again—Big Time.
If a thin and hungry wolf meets a well fed and groomed dog, and the dog says, “Come wih me, Humans are wonderful, they feed me. Their houses are warm. They are kind. The wolf follows along. Sounds like a good deal. But then he sees the collar. “What’s that?” He says. “Oh” the dog says, “they use a leash, when we go walkies”.
The wolf turns around and “chooses” freedom.
Connotations on the word “choice” are many, dialectical and necessarily VAGUE.
Sounds like a sucker’s game to me and I doubt I have any responsibility for your connotations [...] I have no idea where you connotations are—so you have all the cards.
This isn’t an adversarial game. How do you know I will disagree with you? Even if you did know, why avoid it?
In a sense you are butting in on another conversation—where connotations are linked and have grown in context.. My use of the word choose is related to infotropism’s descripiton of a hobo.
You uttered a statement of the form “Believe me - ” in direct reply to a comment I found fairly insightful. Infotropism laid out the connotation of his use of the word “choose” quite well, IMO, and your statement seems at odds with that.
When you are in the middle of an orgasium, come out of it, you want in again—Big Time.
If you define “choice” to cover this scenario in the context of a “who is worth helping” discussion, I question the value of the definition.
Connotations on the word “choice” are many, dialectical and necessarily VAGUE.
When that is the case for a word, you cannot use it to make a clear point without a supporting explanation. I’m assuming you didn’t intend to make a vague point.
Things don’t have to be adversial and they don’t have to not be adversial. I do not know if we are being adversial. Nor do I know if I was being adversial. I do however think my forecast of a possible disection of my answer has been met by you answer.
In a sense I would think that everything we say is tautological for ourselves and seldom tautological for others. I would certainly think my useage of the word “choice” is personal and ideosyncratic as choosing and its fundament is after all anchored in the moment of existence. The object of choosing is undefined until defined and this “search-result” is charged with the web of individuality.
“If you define “choice” to cover this scenario (reentrance to the orgasium) in the context of a “who is worth helping” discussion, I question the value of the definition.”
I have not at any point participated in the discussion “who is worth helping”. (My answer to that is too radical for your ears.) In other words your disection is wrong—as it has been at every stage. As such a mechaniclal deconstruction based on your own hobby horses must necessarily be.
I am trying to express some complicated truths. You, kind sir, do not have access to these truths. Nor can I give you access. You are looking at my finger.
I found the above comment to be mostly incoherent, so I’ll reply to the meaningful parts.
I have not at any point participated in the discussion “who is worth helping”.
Infotropism made a comment that essentially said people are more likely to help “cute puppies” than “dirty hobos” due to buggy hardware. You replied that your dog’s senses are probably sharper than a hobo’s, and that the hobo chose his or her condition. I deem that “participation”, even if you didn’t understand what was being discussed or implied.
I think we two are in a personal dialogue here—off the beaten track as it were, as I don’t think others wil come visiting. Fine. We are also weaving a thread of mutual “conotations” (or in our case “misconnotations”). Also fine. A little case-study—just for us!
A case study in disagreement! (he he)
As you point out—Infotropism made a point about helping cute puppies contra hobos. This was a reply to an earlier point from me on “compassion”. Compassion is not directly related to helping. I work in the helping profession—this does not mean I am theoretically interested in “helping”. I was not participating in a discussion on helping. Originally I was attacking Eliezer for his arrogance, which has been sidestepped to diverse diversions. Infortropism and I went on to riff on common and separate themes. Then you came along.
I am neither posturing nor condescending. I am simply making the point, that what I say will appear incohernt to you, just as I do not understand why you are so sure you are right, why you think you can find meaningful parts from a whole you find incoherent and why you think you have the right to deconstruct or correct another’s expression. What you assume to be a rational and impartial analysis (by you of me) appears posturing and condescending to me! Your analysis postulates a greater intelligence, a sharper insight, a greater stringency. None of which I recognize.
Yours is also the conceit of Eliezer who wants to program intelligence and thus thinks that things have to be reduced to algorithms, before one has understood them. It is a mechanical intelligence.
Does one wish to dance with a jerky doll or talk to a human? For that is how your deconstruction seems to me!
Let’s just say that I am divergent and you are convergent in our ways of thinking???
You win more points than I do from our audience. This is because convergence is the dominant style here on LW. Once in a while I get a little snarky over it. And probably I should be moving on to greener pastures. Even though I think these two styles should be able to finde a synthesis or at least improve on each other.
Thanks infotropism—I like your reply!
There is a humanness to it which is so often absent in the other posts.
I work with drug addicts every day. Believe me—they choose.
And I agree—“There but the grace of god go I”.
I don’t believe you. Define “choose”.
EDIT: My above objection is unclear. I should have replied ADBOC.
They are presented with situations in which multiple alternatives are possible, and they select one. That is choosing. Their choices may be explained by psychological, environmental and/or chemical factors, but not explained away. See Explaining vs Explaining Away.
That is too easy. When you see “someone choose to X”, you’ll usually take it to mean that the bloke could’ve done otherwise, ergo, if he choose to do something that did him wrong, he’s responsible and hence, deserves the result he’s obtained.
Maybe you can stretch the definition of responsibility too (stretch away http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth ), but the idea that people could do otherwise, or deserve their fate if they chose to do something ‘wrong’, knowing it was wrong to do it … even barring the idea of a deserved fate, people often fall back to human nature, resorting to their heuristics and “general feeling about doing this or that”.
That’s not a choice. That’s more like a curse, when your environmental conditions are just right and strong enough to give such processes PREDOMINANCE over your own ‘rational’ sophisticated mind. In such cases, you won’t act rationally anymore; you’ve already been taken over, even if temporarily. We’ve been discussing akrasia and ego depletion a bit lately, this falls in the same category. Rationality is but the last layer of your mind. It floats over all those hardwired components of your mind. It is pretty fragile and artificial, at least when it comes to act rationally, as opposed to thinking rationally, or even easier, thinking about rationality.
So whether someone “choose it”, or not, whatever meaning is bestowed upon the word choice, is not the most important thing. It’s to understand why someone did something of a disservice to himself, and how he could be helped out of it, and if he should be helped out of it in the first place.
This question is totally meaningless for materialists and consequentialists. The entire business of attaching blame and deserts must be abandoned in favour of questions either to do with predictions about the world or to do with what will give the best total effect.
I’ll do a post on this when I’ve composed it, but the start of it is the case of Phineas Gage.
I think this is too extreme. Maybe blame and desert are best dispensed with, but it seems likely that we (our volitions) terminally disvalue interference with deliberate, ‘responsible’ choices, even if they’re wrong, but not interference with compulsions. Even if that’s not the case, it also seems likely that something like our idea of responsible vs. compulsive choice is a natural joint, predicting an action’s evidential value about stable, reflectively endorsed preferences, which is heuristically useful in multiple ways.
I don’t think that needs to be a terminal value. People’s deliberate choices provide information about what will actually make them happy; with compulsions, we have evidence that those things won’t really make them happy.
I agree that it’s useful to have words to distinguish what we want long-term when we think about it, and what we want short-term when tempted, and I’ve just done a post on that subject. However, I don’t see how that helps rescue the idea of blame and deserving.
In case there was any confusion, I didn’t mean to say it does.
I think this is too extreme. Maybe blame and desert are best dispensed with, but it seems likely that we (our volitions) terminally disvalue interference with deliberate, ‘responsible’ choices, even if they’re wrong, but not interference with compulsions. Even if that’s not the case, it also seems likely that something like our idea of responsible vs. compulsive choice is a (natural joint)[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/where-boundary.html], predicting an action’s evidential value about stable, reflectively endorsed preferences, which is heuristically useful in multiple ways.
This does not cut it. First, you need to additionally specify that they are fully aware of these multiple possibilities. When a man decides to cross the street and gets killed by junk falling from the sky, he didn’t choose to die.
Second, the word “select” fully encapsulates the mystery of the word “choose” in this context.
Third (I didn’t originally make this clear), I’m not looking for a fully reductive explanation of choice, so the “explaining away” discussion isn’t relevant. The statement “Believe me—they choose” appears to be attempting to communicate something, and I believe the payload is hiding in the connotation of “choose” (because the denotation is pretty tautological: people’s actions are the result of their choices).
Belatedly I recall prior discussion of connotation. I’ve edited my original reply to include the flashy LW keyword “ADBOC”.
So my statement was technically true, but you disagree with the connotations. If I state them explicitly, you will explain why you think they are wrong. Sounds like a sucker’s game to me and I doubt I have any responsibility for your connotations (I am assuming the you agree denotationally but oject connotatively).
In a sense you are butting in on another conversation—where connotations are linked and have grown in context.. My use of the word choose is related to infotropism’s descripiton of a hobo.
I have no idea where you connotations are—so you have all the cards.
However.
If you tell an addict—“One more injection in that vein and we will amputate your leg,” then he will inject.
When you are in the middle of an orgasium, come out of it, you want in again—Big Time.
If a thin and hungry wolf meets a well fed and groomed dog, and the dog says, “Come wih me, Humans are wonderful, they feed me. Their houses are warm. They are kind. The wolf follows along. Sounds like a good deal. But then he sees the collar. “What’s that?” He says. “Oh” the dog says, “they use a leash, when we go walkies”.
The wolf turns around and “chooses” freedom.
Connotations on the word “choice” are many, dialectical and necessarily VAGUE.
This isn’t an adversarial game. How do you know I will disagree with you? Even if you did know, why avoid it?
You uttered a statement of the form “Believe me - ” in direct reply to a comment I found fairly insightful. Infotropism laid out the connotation of his use of the word “choose” quite well, IMO, and your statement seems at odds with that.
If you define “choice” to cover this scenario in the context of a “who is worth helping” discussion, I question the value of the definition.
When that is the case for a word, you cannot use it to make a clear point without a supporting explanation. I’m assuming you didn’t intend to make a vague point.
Interesting!
Things don’t have to be adversial and they don’t have to not be adversial. I do not know if we are being adversial. Nor do I know if I was being adversial. I do however think my forecast of a possible disection of my answer has been met by you answer.
In a sense I would think that everything we say is tautological for ourselves and seldom tautological for others. I would certainly think my useage of the word “choice” is personal and ideosyncratic as choosing and its fundament is after all anchored in the moment of existence. The object of choosing is undefined until defined and this “search-result” is charged with the web of individuality.
“If you define “choice” to cover this scenario (reentrance to the orgasium) in the context of a “who is worth helping” discussion, I question the value of the definition.”
I have not at any point participated in the discussion “who is worth helping”. (My answer to that is too radical for your ears.) In other words your disection is wrong—as it has been at every stage. As such a mechaniclal deconstruction based on your own hobby horses must necessarily be.
I am trying to express some complicated truths. You, kind sir, do not have access to these truths. Nor can I give you access. You are looking at my finger.
I am looking at the moon.
Or mabye vice-versa.
I found the above comment to be mostly incoherent, so I’ll reply to the meaningful parts.
Infotropism made a comment that essentially said people are more likely to help “cute puppies” than “dirty hobos” due to buggy hardware. You replied that your dog’s senses are probably sharper than a hobo’s, and that the hobo chose his or her condition. I deem that “participation”, even if you didn’t understand what was being discussed or implied.
How very condescending. Spare me your posturing.
I think we two are in a personal dialogue here—off the beaten track as it were, as I don’t think others wil come visiting. Fine. We are also weaving a thread of mutual “conotations” (or in our case “misconnotations”). Also fine. A little case-study—just for us!
A case study in disagreement! (he he)
As you point out—Infotropism made a point about helping cute puppies contra hobos. This was a reply to an earlier point from me on “compassion”. Compassion is not directly related to helping. I work in the helping profession—this does not mean I am theoretically interested in “helping”. I was not participating in a discussion on helping. Originally I was attacking Eliezer for his arrogance, which has been sidestepped to diverse diversions. Infortropism and I went on to riff on common and separate themes. Then you came along.
I am neither posturing nor condescending. I am simply making the point, that what I say will appear incohernt to you, just as I do not understand why you are so sure you are right, why you think you can find meaningful parts from a whole you find incoherent and why you think you have the right to deconstruct or correct another’s expression. What you assume to be a rational and impartial analysis (by you of me) appears posturing and condescending to me! Your analysis postulates a greater intelligence, a sharper insight, a greater stringency. None of which I recognize.
Yours is also the conceit of Eliezer who wants to program intelligence and thus thinks that things have to be reduced to algorithms, before one has understood them. It is a mechanical intelligence.
Does one wish to dance with a jerky doll or talk to a human? For that is how your deconstruction seems to me!
Let’s just say that I am divergent and you are convergent in our ways of thinking???
You win more points than I do from our audience. This is because convergence is the dominant style here on LW. Once in a while I get a little snarky over it. And probably I should be moving on to greener pastures. Even though I think these two styles should be able to finde a synthesis or at least improve on each other.
Mvh
I think I have that right because I do have that right.
Ah!
You must be talking about epistemic accuracy. Getting things right and not just less wrong.
I am actually rather curious.… who or what has given you this right? What does it correlate with?
Sky-hooks?