We are in disagreement then. I reject, not just Pascal’s mugging, but also the style of analysis found in Bostrom’s “Astronomical Waste” paper. As I understand XiXiDu, he has been taught (by people who think like Bostrom) that even the smallest misstep on the way to the Singularity has astronomical consequences and that we who potentially commit these misteps are morally responsible for this astronomical waste.
Is the “Astronomical Waste” paper an example of “Pascal’s Mugging”? If not, how do you distinguish (setting aside the problem of how you justify the distinction)?
We’re not quite sure how to fix it, though Hanson’s suggestion is pretty good …
Do you have a link to Robin’s suggestion? I’m a bit surprised that a practicing economist would suggest something other than discounting. In another Bostrom paper, “The Infinitarian Challenge to Aggregative Ethics”, it appears that Bostrom also recognizes that something is broken, but he, too, doesn’t know how to fix it.
Is the “Astronomical Waste” paper an example of “Pascal’s Mugging”? If not, how do you distinguish (setting aside the problem of how you justify the distinction)?
Exactly, I describe my current confusion in more detail in this thread, especially the comment here and here which led me to conclude this. Fairly long comments, but I wish someone would dissolve my confusion there. I really don’t care if you downvote them to −10, but without some written feedback I can’t tell what exactly is wrong, how I am confused.
Robin Hanson has suggested penalizing the prior probability of hypotheses which argue that we are in a surprisingly unique position to affect large numbers of other people who cannot symmetrically affect us. Since only one in 3^^^^3 people can be in a unique position to ordain the existence of at least 3^^^^3 other people who are not symmetrically in such a situation themselves, the prior probability would be penalized by a factor on the same order as the utility.
I’m going to be poking at this question from several angles—I don’t think I’ve got a complete and concise answer.
I think you’ve got a bad case of God’s Eye Point of View—thinking that the most rational and/or moral way to approach the universe is as though you don’t exist.
The thing about GEPOV is that it isn’t total nonsense. You can get more truth if you aren’t territorial about what you already believe, but since you actually are part of the universe and you are your only point of view, trying to leave yourself out completely is its own flavor of falseness.
As you are finding out, ignoring your needs leads to incapacitation. It’s like saying that we mustn’t waste valuable hydrocarbons on oil for the car engine. All the hydrocarbons should be used for gasoline! This eventually stops working. It’s important to satisfy needs which are of different kinds and operate on different time scales.
You may be thinking that, since fun isn’t easily measurable externally, the need for it isn’t real.
I think you’re up against something which isn’t about rationality exactly—it’s what I call the emotional immune system. Depression is partly about not being able to resist (or even being attracted to) ideas which cause damage.
An emotional immune system is about having affection for oneself, and if it’s damaged, it needs to be rebuilt, probably a little at a time.
On the intellectual side, would you want all the people you want to help to defer their own pleasure indefinitely?
On the intellectual side, would you want all the people you want to help to defer their own pleasure indefinitely?
No, but I don’t know what a solution would look like. Most of the time I am just overwhelmed as it feels like everything I come up with isn’t much better than throwing a coin. I just can’t figure out the right balance between fun (experiencing; being selfish), moral conduct (being altruistic), utility maximization (being future-oriented) and my gut feelings (instinct; intuition; emotions). For example, if I have a strong urge to just go out and have fun, should I just give in to that urge or think about it? If I question the urge I often end up thinking about it until it is too late. Every attempt at a possible solution looks like browsing Wikipedia, each article links to other articles that again link to other articles until you end up with something completely unrelated to the initial article. It seems impossible to apply a lot of what is taught on LW in real life.
NancyLebovitz’s comment I think is highly relevant here.
I can only speak from my personal experience, but I’ve found than part of going through Less Wrong and understanding all the great stuff on this website, is understanding the type of creature I am.
At this current moment, I am comparitively a very simple one. In terms of the singularity, and Friendly AI, they are miles from what I am, and I am not at a point where I can emotionally take on those causes. I can intellectual but the fact is the simple creature that I am doesn’t comprehend those connections yet.
I want to one day, but a Baby has to crawl before it can walk.
Much of what I do provides me with satisfaction, joy, happiness. I don’t even fully understand why. But what I do know, is that I need those emotions to not just function, but to improve, to continue the development of myself.
Maybe it might help to reduce yourself to that simple creature. Understand that for a baby to do math, it has to understand symbols. Maybe that what you understand intellectually, in terms of emotional function your not yet ready to deal with.
Just my two cents. sorry if I’m not as concise as I should be.
I do hope the best for you though.
We are in disagreement then. I reject, not just Pascal’s mugging, but also the style of analysis found in Bostrom’s “Astronomical Waste” paper. As I understand XiXiDu, he has been taught (by people who think like Bostrom) that even the smallest misstep on the way to the Singularity has astronomical consequences and that we who potentially commit these misteps are morally responsible for this astronomical waste.
Is the “Astronomical Waste” paper an example of “Pascal’s Mugging”? If not, how do you distinguish (setting aside the problem of how you justify the distinction)?
Do you have a link to Robin’s suggestion? I’m a bit surprised that a practicing economist would suggest something other than discounting. In another Bostrom paper, “The Infinitarian Challenge to Aggregative Ethics”, it appears that Bostrom also recognizes that something is broken, but he, too, doesn’t know how to fix it.
Exactly, I describe my current confusion in more detail in this thread, especially the comment here and here which led me to conclude this. Fairly long comments, but I wish someone would dissolve my confusion there. I really don’t care if you downvote them to −10, but without some written feedback I can’t tell what exactly is wrong, how I am confused.
Can be found via the Wiki:
I don’t quite get it.
I’m going to be poking at this question from several angles—I don’t think I’ve got a complete and concise answer.
I think you’ve got a bad case of God’s Eye Point of View—thinking that the most rational and/or moral way to approach the universe is as though you don’t exist.
The thing about GEPOV is that it isn’t total nonsense. You can get more truth if you aren’t territorial about what you already believe, but since you actually are part of the universe and you are your only point of view, trying to leave yourself out completely is its own flavor of falseness.
As you are finding out, ignoring your needs leads to incapacitation. It’s like saying that we mustn’t waste valuable hydrocarbons on oil for the car engine. All the hydrocarbons should be used for gasoline! This eventually stops working. It’s important to satisfy needs which are of different kinds and operate on different time scales.
You may be thinking that, since fun isn’t easily measurable externally, the need for it isn’t real.
I think you’re up against something which isn’t about rationality exactly—it’s what I call the emotional immune system. Depression is partly about not being able to resist (or even being attracted to) ideas which cause damage.
An emotional immune system is about having affection for oneself, and if it’s damaged, it needs to be rebuilt, probably a little at a time.
On the intellectual side, would you want all the people you want to help to defer their own pleasure indefinitely?
This sounds very true and important.
As far as I can tell, a great deal of thinking is the result of wanting thoughts which match a pre-existing emotional state.
Thoughts do influence emotions, but less reliably.
No, but I don’t know what a solution would look like. Most of the time I am just overwhelmed as it feels like everything I come up with isn’t much better than throwing a coin. I just can’t figure out the right balance between fun (experiencing; being selfish), moral conduct (being altruistic), utility maximization (being future-oriented) and my gut feelings (instinct; intuition; emotions). For example, if I have a strong urge to just go out and have fun, should I just give in to that urge or think about it? If I question the urge I often end up thinking about it until it is too late. Every attempt at a possible solution looks like browsing Wikipedia, each article links to other articles that again link to other articles until you end up with something completely unrelated to the initial article. It seems impossible to apply a lot of what is taught on LW in real life.
Maybe require yourself to have a certain amount of fun per week?
NancyLebovitz’s comment I think is highly relevant here.
I can only speak from my personal experience, but I’ve found than part of going through Less Wrong and understanding all the great stuff on this website, is understanding the type of creature I am. At this current moment, I am comparitively a very simple one. In terms of the singularity, and Friendly AI, they are miles from what I am, and I am not at a point where I can emotionally take on those causes. I can intellectual but the fact is the simple creature that I am doesn’t comprehend those connections yet. I want to one day, but a Baby has to crawl before it can walk. Much of what I do provides me with satisfaction, joy, happiness. I don’t even fully understand why. But what I do know, is that I need those emotions to not just function, but to improve, to continue the development of myself.
Maybe it might help to reduce yourself to that simple creature. Understand that for a baby to do math, it has to understand symbols. Maybe that what you understand intellectually, in terms of emotional function your not yet ready to deal with.
Just my two cents. sorry if I’m not as concise as I should be. I do hope the best for you though.