Do we Share a Definition for the word “ideal”?
Related: A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems
Perhaps this will be seen as spam and that I have broken a rule of propriety, but my previous discussion has already served its purpose and I think will continue to do so. I needed it as an open dialogue to get a general idea of what the implications of a stable metric for value would be (ie it would solve many otherwise difficult to solve problems).
In relation to such a unit of value, I would like to ask what is your definition of the word “ideal”. On the surface this question might seem empty, but I often observe with people that we don’t all share the same meaning for the word, and that the discrepancy is significant.
Do we have a shared meaning for this word?
- 's comment on Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B) by (17 Jan 2017 7:57 UTC; 4 points)
- 's comment on John Nash’s Ideal Money: The Motivations of Savings and Thrift by (17 Jan 2017 4:00 UTC; 1 point)
- 's comment on John Nash’s Ideal Money: The Motivations of Savings and Thrift by (17 Jan 2017 17:26 UTC; 0 points)
- 's comment on Welcome to Less Wrong! (11th thread, January 2017) (Thread B) by (16 Jan 2017 22:46 UTC; 0 points)
- 's comment on A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems by (17 Jan 2017 3:23 UTC; 0 points)
- 's comment on A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems by (17 Jan 2017 3:15 UTC; 0 points)
- 's comment on A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems by (17 Jan 2017 15:50 UTC; 0 points)
- 's comment on A Proposal for a Simpler Solution To All These Difficult Observations and Problems by (16 Jan 2017 21:36 UTC; 0 points)
YES! This is the study of ethics, I think: “by what rules can we generate an ideal society?”
NO!
This is why ethical formalisms have historically been so problematic.
Overconfident projections of value based on proxies that are extrapolated way out of their region of relevance (generally in the service of “legibility”) is the root cause of so much avoidable suffering: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/
This hits fairly close to home in the rest of the tech industry as our proxies are stressed way beyond their rated capacity: http://timewellspent.io and http://nxhx.org/maximizing/
Moreover, even if we did nail it at one point in time, this thing called “ideal” drifts with progress, see also “value drift”.
Will Buckingham suggests that simply sharing stories is the most responsible way forward in https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Our-Sea-legs-Experience-Stories/dp/1899999485 -- digested ad nauseum by https://meaningness.com/
I hope these citations are convincing. Let’s continue to talk about what’s ideal, but once we throw in underneath some god-value-proxy, we’re just as screwed as if we gave up on CEV.
I don’t think we have. An ideal solution to a mathematical problem would be a demonstration that is both computationally accessible and giving a necessary and sufficient solution, but an ideal solution to a political problem would be one that imply the use of few resource as possible and offers a pleasant (or at least reputation-saving) accomodation to all the parties involved. An ideal partner is another thing entirely.
So I don’t think the word “ideal” has the same meaning across problem spaces for the same subject, let alone different people that faces different problems.
Thank you. No see. Ideal means “conceptual”. But you are probably unaware of the importance of pointing this out because the mod took away my ability to put it all together.
People are arguing Nash Ideal Money can’t exist; they don’t understand the meaning of ideal. Might you quickly skim through this thread to understand exactly what I am saying: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ogp/a_proposal_for_a_simpler_solution_to_all_these/
Its a quick skim, you’ll figure it out.
I think we have a problem of communication.
I thought that your question, “Do we have a shared meaning for this word?”, was made to try to arrive at a shared meaning of the world through discussion.
Instead I see that you have a fixed meaning in mind, and that you intend to use that meaning solely in your posts. Please confirm that this is indeed the case, if so I will no longer intervene in this thread.
The context is “Ideal Money”. When I am asking if we have a shared meaning, I am asking if we agree on what the standard definition for the word is. For someone to say “Ideal Money doesn’t exist” is to not use the standard definition of the word Ideal.
I have already discussed Ideal Money with people on this forum that have made this error.
That is the context of this thread. But this thread was a sub point to the main thread, the main thread was moderated away, so no one saw it and so this thread doesn’t make sense, because the context was taken from me.
Why do you say that it was moderated away? I still see the “Ideal money” thread.
I think an earlier post was removed. (Though I have only Flinter’s word for it; I never saw the earlier post.)
You know what, your cynical attitude is telling of your intelligence. There is an intro thread and the mod that did it admits it publicly. Its not my word, its the mods and it would be strange to me if you didn’t believe them.
No you don’t.