This has been rather surreal. I express what seems to me to be a perfectly ordinary position—that the finite human brain is unlikely to represent unbounded utilities—or to go in for surreal utilities—and a bunch of people have opined, that somehow, the brain does represent unboundedly large utilities—using mechanisms unspecified.
When pressed, infinite quantities of time are invoked. Omega is invited onto the scene—to represent the unbounded numbers for the human. Uh...
I don’t mean to be rude—but do you folk really think you are being rational here? This looks more like rationalising to me.
Is there any evidence for unbounded human utilities? What would make anyone think this is so?
Several mechanisms for expressing unbounded utility functions (NOT unbounded utilities) have been explained. The distinction has been explained. Several explicit examples have been provided.
At the very least, you should update a little based on the resistance you’re experiencing.
As it stands, it looks like you’re not making a good-faith attempt to understand the arguments against your position.
Well, I think I can see the other side. People seem to be thinking that utility in deaths (for example) behaves linearly out to infinity. The way utilitarian ethicists dream about.
I don’t think that is how the brain works. Scope insensitivity shows that most humans deal badly with the large numbers involved—in a manner quite consistent with bounded utility. There is a ceiling effect for pain and for various pleasure-inducing drugs. Those who claim to have overcome scope insensitivity haven’t really changed the underlying utility function used by the human brain. They have just tried to hack it a little—using sophisticated cultural manipulations. Their brain still uses the same finite utilities and utility functions underneath—and it can still be well-modelled that way.
Indeed, I figure you will get more accurate models that way than if you project out to infinity—more accurately reproducing some types of scope insensitivity, for instance.
Sorry, I think I’m going to have to bow out at this point. It still looks like you’re arguing against fictitious positions (like “unbounded utility functions produce infinite utilities”) and failing to deal with the explicit counterexamples provided.
This has been rather surreal. I express what seems to me to be a perfectly ordinary position—that the finite human brain is unlikely to represent unbounded utilities—or to go in for surreal utilities—and a bunch of people have opined, that somehow, the brain does represent unboundedly large utilities—using mechanisms unspecified.
When pressed, infinite quantities of time are invoked. Omega is invited onto the scene—to represent the unbounded numbers for the human. Uh...
I don’t mean to be rude—but do you folk really think you are being rational here? This looks more like rationalising to me.
Is there any evidence for unbounded human utilities? What would make anyone think this is so?
Several mechanisms for expressing unbounded utility functions (NOT unbounded utilities) have been explained. The distinction has been explained. Several explicit examples have been provided.
At the very least, you should update a little based on the resistance you’re experiencing.
As it stands, it looks like you’re not making a good-faith attempt to understand the arguments against your position.
Well, I think I can see the other side. People seem to be thinking that utility in deaths (for example) behaves linearly out to infinity. The way utilitarian ethicists dream about.
I don’t think that is how the brain works. Scope insensitivity shows that most humans deal badly with the large numbers involved—in a manner quite consistent with bounded utility. There is a ceiling effect for pain and for various pleasure-inducing drugs. Those who claim to have overcome scope insensitivity haven’t really changed the underlying utility function used by the human brain. They have just tried to hack it a little—using sophisticated cultural manipulations. Their brain still uses the same finite utilities and utility functions underneath—and it can still be well-modelled that way.
Indeed, I figure you will get more accurate models that way than if you project out to infinity—more accurately reproducing some types of scope insensitivity, for instance.
Sorry, I think I’m going to have to bow out at this point. It still looks like you’re arguing against fictitious positions (like “unbounded utility functions produce infinite utilities”) and failing to deal with the explicit counterexamples provided.