But isn’t the gauge itself a measurement which doesn’t perfectly correspond to that which it measures? I’m not seeing a distinction here.
Here’s my understanding of your post: “the map is not the territory, and we always act to bring about a change in our map; changes in the territory are an instrumental subgoal or an irrelevant side effect.” I don’t think this is true. Doesn’t that predict that humans would like wireheading, or “happy boxes” (virtual simulations that are more pleasant than reality)?
(You could respond that “we don’t want our map to include a wireheaded self.” I’ll try to find a post I’ve read that argues against this kind of argument.)
But isn’t the gauge itself a measurement which doesn’t perfectly correspond to that which it measures? I’m not seeing a distinction here.
Here’s my understanding of your post: “the map is not the territory, and we always act to bring about a change in our map; changes in the territory are an instrumental subgoal or an irrelevant side effect.” I don’t think this is true. Doesn’t that predict that humans would like wireheading, or “happy boxes” (virtual simulations that are more pleasant than reality)?
(You could respond that “we don’t want our map to include a wireheaded self.” I’ll try to find a post I’ve read that argues against this kind of argument.)