Actually, I think the most recent one is very useful. I especially like the idea of measuring utilities as probabiities (re: whales vs orgasms.)
I found the original whale one you linked above to be the most confusing, because it highlights issues without explaining how to go about measuring “awesomeness”. I suppose you are right though in that nobody really knows what is correct.
Note, when I say I am confused, I don’t mean that your writting in particular caused confusion. More, it is that with so many different opinions and sources of ideas, I am having difficulty deciding what I ought to think to be true.
it highlights issues without explaining how to go about measuring “awesomeness”.
Oops. If “measure” comes anywhere near that post, I failed to communcate the point.
We don’t have something we can measure yet. There is no procedure that can be understood on the intellectual/verbal level to calculate what is right. Thinking about it on the verbal level is all sorts of confusing (see for example, everything written about the topic). However, we do have a hardware implementation of approximately what we want; our moral intuitions. The trick is to invoke these moral intuitions without invoking all the confusion left over from trying to think about it verbally. Invoking the hardware intuitions through the “awesome” verbal concept bypasses the cruft attached to “morality”, “right”, etc.
This is of course not a complete solution, as it is not explicit, and our moral intuitions are full of bugs, and “awesome” isn’t quite right. Also, as we use this, “awesome” may become similarly corrupted.
Actualy, given your above comment, it is my desire to “measure” that is the problem. Your post DID do a good job of staying away from the concept, which is what you intended. I didn’t realize that was part of the point, but now I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
“See for example, everything written about the topic”
This is bad. What confused you? Anything you want explained?
I’m still working through your most recent one, and I feel like coming up with questions would be unfair before I (a) reread it and (b) process and isolate my confusion.
If I still find myself with questions after that, I will take you up on your offer. :)
This is bad. What confused you? Anything you want explained?
Actually, I think the most recent one is very useful. I especially like the idea of measuring utilities as probabiities (re: whales vs orgasms.)
I found the original whale one you linked above to be the most confusing, because it highlights issues without explaining how to go about measuring “awesomeness”. I suppose you are right though in that nobody really knows what is correct.
Note, when I say I am confused, I don’t mean that your writting in particular caused confusion. More, it is that with so many different opinions and sources of ideas, I am having difficulty deciding what I ought to think to be true.
Oops. If “measure” comes anywhere near that post, I failed to communcate the point.
We don’t have something we can measure yet. There is no procedure that can be understood on the intellectual/verbal level to calculate what is right. Thinking about it on the verbal level is all sorts of confusing (see for example, everything written about the topic). However, we do have a hardware implementation of approximately what we want; our moral intuitions. The trick is to invoke these moral intuitions without invoking all the confusion left over from trying to think about it verbally. Invoking the hardware intuitions through the “awesome” verbal concept bypasses the cruft attached to “morality”, “right”, etc.
This is of course not a complete solution, as it is not explicit, and our moral intuitions are full of bugs, and “awesome” isn’t quite right. Also, as we use this, “awesome” may become similarly corrupted.
Actualy, given your above comment, it is my desire to “measure” that is the problem. Your post DID do a good job of staying away from the concept, which is what you intended. I didn’t realize that was part of the point, but now I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
“See for example, everything written about the topic”
Nice.
I’m still working through your most recent one, and I feel like coming up with questions would be unfair before I (a) reread it and (b) process and isolate my confusion.
If I still find myself with questions after that, I will take you up on your offer. :)