You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. A utility function that is incoherent is not a utility function.
If it is acceptable for Eliezer to talk about having two utility functions, one that measures utilons and one that measures fuzzies, then it is equally acceptable to talk about having a single utility function, with respect to the question of whether humans are capable of having utility functions.
A utility function that is incoherent is not a utility function.
I was using the same not-quite strict definition of “utility function” that you seemed to be using in your post. In any case, I don’t believe Eliezer ever called fuzzies a utility function.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. A utility function that is incoherent is not a utility function.
If it is acceptable for Eliezer to talk about having two utility functions, one that measures utilons and one that measures fuzzies, then it is equally acceptable to talk about having a single utility function, with respect to the question of whether humans are capable of having utility functions.
I was using the same not-quite strict definition of “utility function” that you seemed to be using in your post. In any case, I don’t believe Eliezer ever called fuzzies a utility function.