I disagree with this....How are they simplifying any utility function?
Sorry, I should have been more explicit, what I meant to say was:
(2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain and then doing nothing but sit around feeling pleasure all the time, doing only doing the bare minimum to stay alive is almost always an example of doing (1)
Obviously there are some cases where inserting a wire would not be (1), such as if a clinically depressed person used it to improve their mood, and then went around living their life otherwise normally.
Perhaps the problem is that the concept of “utility function” does not apply all that well to human beings. Evidently, a human brain has different and conflicting drives which vary in priority from day to day; hour to hour; and minute to minute.
I think the terms “Ego Syntonic and Ego Dystonic” are helpful here. I would generally consider a person’s utility function, and their “true” desires to be the ones that are ego-syntonic. Some heroin use may be ego-syntonic, but full-blown addiction where users cry as they inject themselves is full-blown ego-dystonic.
Now, this position comes with a whole bunch of caveats. For one thing these obviously aren’t binary categories. There are some desires that are ego-dystonic only because we don’t have enough time and resources to satisfy them without sacrificing some other, more important desire, and they would stop being dystonic if we obtained more time and resources.
Also, I think that the “syntonic” part of the brain also sometimes engage in the OP’s definition of “wireheading.” In fact, I think “someone who was wireheaded by the syntonic part of their brain” is a good description of what a “Hollywood Rationalist is. So there may be some instances where supposedly “dystonic” thoughts are actually attempts by one’s true utility function to resist being wireheaded.
Finally, the “ego-systonic” portion of the self sometimes adopts ideals and aspects of self-image without thinking them through very carefully. It may adopt ideals that poorly thought out or even dangerous. In this case the ego-dystonic behaviors it exhibits may save it from its own foolishness.
These caveats aside, I think that generally the ego-syntonic part of your mind represents the closest thing to a “utility function” and a “real you” there is.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit, what I meant to say was: (2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain and then doing nothing but sit around feeling pleasure all the time, doing only doing the bare minimum to stay alive is almost always an example of doing (1)
Well supposing someone does this, how exactly is it simplifying their utility function?
I think the terms “Ego Syntonic and Ego Dystonic” are helpful here. Some heroin use may be ego-syntonic, but full-blown addiction where users cry as they inject themselves is full-blown ego-dystonic.
Perhaps, but is it possible to draw a clear line between what is Ego Syntonic and what is Ego Dystonic?
Also, I am a bit skeptical of this approach. Apparently under this approach, wireheading in moderation is not Wireheading. As mentioned above, I disagree with a choice of definition of Wireheading which excludes actual wireheading whether in moderation or in excess.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit, what I meant to say was: (2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain and then doing nothing but sit around feeling pleasure all the time, doing only doing the bare minimum to stay alive is almost always an example of doing (1)
Obviously there are some cases where inserting a wire would not be (1), such as if a clinically depressed person used it to improve their mood, and then went around living their life otherwise normally.
I think the terms “Ego Syntonic and Ego Dystonic” are helpful here. I would generally consider a person’s utility function, and their “true” desires to be the ones that are ego-syntonic. Some heroin use may be ego-syntonic, but full-blown addiction where users cry as they inject themselves is full-blown ego-dystonic.
Now, this position comes with a whole bunch of caveats. For one thing these obviously aren’t binary categories. There are some desires that are ego-dystonic only because we don’t have enough time and resources to satisfy them without sacrificing some other, more important desire, and they would stop being dystonic if we obtained more time and resources.
Also, I think that the “syntonic” part of the brain also sometimes engage in the OP’s definition of “wireheading.” In fact, I think “someone who was wireheaded by the syntonic part of their brain” is a good description of what a “Hollywood Rationalist is. So there may be some instances where supposedly “dystonic” thoughts are actually attempts by one’s true utility function to resist being wireheaded.
Finally, the “ego-systonic” portion of the self sometimes adopts ideals and aspects of self-image without thinking them through very carefully. It may adopt ideals that poorly thought out or even dangerous. In this case the ego-dystonic behaviors it exhibits may save it from its own foolishness.
These caveats aside, I think that generally the ego-syntonic part of your mind represents the closest thing to a “utility function” and a “real you” there is.
Well supposing someone does this, how exactly is it simplifying their utility function?
Perhaps, but is it possible to draw a clear line between what is Ego Syntonic and what is Ego Dystonic?
Also, I am a bit skeptical of this approach. Apparently under this approach, wireheading in moderation is not Wireheading. As mentioned above, I disagree with a choice of definition of Wireheading which excludes actual wireheading whether in moderation or in excess.