They get exactly what they want, not a counterfeit version of what they want. Ditto for masturbation.
Well what if they masturbate with a machine, for example “Pris” from Blade Runner, designed to intensify the stimulation?
Or better yet, what if they use a machine which connects directly with the nerves that run to the sex organs in order to make it simpler and easier?
Or better still what if they use a machine which interfaces directly with the brain by means of a wire in order to give the most intense stimulation possible?
If the goal is (sexual) pleasure, then none of these things are wireheading?
And isn’t putting a wire into one’s brain in order to get pleasure pretty much automatically wireheading by any reasonable definition?
People like sex and sex-like experiences, full stop. Any evolutionary reasons for why we evolved to like them are morally irrelevant historical details.
So it’s not wireheading if you put a wire into your brain to give yourself intense sexual stimulation? How can that not be wireheading?
When I say that people want “sex and sex like experiences” I don’t just mean they want an orgasm or pleasure. The positive nature of a sexual experience has many different facets (companionship, love, etc.), pleasure is just one facet (albeit a very important one). Giving head contains pretty much all of those facets, so it isn’t wireheading.
In each of the examples you give you gradually remove every other facet of sexual experiences other than pleasure, until only pleasure is left. That is how the OP defines wireheading, simplifying one’s utility function and then satisfying the simplified version, even in instances where it is different than the real one.
So it’s not wireheading if you put a wire into your brain to give yourself intense sexual stimulation?
If we go with the definition of “wireheading” as “simplifying one’s utility function and then following the simplified version even in instances where it conflicts with the real one,” then putting a wire into your brain to give yourself sexual stimulation is wireheading if what you really want to do is have sex. By contrast, if all you really want is pleasure, then it isn’t wireheading.
By contrast, if all you really want is pleasure, then it isn’t wireheading.
So if somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life, and decides to do so by literally having himself wireheaded, then that person does not count as a “wirehead”?
If “maximize pleasure” was actually that person’s utility function, then no. But in practice “somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life” sounds to me more like someone who is wrong about their utility function. Of course, maybe I’m wrong about all the complicated things I think I want, and pleasure really is the only important thing.
Or possibly it’s a decision like “Maximizing pleasure is the aspect of my utility function I should focus on now” in which case wireheading is also the wrong move.
If “maximize pleasure” was actually that person’s utility function, then no. But in practice “somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life” sounds to me more like someone who is wrong about their utility function. Of course, maybe I’m wrong about all the complicated things I think I want, and pleasure really is the only important thing.
Well how do you know what somebody’s true utility function is? Or even whether they have one?
You don’t; moreover, to me at least, it’s probably not even immediately obvious what I truly value. Which is how it happens that someone can be wrong about what they want.
But most people are probably alike to an extent, so if you figure out that maximizing pleasure isn’t the only thing that’s important to you, you might suspect that other people also care about other things besides maximizing pleasure.
Well then how do you know your own utility function? Is there any way in principle to test it? Is there any way to know that you are wrong about what you want?
So if somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life, and decides to do so by literally having himself wireheaded, then that person does not count as a “wirehead”?
Yes, if their decision is correct and you are using the definition of “wireheading” established in the OP. I believe our disagreement is an example of disrupting definitions. The definition of of “wireheading” established by the OP is different from a more common definition “inserting a stimulating wire in the brain.”
Well I am trying to figure (among other things) out if the OP has a reasonable definition of wireheading. It seems to me that any reasonable definition of “wireheading” should include a situation where a person decides to enhance or maximize his pleasure and to do so uses some kind of device to directly stimulate the pleasure centers in his brain.
Let me ask you this: Can you give me a couple examples of things which definitely are wireheading using your view of the OP’s definition? For example, is there any situation where eating a particular food would be considered “wireheading” by the OP’s definition?
Let me ask you this: Can you give me a couple examples of things which definitely are wireheading using your view of the OP’s definition?
Imagine Stan the Family Man, a man who loves his family, and wants his family to be safe, and derives great happiness from knowing his family is safe. Stan mistakenly believes that, because being with his family makes him happy, that happiness is his true goal, and the safety of his family is but a means to that end.
Stan is kidnapped by Master Menace, a mad scientist who is a master of brainwashing. Master Menace gives Stan two choices:
He will have Stan’s family killed and then brainwash Stan so that he believes his family is alive.
He will give Stan’s family a billion dollars, then brainwash Stan to think his family has been killed.
After Stan makes his decision Master Menace will erase the memory of making it from Stan’s mind, and he will keep Stan imprisoned in his Fortress of Doom, so there is no chance that Stan will ever discover he is brainwashed.
Stan, because he mistakenly believes he values his family’s safety as a means to obtaining happiness, has Master Menace kill them. Then he is brainwashed and is happy to believe his family is safe. That is wireheading.
Or imagine an agent that has other values than pleasure and happiness. A human being, for instance. However, even though it has other values, pleasure and happiness are very important to this agent, and when it obtains its goals in life it usually becomes happy and experiences pleasure. Because experiencing pleasure and happiness are highly correlated with this agent getting what it wants, it mistakenly thinks that they are all it wants. So it inserts a wire into its head that makes it feel happiness and pleasure without having to actually achieve any goals in order to do so. That is wireheading.
For example, is there any situation where eating a particular food would be considered “wireheading” by the OP’s definition?
Yes. Imagine a person who loves eating candy and sweets because they are yummy and delicious. However, he mistakenly thinks that the only reason people eat is to gain nutrition. He forces himself to choke down nutritious health food he hates, because they are more nutritious then candy and sweets. That is wireheading. If he understood his utility function properly he’d start eating candy again.
Thank you for providing those examples. Of course the OP is free to define the word “wireheading” any way he likes, but I disagree with his choice of definition.
If somebody decides to directly stimulate his brain in order to obtain the good feeling which results, and in fact does so, and in fact gets a good feeling as a result, it should count as “wireheading” by any reasonable definition of “wireheading.”
Similarly, the OP mentions heroin use as an example of wireheading but this seems to be a misleading example since most people use and abuse heroin in order to get a good feeling.
Thank you for providing those examples. Of course the OP is free to define the word “wireheading” any way he likes, but I disagree with his choice of definition.
I think that the definition the “wireheading” the OP comes up with is a good explanation for why wireheading is bad, even if it doesn’t fit with the common understanding of what wireheading is. But again, this is an example of disputing definitions. As long as we agree that:
(1) Simplifying your utility function and then following the simplified version when it conflicts with the real version is bad.
(2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain is almost always an example of doing (1),
then we do not disagree about anything important.
Similarly, the OP mentions heroin use as an example of wireheading but this seems to be a misleading example since most people use and abuse heroin in order to get a good feeling.
That is true, but most heroin users tend to begin neglecting other things in their life that they value (their family being the most common) for that good feeling, and are often motivated to try quitting because they do that. They seem to have realized they are wireheading.
This means that if a heroin user was capable of overriding their need for heroin whenever it conflicted with their other values then heroin use might not count as wireheading.
(2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain is almost always an example of doing (1),
I disagree with this. When people take heroin, they do so in order to feel good. They value (immediate) pleasure and they are obtaining pleasure in a direct way. How are they simplifying any utility function?
That is true, but most heroin users tend to begin neglecting other things in their life that they value (their family being the most common) for that good feeling, and are often motivated to try quitting because they do that.
That may be so, but at any given moment when the heroin user chooses to shoot up, he is doing so in order to obtain pleasure.
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. Underlying all of these drives is the evolutionary pressure to survive and reproduce. So it’s possible to think of a human as having an unchanging utility function in terms of survival and reproduction. And exploiting that utility function. From this perspective, heroin use is wireheading; recreational sex is wireheading; and so on. On the other hand, if you look at human utility functions in terms of specific desires and drives in the brain, the question becomes a lot more slippery.
When people take heroin, they do so in order to feel good.
From what I’ve read, some people take heroin in order to feel good; some people take heroin in order to feel nothing … and some people take heroin because, for them, not taking heroin is too disgustingly horrible to consider as an approach to life.
Saying “they do so in order to feel good” or “to obtain pleasure” is presuming something about the experience of heroin users that may not actually be true. It also takes “pleasure” as basic or elementary, which it almost certainly is not.
Consider: We would not usually say that headache sufferers take aspirin in order to obtain pleasure; or that heartburn sufferers take antacids in order to obtain pleasure. We’d say they take these drugs to obtain relief from pain. Similarly, we’d say that insomnia sufferers take zolpidem or other soporifics to obtain relief from sleeplessness; that anxiety sufferers take anxiolytics for relief from anxiety; and so on.
Similarly, we wouldn’t say that someone with OCD repeatedly washes their hands in order to obtain pleasure ….
From what I’ve read, some people take heroin in order to feel good; some people take heroin in order to feel nothing … and some people take heroin because, for them, not taking heroin is too disgustingly horrible to consider as an approach to life.
Well let’s assume for the sake of argument that’s all true. Then I will rephrase my question as follows:
When people take heroin, they do so in order to feel X. e.g. to obtain pleasure, or to ease their withdrawal symptoms from the last time they shot up, to feel nothing, or whatever.
They value (immediate) X and they are obtaining X in a direct way. How are they simplifying any utility function?
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.
Similarly, the OP mentions heroin use as an example of wireheading but this seems to be a misleading example since most people use and abuse heroin in order to get a good feeling.
I don’t quite see how it’s a misleading example. They notice something that feels good, associate it with utility, and then keep using it, despite the fact that its only utility is the pleasure they derive from it, and they are sacrificing other utility-values in the process for a total net negative utility.
I don’t quite see how it’s a misleading example. They notice something that feels good, associate it with utility, and then keep using it, despite the fact that its only utility is the pleasure they derive from it, and they are sacrificing other utility-values in the process for a total net negative utility.
Couldn’t the same thing said about making use of a sexbot? About eating tasty food which happens to be more expensive and less healthy than other food which is not as tasty?
Well what if they masturbate with a machine, for example “Pris” from Blade Runner, designed to intensify the stimulation?
Or better yet, what if they use a machine which connects directly with the nerves that run to the sex organs in order to make it simpler and easier?
Or better still what if they use a machine which interfaces directly with the brain by means of a wire in order to give the most intense stimulation possible?
If the goal is (sexual) pleasure, then none of these things are wireheading?
And isn’t putting a wire into one’s brain in order to get pleasure pretty much automatically wireheading by any reasonable definition?
So it’s not wireheading if you put a wire into your brain to give yourself intense sexual stimulation? How can that not be wireheading?
When I say that people want “sex and sex like experiences” I don’t just mean they want an orgasm or pleasure. The positive nature of a sexual experience has many different facets (companionship, love, etc.), pleasure is just one facet (albeit a very important one). Giving head contains pretty much all of those facets, so it isn’t wireheading.
In each of the examples you give you gradually remove every other facet of sexual experiences other than pleasure, until only pleasure is left. That is how the OP defines wireheading, simplifying one’s utility function and then satisfying the simplified version, even in instances where it is different than the real one.
If we go with the definition of “wireheading” as “simplifying one’s utility function and then following the simplified version even in instances where it conflicts with the real one,” then putting a wire into your brain to give yourself sexual stimulation is wireheading if what you really want to do is have sex. By contrast, if all you really want is pleasure, then it isn’t wireheading.
So if somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life, and decides to do so by literally having himself wireheaded, then that person does not count as a “wirehead”?
If “maximize pleasure” was actually that person’s utility function, then no. But in practice “somebody decides that he wants to maximize his pleasure in life” sounds to me more like someone who is wrong about their utility function. Of course, maybe I’m wrong about all the complicated things I think I want, and pleasure really is the only important thing.
Or possibly it’s a decision like “Maximizing pleasure is the aspect of my utility function I should focus on now” in which case wireheading is also the wrong move.
Well how do you know what somebody’s true utility function is? Or even whether they have one?
You don’t; moreover, to me at least, it’s probably not even immediately obvious what I truly value. Which is how it happens that someone can be wrong about what they want.
But most people are probably alike to an extent, so if you figure out that maximizing pleasure isn’t the only thing that’s important to you, you might suspect that other people also care about other things besides maximizing pleasure.
Well then how do you know your own utility function? Is there any way in principle to test it? Is there any way to know that you are wrong about what you want?
Yes, if their decision is correct and you are using the definition of “wireheading” established in the OP. I believe our disagreement is an example of disrupting definitions. The definition of of “wireheading” established by the OP is different from a more common definition “inserting a stimulating wire in the brain.”
Well I am trying to figure (among other things) out if the OP has a reasonable definition of wireheading. It seems to me that any reasonable definition of “wireheading” should include a situation where a person decides to enhance or maximize his pleasure and to do so uses some kind of device to directly stimulate the pleasure centers in his brain.
Let me ask you this: Can you give me a couple examples of things which definitely are wireheading using your view of the OP’s definition? For example, is there any situation where eating a particular food would be considered “wireheading” by the OP’s definition?
Imagine Stan the Family Man, a man who loves his family, and wants his family to be safe, and derives great happiness from knowing his family is safe. Stan mistakenly believes that, because being with his family makes him happy, that happiness is his true goal, and the safety of his family is but a means to that end.
Stan is kidnapped by Master Menace, a mad scientist who is a master of brainwashing. Master Menace gives Stan two choices:
He will have Stan’s family killed and then brainwash Stan so that he believes his family is alive.
He will give Stan’s family a billion dollars, then brainwash Stan to think his family has been killed.
After Stan makes his decision Master Menace will erase the memory of making it from Stan’s mind, and he will keep Stan imprisoned in his Fortress of Doom, so there is no chance that Stan will ever discover he is brainwashed.
Stan, because he mistakenly believes he values his family’s safety as a means to obtaining happiness, has Master Menace kill them. Then he is brainwashed and is happy to believe his family is safe. That is wireheading.
Or imagine an agent that has other values than pleasure and happiness. A human being, for instance. However, even though it has other values, pleasure and happiness are very important to this agent, and when it obtains its goals in life it usually becomes happy and experiences pleasure. Because experiencing pleasure and happiness are highly correlated with this agent getting what it wants, it mistakenly thinks that they are all it wants. So it inserts a wire into its head that makes it feel happiness and pleasure without having to actually achieve any goals in order to do so. That is wireheading.
Yes. Imagine a person who loves eating candy and sweets because they are yummy and delicious. However, he mistakenly thinks that the only reason people eat is to gain nutrition. He forces himself to choke down nutritious health food he hates, because they are more nutritious then candy and sweets. That is wireheading. If he understood his utility function properly he’d start eating candy again.
Thank you for providing those examples. Of course the OP is free to define the word “wireheading” any way he likes, but I disagree with his choice of definition.
If somebody decides to directly stimulate his brain in order to obtain the good feeling which results, and in fact does so, and in fact gets a good feeling as a result, it should count as “wireheading” by any reasonable definition of “wireheading.”
Similarly, the OP mentions heroin use as an example of wireheading but this seems to be a misleading example since most people use and abuse heroin in order to get a good feeling.
I think that the definition the “wireheading” the OP comes up with is a good explanation for why wireheading is bad, even if it doesn’t fit with the common understanding of what wireheading is. But again, this is an example of disputing definitions. As long as we agree that:
(1) Simplifying your utility function and then following the simplified version when it conflicts with the real version is bad.
(2) Inserting a pleasure-causing wire into your brain is almost always an example of doing (1),
then we do not disagree about anything important.
That is true, but most heroin users tend to begin neglecting other things in their life that they value (their family being the most common) for that good feeling, and are often motivated to try quitting because they do that. They seem to have realized they are wireheading.
This means that if a heroin user was capable of overriding their need for heroin whenever it conflicted with their other values then heroin use might not count as wireheading.
I disagree with this. When people take heroin, they do so in order to feel good. They value (immediate) pleasure and they are obtaining pleasure in a direct way. How are they simplifying any utility function?
That may be so, but at any given moment when the heroin user chooses to shoot up, he is doing so in order to obtain pleasure.
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. Underlying all of these drives is the evolutionary pressure to survive and reproduce. So it’s possible to think of a human as having an unchanging utility function in terms of survival and reproduction. And exploiting that utility function. From this perspective, heroin use is wireheading; recreational sex is wireheading; and so on. On the other hand, if you look at human utility functions in terms of specific desires and drives in the brain, the question becomes a lot more slippery.
From what I’ve read, some people take heroin in order to feel good; some people take heroin in order to feel nothing … and some people take heroin because, for them, not taking heroin is too disgustingly horrible to consider as an approach to life.
Saying “they do so in order to feel good” or “to obtain pleasure” is presuming something about the experience of heroin users that may not actually be true. It also takes “pleasure” as basic or elementary, which it almost certainly is not.
Consider: We would not usually say that headache sufferers take aspirin in order to obtain pleasure; or that heartburn sufferers take antacids in order to obtain pleasure. We’d say they take these drugs to obtain relief from pain. Similarly, we’d say that insomnia sufferers take zolpidem or other soporifics to obtain relief from sleeplessness; that anxiety sufferers take anxiolytics for relief from anxiety; and so on.
Similarly, we wouldn’t say that someone with OCD repeatedly washes their hands in order to obtain pleasure ….
Well let’s assume for the sake of argument that’s all true. Then I will rephrase my question as follows:
When people take heroin, they do so in order to feel X. e.g. to obtain pleasure, or to ease their withdrawal symptoms from the last time they shot up, to feel nothing, or whatever.
They value (immediate) X and they are obtaining X in a direct way. 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.
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.
I don’t quite see how it’s a misleading example. They notice something that feels good, associate it with utility, and then keep using it, despite the fact that its only utility is the pleasure they derive from it, and they are sacrificing other utility-values in the process for a total net negative utility.
Couldn’t the same thing said about making use of a sexbot? About eating tasty food which happens to be more expensive and less healthy than other food which is not as tasty?