But I think I relate to the world with some kind of “existential positive” all the same—and I’ve tried to explain how doing so can be compatible with looking “bad things are bad” in the eye, and without reducing spirituality to population ethics. In particular, I’ve tried to point at the possible role of stuff like mother love, loyalty, innocence, tragedy, and forgiveness.
I think I either don’t understand these bolded concepts (in the way that you use them here), or I do understand but they don’t resonate with me. (E.g., reading Chesterton’s quoted passage doesn’t seem to make me feel any loyalty or patriotism, or positivity, towards the universe.) In any case, they don’t seem to play much of a role in whether I related to the world with “existential positive” or “existential negative”. (I personally tend toward the neutral and negative sides but with a lot of uncertainty, based on uncertainty/guesses of what my values are or should be, and how human(-descended) civilization, and civilizations in general, seem likely to turn out.)
Would you say that relating to the world with some kind of “existential positive” (and these bolded concepts playing a role in that) is just a descriptive statement about your own psychology, or is it actually a normative statement that should also apply for other people, like me? (Your quoted statement above is literally just descriptive, but I wonder if you meant to give it a normative connotation, or would be willing to defend a normative version.)
I left a comment there, which you haven’t responded to yet. I also wonder if your positive intuitions towards liberalism/niceness/boundaries might not be based on history/experience with humans, which may well not apply to AGI due to potentially very different social/economic dynamics. See AGI will drastically increase economies of scale for one example of how some related intuitions could be invalidated.
But I think I relate to the world with some kind of “existential positive” all the same—and I’ve tried to explain how doing so can be compatible with looking “bad things are bad” in the eye, and without reducing spirituality to population ethics. In particular, I’ve tried to point at the possible role of stuff like mother love, loyalty, innocence, tragedy, and forgiveness.
On further thought, this reminds me a bit of (seemingly successful) efforts in Chinese history to transfer people’s feelings of spirituality and filial love to the sovereign (君), by likening the sovereign to a god and/or parent, or directly claiming such status. Of course the aim or motivation here is much more benign, but that example shows that peoples’ feelings can be wrong “out of distribution”, and we should perhaps be suspicious or skeptical of trying to apply our emotions outside of their original domains.
I think I either don’t understand these bolded concepts (in the way that you use them here), or I do understand but they don’t resonate with me. (E.g., reading Chesterton’s quoted passage doesn’t seem to make me feel any loyalty or patriotism, or positivity, towards the universe.) In any case, they don’t seem to play much of a role in whether I related to the world with “existential positive” or “existential negative”. (I personally tend toward the neutral and negative sides but with a lot of uncertainty, based on uncertainty/guesses of what my values are or should be, and how human(-descended) civilization, and civilizations in general, seem likely to turn out.)
Would you say that relating to the world with some kind of “existential positive” (and these bolded concepts playing a role in that) is just a descriptive statement about your own psychology, or is it actually a normative statement that should also apply for other people, like me? (Your quoted statement above is literally just descriptive, but I wonder if you meant to give it a normative connotation, or would be willing to defend a normative version.)
I left a comment there, which you haven’t responded to yet. I also wonder if your positive intuitions towards liberalism/niceness/boundaries might not be based on history/experience with humans, which may well not apply to AGI due to potentially very different social/economic dynamics. See AGI will drastically increase economies of scale for one example of how some related intuitions could be invalidated.
On further thought, this reminds me a bit of (seemingly successful) efforts in Chinese history to transfer people’s feelings of spirituality and filial love to the sovereign (君), by likening the sovereign to a god and/or parent, or directly claiming such status. Of course the aim or motivation here is much more benign, but that example shows that peoples’ feelings can be wrong “out of distribution”, and we should perhaps be suspicious or skeptical of trying to apply our emotions outside of their original domains.