I’m having trouble following whether this categories the definition/concept of a soul, or the causality and content of this conception of soul. Is “sideways soul” about structure and material implementation, or about weights and connectivity, independent of substrate? WHICH factors are removed from upwards (“genes” and “utility function” are VERY different dimensions, both tiny parts of what I expect create (for genes) or comprise (for utility function) a soul. What about memory? multiple levels of value and preferences (including meta-preferences in how to abstract into “values”)?
Putting “downwards” supernatural ideas into the same framework as more logical/materialist ideas confuses me—I can’t tell if that makes it a more useful model or less.
I’m having trouble following whether this categories the definition/concept of a soul, or the causality and content of this conception of soul. Is “sideways soul” about structure and material implementation, or about weights and connectivity, independent of substrate?
When you get into the particulars, there are multiple feasible notions of sideways soul, of which material implementation vs weights and connectivity are the main ones. I’m most sympathetic to weights and connectivity.
WHICH factors are removed from upwards (“genes” and “utility function” are VERY different dimensions, both tiny parts of what I expect create (for genes) or comprise (for utility function) a soul.
I have thought less about and seen less discussion about upwards souls. I just mentioned it because I’d seen a brief reference to it once, but I don’t know anything in-depth. I agree that both genes and utility function seem incomplete for humans, though for utility maximizers in general I think there is some merit to the soul == utility function view.
What about memory?
Memory would usually go in sideways soul, I think.
multiple levels of value and preferences (including meta-preferences in how to abstract into “values”)?
idk
Putting “downwards” supernatural ideas into the same framework as more logical/materialist ideas confuses me—I can’t tell if that makes it a more useful model or less.
Sideways vs upwards vs downwards is more meant to be a contrast between three qualitatively distinct classes of frameworks than it is meant to be a shared framework.
I’m having trouble following whether this categories the definition/concept of a soul, or the causality and content of this conception of soul. Is “sideways soul” about structure and material implementation, or about weights and connectivity, independent of substrate? WHICH factors are removed from upwards (“genes” and “utility function” are VERY different dimensions, both tiny parts of what I expect create (for genes) or comprise (for utility function) a soul. What about memory? multiple levels of value and preferences (including meta-preferences in how to abstract into “values”)?
Putting “downwards” supernatural ideas into the same framework as more logical/materialist ideas confuses me—I can’t tell if that makes it a more useful model or less.
When you get into the particulars, there are multiple feasible notions of sideways soul, of which material implementation vs weights and connectivity are the main ones. I’m most sympathetic to weights and connectivity.
I have thought less about and seen less discussion about upwards souls. I just mentioned it because I’d seen a brief reference to it once, but I don’t know anything in-depth. I agree that both genes and utility function seem incomplete for humans, though for utility maximizers in general I think there is some merit to the soul == utility function view.
Memory would usually go in sideways soul, I think.
idk
Sideways vs upwards vs downwards is more meant to be a contrast between three qualitatively distinct classes of frameworks than it is meant to be a shared framework.