This line of argument seems to err away from the principle that you can’t unwind yourself into an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness. You’re running on hardware that is physically, through very real principles that apply to everything in the universe, going to react in a certain averse manner to certain stimuli to which we could assign the category label “harm”. This is commonly divided into “pain”, “boredom”, etc.
It is much more unlikely (and much more difficult to truly explain) that a person would, based on such hardware, somehow end up with the terminal value that some abstract, extremely solomonoff-complex interpretation of conjointed mental and physical behaviors is bad—in contrast with reflective negative valuation of harm-potentials both in self and in others (the “in others” being reflected as “harm to self when harm to other members of the tribe”).
Then again, I feel like I’m diving in too deep here. My instinct is to profess and worship my ignorance of this topic.
This line of argument seems to err away from the principle that you can’t unwind yourself into an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness. You’re running on hardware that is physically, through very real principles that apply to everything in the universe, going to react in a certain averse manner to certain stimuli to which we could assign the category label “harm”. This is commonly divided into “pain”, “boredom”, etc.
It is much more unlikely (and much more difficult to truly explain) that a person would, based on such hardware, somehow end up with the terminal value that some abstract, extremely solomonoff-complex interpretation of conjointed mental and physical behaviors is bad—in contrast with reflective negative valuation of harm-potentials both in self and in others (the “in others” being reflected as “harm to self when harm to other members of the tribe”).
Then again, I feel like I’m diving in too deep here. My instinct is to profess and worship my ignorance of this topic.