But if your hedons were measured properly, your inability to imagine them now is not an argument. This is Omega we’re talking about. Perhaps it will augment your mind to help you reach each doubling. Whatever. It’s stipulated in the problem that Omega will double whatever the proper metric is. Futurists should never accept “but I can’t imagine that” as an argument.
In ethical and axiological matters, it is an argument.
If Omega alters your mind so that you can experience “doubled utility”, and you choose not to identify with the resultant creature, then Omega has killed you.
Somewhat off-topic, but: Many people do many things that they have previously wished not to do, through coercion or otherwise. And when asked ‘are you still you’ most would probably answer in the affirmative.
If Omega doubled your fun-points and asked you if you were still you, you would say yes. Why would you-now be right and you-altered be wrong?
The concept of a currency of utility is very counterintuitive. It’s not how we feel utility. However, if we’re to shut up and calculate (which we probably should) then ‘I can’t imagine twice the utility’ isn’t a smart response.
At which doubling would you cease being you? Or would it be an incremental process? What function links ‘number of doublings’ to ‘degree of me-ness’?
I don’t think we’re going anywhere useful with this. But I do know that if you get too tight on continuous personal identity and what that means, you start coming up with all sorts of paradoxes.
But that doesn’t mean that we should just give up on personal identity. The utility function is not up for grabs, as they say: if I consider it integral to my utility function that I don’t get significantly altered, then no amount of logical argument ought to persuade me otherwise.
In ethical and axiological matters, it is an argument.
If Omega alters your mind so that you can experience “doubled utility”, and you choose not to identify with the resultant creature, then Omega has killed you.
I can’t imagine any situation in which “I can’t imagine that” is an acceptable argument. QED.
And thus, the alcoholic who wishes to sober up, but is unable, dies with every slug of cheap cider!
It’s not an argument at all. Otherwise the concept of utilons as a currency with any...currency, is nonsense.
I don’t understand. Can you make this point clearer?
Somewhat off-topic, but: Many people do many things that they have previously wished not to do, through coercion or otherwise. And when asked ‘are you still you’ most would probably answer in the affirmative.
If Omega doubled your fun-points and asked you if you were still you, you would say yes. Why would you-now be right and you-altered be wrong?
The concept of a currency of utility is very counterintuitive. It’s not how we feel utility. However, if we’re to shut up and calculate (which we probably should) then ‘I can’t imagine twice the utility’ isn’t a smart response.
I don’t know. But I do know for sure that if Omega doubled them 60 times, the resultant being wouldn’t be me.
At which doubling would you cease being you? Or would it be an incremental process? What function links ‘number of doublings’ to ‘degree of me-ness’?
I don’t think we’re going anywhere useful with this. But I do know that if you get too tight on continuous personal identity and what that means, you start coming up with all sorts of paradoxes.
But that doesn’t mean that we should just give up on personal identity. The utility function is not up for grabs, as they say: if I consider it integral to my utility function that I don’t get significantly altered, then no amount of logical argument ought to persuade me otherwise.