The answer is a good sturdy ROM.
I’m inclined to think that big companies and governments may already be doing this sort of thing, but since ROM is basically useless for consumers, we don’t see any of it.
If it’s not already being done, that’s a big project someone needs to get on.
Apologies.
I have indeed used paradox incorrectly. Your latter definitions are more appropriate. My confusion arose from the apparent possibility, but I see now that ‘paradox’ would only be correct if my argument also still felt the existence of the zombie was possible.
However, I hope that despite that minor terminology quibble, you were still able to understand the thrust of my argument. If my argument is unclear from the line you quoted, it is worth noting that I explain it in the following paragraphs.
If we assume Reductionism and Naturalism, the concept of the Zombie is a paradox.
The two premises I have just outlined are mutually exclusive to the premise “beings that are atom-by-atom identical to us… except that they are not conscious.”
That is like saying that there are two gears that mesh together, yet one one turns, the other does not. Paradox. There is no solving it. The only difference is the layers of complexity. We cannot, with only our own minds, find or prove prime numbers with many digits to them, but that doesn’t mean that they do not exist.
If you truly believe that there is no external, supernatural cause to consciousness, then Zombies are a true paradox that cannot exist.
Since an argument like this rests on several necessary premises, one should really just attack the one with the least support.
I have noticed that Eliezer favors synthetic over analytic arguments, but sometimes, the later is much more efficient than the former.
I have slightly more formally defined the existence of a logical and an evolutionary mind. Same general premise, but with more accurate, unambiguous, and intellectual terminology.
I completely agree with the duality and conflict of these two mind-states. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the most common break-downs of human cognition.
This is false modesty. This is assuming the virtue of doubt when none ought exist. Mathematics is one of the few (if not the only) worthwhile thing(s) we have in life that is entirely a priori. We can genuinely achieve 100% certainty. Anything less is to suggest the impossible, or to redefine the world in a way that has no meaning or usefulness.
I could say that I’m not really sure 2+2=4, but it would not make me more intelligent for the doubt, but more foolish. I could say that I’m not sure that 5 is really prime, but it would hinge on redefining ‘5’ or ‘prime’. I could posit that if 2+3 reproducibly equaled 4, I would have to change my view of the universe and mathematics, but were I to suggest that argument held any weight, I might as well start believing in God. Define any paradox you like and there will never be a correct answer. The solution is not to accept doubt, but rather to ignore truly unsolvable paradoxes as foolish and useless.
The problem in creating the parallel probability statements is not in the surety, for they would all almost certainly be mathematical as well, but in the daunting task of finding and stating them. This is not reason, this is a threat! “If you assign X probability, are you willing to spend X hours finding parallels?” We react in the negative not due to the reasonability of the rebuttal but rather the daunting task saying yes would hypothetically place upon us. Our chance to perform the task correctly is likely significantly less than that of the probability we have assigned.
[Retracted fully]
If nothing else, a lot of magic systems exist in extropic worlds, or at the very least, break conservation of energy. Plus, magic is often easier to use. Yeah, early D&D or Discworld is tough, but most systems these days are psychically channeled, in nature if not in name.
The technology and science in this world is awesome (and reality is too), but it’s inaccessible. Most magic systems are not. Maybe its just laziness, but that’s part of the appeal. Not having to spend thousands of years working out how to heal diseases, for instance.
The shift in focus from intelligence/memory to willpower doesn’t hurt either.
What is really comes down to is The Taste of Grass. (And yes, there probably is a more official version, but it’s a damn good story and it’s after midnight.) As long as we can appreciate the difference, and not take it for granted, the grass can genuinely be greener on the other side.
The most enjoyable part of reading through these comments is that everyone is in a combined state of ethically relaxed and mentally aware. Makes for stimulating conversation.
We are just simply too good at taking our own norms for granted. Thank you for explaining this in a way I can really get behind.
I think we sometimes forget that not only is all ethics relative, but that we have skewed weightings based on what is ‘normal’. The number of people driven to depression and suicide by legal means...
I wonder, if certain negative strains of human social interaction were made illegal, and guiltworthy, while rape was made legal, and we waited for a couple hundred years, would people still rank them in the same order? If rape was something to ‘get over’, while surprise polygamy (trying for a word with as few connotations as possible—couldn’t find anything) and bullying were horrible events to ‘survive’...
Hmm, it’s certainly a good question. Now, since I’m not a rape victim, I couldn’t presume to guess very accurately, but perhaps the knowledge that it’s a bad thing reinforces that it’s a bad thing? I can’t help but draw a rather unfortunate parallel with the broad range of human experiences that are scary at first, and then enjoyable. Before I get voted down into submission, consider that I have used the most physical descriptions I can, since those are the ones we are less likely to change.
In the least offensive way possible, would we want to go bungee jumping (again) if it was treated as a terrible thing? If we were told it was terrible our entire lives, then forced into doing it? Traumatic in the extreme. Consider, however, that some people are pushed in these heights-based sports. Off cliffs, out of airplanes, onto ziplines. They enjoy it in the end, so it’s ok, right? Would they enjoy it if they weren’t supposed to? If it was rape?
Interesting questions.
Don’t worry for my morality, if this musing leaves you fearing for your orifices. I’m a perfectly well-adjusted nihilist, who values his continued (enjoyable) existence enough not to do anything silly.
Consider the chicken, with its ingenious production line of eggs. Constant fertilization from a different orifice seems ideal, as (the source I just Googled suggests that) chickens have very short fertilization cycles. (They don’t have separate orifices. Poor cloacas.)
Since fertilization occurs at one end of a long tube, and birth occurs at the other, I wouldn’t be surprised if the optimal arrangement involved separate organs.
It is, I think, the satisfaction of both utility and curiosity, Engineering and Science, that makes the new discovery the best.
To know that this was the easiest way, and thus not diminish the discovery with futility, but yet to finally succeed in overcoming mental hardship, which is a joyous release. Not least due to the excitement in accomplishment, nor the pride of creating new advancements in aid of ethical positivity.
Or perhaps because having something that no-one else does is far too ingrained in our psyches, as a species.
I’m a nihilist. Where do I fall on your hopelessly constrained list?
Sorry, what I meant was that while I am using something similar to Error Theory, I was also going beyond that and using it as a premise in other arguments. All I meant was that it wasn’t the entirety of my argument.
I certainly plan on reading those, but thanks for the advice. Hopefully I’ll be up to date with terminology by the end of the summer.
Well, I just looked it up, and I’d agree with it, though I do use it more as an intermediate conclusion than an actual end point.
Firstly, thank you for replying and spending the time to discuss this with me.
P: Humans naturally or instinctively act according to a system very close to Utilitarianism
Were this true, the utilitarian answers to common moral thought experiments would be seen as intuitive. Instead, we find that a minority of people endorse the utilitarian answers, and they are more likely to endorse those answers the more they rely on abstract thought rather than intuition. It seems that most people are intuitive deontologists.
I admit I made a bit of a leap here, which may not be justified. I was careful to specify ‘very close’, as I realize it is obviously not an exact copy. I would argue that most people do attempt to follow Bentham’s original formulation of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain instinctively, as that is where he derived his theory from. I would argue that though people may implement a deontological system for assigning moral responsibility, they are ultimately using Utilitarian principles as the model for their instinctive morality that describes whether an action is good or bad, much the same as Rule Utilitarianism does. I don’t think I can overstate the importance of the fact that Bentham derived the idea of Utilitarianism from a human perspective.
I don’t think “nihilist” is an interesting term, because it smuggles in implications that I do not think are useful (like “why don’t you just kill yourself, then?”).
In the longer formulation, I tackled this exact question, pointing out that is is more effort to overcome your survival instincts than it is to follow them, and thus an illogical attempt to change things which don’t matter.
I like ‘nihilist’ as a term as it is immediately recognizable, short, punchy, and someone with a basic grasp of Latin or maybe even English should be able to derive a rough meaning. It also sounds better. :P
The practical advice I would give: do not seek to use ethics as a foundation, because there is nothing to anchor it on.
Well, as it currently stands, I’m happy with the logical progression necessary to reach my current understanding, and more importantly, it has given me a tremendous sense of inner peace. I don’t think that it as such limits my mental progression, since I arrived at these conclusions through rational means, and would give them up if confronted with sufficient logic contrary to my understanding.
If there is no intrinsic value, then let us look for extrinsic value.
Would you mind elaborating on looking for extrinsic value? Is that like the Existentialist viewpoint?
Some of the most worthless and nonsensical philosophy has come from professional philosophers
Oh, I know. I start crying inside every time I learn about Kant.
Well, I’ll take what you’ve said on board. Thanks for the help!
Thanks!
Thanks for that link. I probably should have read that sequence, I’ll admit, but what is interesting is that, despite me not having read it previously, the majority of comments reflect what I stated above, albeit that my formulation explains it slightly more cognitively that ‘because I want to’. (Though that is an essential premise in my argument)
Though this is probably unfortunately irrational on my part, seeing my predictions confirmed by a decently sized sample only suggests to me that I’m on to something, at least so far as articulating something I have not seen previously formalized.
It seems like my largest problem here is that I absolutely failed to be concise, and added in non-necessary intermediate conclusions.
I think of this as less an ethical system in itself, rather a justification and rationalization of my position on Nihilism and its compatibility with Utilitarianism, which, coincidentally, seems to be the same as most people on LW.
I know that this’ll be probably just as failed as the last attempt, but I’ve summarized my core argument into a much shorter series of premises and conclusions. Would you mind looking through them and telling me what you feel is invalid or is likely to be improved upon by prolonged exposure to LW?
P: Naturalism is the only standard by which we can understand the world
P: One cannot derive ethical statements or imperatives from Naturalism, as, like all good science, it is only descriptive in nature
IC : We cannot derive ethical statements
IC: There is no intrinsic value
C: Nihilism is correct
P: Ethical statements are by definition prescriptive
P: Nihilism offers a total lack of ethical statements
IC: Nihilism offers no prescriptive statements
P: Prescriptive statements are like forces, in that they modify behavior (Consider Newton’s First Law)
IC: No prescriptive statements means no modification of behavior
C: Nihilism does not modify behavior, ethically speaking
P: Humans naturally or instinctively act according to a system very close to Utilitarianism
P: Deviation from this system takes effort
IC: Without further input or behavioral modification, most intellectual individuals will follow a Utilitarian system
IC: To act contrary to Utilitarianism requires effort
P: Nihilism does not modify behavior or encourage ethical effort
C: Nihilism implies Utilitarianism (or a general ethical system akin to it that is the default of the person in question)
I apologize if trying again like this is too much to ask for.
Okay, noted. It’s just that from what I’ve seen so far, a post with a net downvote is generally pretty horrible. I admit I took some offense from the implication. I’ll try not to let it bother me unless N is high enough for it to be me, entirely, that’s the problem.
Thanks. :)
Thank you for taking the time to give constructive criticism.
I will attempt to make it more coherent and summarized, assuming I keep any of it.
I appreciate I am likely to inexperienced to come up with anything that impressive, but I was hoping to use this as a method to understand which parts of my cognitive function were not behaving rationally, so as to improve.
I will absolutely continue to read, but with the utmost respect to Eliezer, I have yet to come across anything in the Sequences which did more than codify or verbalize beliefs I’d already held. By the point, two and a half sequences in, I felt it was unlikely that the enlightenment value would spike in such a way as to render my previously held views obsolete.
I’ll bear your objections in mind, but I fear I won’t let go of this theory unless somebody points out why it is wrong specifically, as opposed to methodically. Not that I’m putting any onus on you or anyone else to do so.
As I said, I am reading them, but have found them mostly about how to think as opposed to what to think so far, though I daresay that is intentional in the ordering.
Thanks again for your help and kindness. :)
Okay, whoa, hey. I clearly and repeatedly explained my lack of total understanding of LW conventions. I’m not sure what about this provoked a downvote, but I would appreciate a bit more to go on. If this is about my noobishness, well, this is the Welcome Thread. Great job on the welcoming, by the way, anonymous downvoter. At the very least offer constructive criticism.
Edit: Troll? Really?
Edit,Edit: Thank you whoever deleted the negative karma!
It was my gut reaction of about two seconds. At that point that I remembered Friendship is Optimal and chuckled internally at my amusingly illogical double standards.
As long as information and utility are both conserved, and ideally increased (in proportion to the entropy expended in the process), I really see no problems intellectually, even if I dislike the thought of mutilating books on principle.