FlorianH

Karma: 227

FlorianH 25 Dec 2024 16:00 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Johannes C. Mayer’s comment on: Vegans need to eat just enough Meat—emperically evaluate the minimum ammount of meat that maximizes utility
Would you personally answer Should we be concerned about eating too much soy? with “Nope, definitely not”, or do you just find it’s a reasonable gamble to take?
Btw, thanks a lot for the post; MANY parallels with my past as more-serious-but-uncareful-vegan until body showed clear signs of issues that I realized only late as I’d have never believed anyone that healthy vegan diet is that tricky.

FlorianH 23 Dec 2024 16:26 UTC
1 point
0
on: Biological risk from the mirror world
Not all forms of mirror biology would even need to be restricted. For instance, there are potential uses for mirror proteins, and those can be safely engineered in the lab. The only dangerous technologies are the creation of full mirror cells, and certain enabling technologies which could easily lead to that (such as the creation of a full mirror genome or key components of a proteome).
Once we get used to create and deal with mirror proteins, and once we get used to designing & building cells, which I don’t know when it happens, maybe adding 1+1 together will also become easy. This suggests that, assuming upsides are limited enough (?), maybe better already to try to halt even any form of mirror biology research.

FlorianH 26 Nov 2024 22:52 UTC
2 points
0
on: You are not too “irrational” to know your preferences.
Taking what you write as excuse to nerd a bit about Hyperbolic Discounting
One way to paraphrase esp. some of your ice cream example:
Hyperbolic discounting—the habit of valuing this moment a lot while abruptly (not smoothly exponentially) discounting everything coming even just a short while after—may in a technical sense be ‘time inconsistent’, but it’s misguided to call it ‘irrational’ in the common usage of the term: My current self may simply care about itself distinctly more than about the future selves, even if some of these future selves are forthcoming relatively soon. It’s my current self’s preference structure, and preferences are not rational or irrational, basta.
I agree and had been thinking this, and I find it an interesting counterpoint to the usual description of hyperbolic discounting as ‘irrational’.
It is a bit funny also as we have plenty of discussions trying to explain when/why some hyperbolic discounting may actually be “rational” (ex. here, here, here), but I’ve not yet seen any so fundamental (and simple) rejection of the notion of irrationality (though maybe I’ve just missed it so far).
(Then, with their dubious habits of using common terms in subtly misleading ways, fellow economists may rebut that we have simply defined irrationality in this debate as meaning to have non-exponential alias time-inconsistent preferences, justifying the term ‘irrationality’ here quasi by definition)

FlorianH 10 Nov 2024 0:15 UTC
1 point
0
on: The Median Researcher Problem
Spurious correlation here, big time, imho.
Give me the natural content of the field and I bet I easily predict whether it may or may not have replication crisis, w/o knowing the exact type of students it attracts.
I think it’s mostly that the fields where bad science may be sexy and less-trivial/unambiguous to check, or, those where you can make up/sell sexy results independently of their grounding, may, for whichever reason, also be those that attract the non-logical students.
Agree though with the mob overwhelming the smart outliers, but I just think how much that mob creates a replication crises is at least in large part dependent on the intrinsic nature of the field rather than due to the exact IQs.

FlorianH 8 Nov 2024 20:31 UTC
1 point
−1
on: Occupational Licensing Roundup #1
Wouldn’t automatically abolish all requirements; maybe I’m not good enough in searching but to the degree I’m not an outlier:
- With internet we have reviews, but they’re not always trustworthy, and even if they are, understanding/checking/searching reviews is costly, sometimes very costly.
- There is value in being able to walk up to the next-best random store for a random thing and being served by a person with a minimum standard of education in the trade. Even for rather trivial things.
This seems underappreciated here.
Flower safety isn’t a thing. But having the next-best florist to for sure be a serious florist person to talk to, has serious value. So, I’m not even sure for something like flowers I’m entirely against any sort of requirements.
So it seems to me more a question of balance what exactly to require in which trade, and that’s a tricky one, but in some places I lived seems to have been handled mostly +- okay. Admittedly simply according to my shallow glance at things.
Lived also in countries that seem more permissive, requiring less job training, but clearly prefer the customer experience in those that regulate, despite higher prices.
Then, I wouldn’t want the untrained/unexamined florist to starve or even simply become impoverished. But at least in some countries, social safety net mostly prevents that.

FlorianH 6 Nov 2024 21:27 UTC
6 points
0
on: Review: “The Case Against Reality”
Great you bring up Hoffman; I think he deserves serious pushback.
He proofs exactly two things:
- Reality often is indeed not how it seems to us—as by much too many, his nonsense is taken at face value. I would normally not use such words but there are reasons in his case.
- In as far as he has come to truly believe all he claims (not convinced!), he’d be a perfect example of self-serving beliefs: how his overblown claims manage to take over his brain, just as it has realized he can sell it with total success to the world, despite absurdity.
Before I explain this harsh judgement, caveat: I mean not to defend what we perceive. Let’s be open to a world very different to how it seems. Also, maybe Hoffman has many interesting points. But this doesn’t mean, his claims are not completely overblown—which I’m convinced they, are after having listened to a range of interviews with him and having gone to lengths for reading his original papers.
Here three simple points I find compelling to put his stuff into perspective:
1. You find a moaning gap between his claims and what he has really ‘proven’ in his papers. Speech: “We have mathematically proven there’s absolutely zero chance blabla”. Reality: Used a trivial evolutionary toy model and found a reduced form representation of a very specific process may be more economical/probable than a more complex representation of the ‘real’ process. It nicely underlines that evolution may take shortcuts. Yes, we’re crazy about sex instead of about “creating children”, or we want to eat sugary stuff as an ancient proxy for actually healthy diet which in our today’s world doesn’t function anymore, and many more things where we’ve not evolved to perceive/account for all the complexity. Problem? Is of course nothing new, and, more importantly, it doesn’t proof anything more than that.
2. I like the following analogies:
  1. Room-Mapping Robots vs. Non-Mapping Robot cleaners (Roomba stuff). A not too far-fetched interpretation to Hoffman would be: A (efficient) vacuum robot cannot map the room, it’s always more efficient to simply have reduced-form rules/heuristics for where to move next. Well, it’s nice to see how the market has evolved: Semi-random moving robots made the start, but it turns out if you want to have robots efficient, you make them actually map the territory, hence today LiDAR/SLAM become more dominating.
  2. Being exposed to a cat, I realize she seems much more Hoffmanesque than us. When she pees on the ground, or smells another weird thing, she does her ‘heap earth/sand over it’ leg moves, not realizing there’s just parquet so her move doesn’t actually cover the stink. It’s a bit funny then, with Hoffman the species that has overcome reliance on un-understanding instincts in so many (not all) domains, is the one that ends up claiming it would not ever be possible to overcome mere reduced-form instincts in whatsoever domain.
3. Trivial disproof by contradiction of Hofmann’s claim of having absolutely proven the world could not be the way we think: Assume the world WAS just how it looks to us. Imagine there WAS then the billion-year evolutionary process that we THINK has happened. Is there anything in Hoffman’s proofs showing that, then there could be only dumans, like humans but perceiving in 2d instead of 3d, or in some other wrong-way-with-no-resemblance-to-reality? Nope, absolutely not. His claims just obviously don’t hold up.
Broader discussions highlighting I think in part some fraudulent aspect of Hoffman: The Case For Reality, or also Quora Is Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception true?
In sum: His popularity proves an evolutionary theory for information where what floats around is not what is shown to be correct, but what is appealing; distracting voices debunking it being entirely ignored. I imagine him laughing about this fact when thinking about his own success: “After all, my claim seems to not be that wrong, they do not perceive reality, mahahaaa”. According to google there are not merely a million people reading him, but literally millions of webpages featuring him.
Happy to be debunked in my negative reading of him :)

FlorianH 15 Oct 2024 22:59 UTC
2 points
−2
on: Economics Roundup #4
Musings about whether we should have a bit more sympathy for skepticism re price gauging, despite all. Admittedly with no particular evidence to point to; keen to see whether my basic skepticism could easily be dismissed.
Scott Sumner points out that customers very much prefer ridesharing services that price gouge and have flexible pricing to taxis that have fixed prices, and very much appreciate being able to get a car on demand at all times. He makes the case that liking price gouging and liking the availability of rides during high demand are two sides of the same coin. The problem is (in addition to ‘there are lots of other differences so we have only weak evidence this is the preference’), people reliably treat those two sides very differently, and this is a common pattern – they’ll love the results, but not the method that gets those results, and pointing out the contradiction often won’t help you.
I think as economists we can be too confident about how obvious it’d be that allowing ‘price gouging’ should be the standard in all domains. Yes, price controls often hugely problematic. But could full liberty here not also be disastrous for the standard consumer? It depends on a lot of factors; maybe in many domains full liberty works just fine. Maybe not everywhere at all.
Yes, “Prices aren’t just a transfer between buyer and seller.”—but they’re also that. And in some areas, it is easily imaginable how an oligopoly or a cartel, or simply dominant local supplier(s) benefit from the possibility to supply at any price without alleviating scarcity—really instead by creating scarcity.
The sort of cynical behavior of Enron comes to mind; can such firms not more easily create havoc on markets if they have full freedom to set prices at arbitrary levels? I’d not be surprised if we have to be rather happy about power sellers [in many locations] not being allowed to arbitrarily increase prices (withhold capacity) the way they’d like. Yes, in the long term we could theoretically entry of new capacity (or storage) into the market if prices were often too high, and that could prevent capacity issues, but the world is too heterogeneous to expect smoothly functioning markets in such a scenario; maybe it’s easier to organize backup capacities in different ways. Similar for gasoline reserves; it’s a simple to organize thing. Yes politicians will make it expensive, inefficient, wrongly sized; but in many locations in the world maybe still better than having no checks and balances at all in the market just for the hope the private market might create more reserves.
And, do we really need the toilet paper sellers^[1] plausibly stirring up toilet paper supply fears in the slightest crisis of anything, if they know they can full-on exploit the ensuing self-fulfilling prophecy of the toilet-paper-run, while instead everything might have played out nicely in the absence of any scarcity-propaganda?
Or put differently with a slightly far-fetched but maybe still intuiting example: We hear Putin makes/made so much money from high gas prices, theoretically it could be an entire rational for the war in the first place. Now this will not have been quite the case, but still: we do not know how many times individual micro putin events—where an exploitative someone would have had their incentive to create havoc in their individual markets to benefit from the troubles he stirred—the anti gouging laws may have prevented. Maybe few, maybe many?
These points make me wonder whether the population is once again not as stupid as we think with their intuitions, and our theory a bit too simple. Yes we all like the always-available taxis, but I’m not sure it practically works out just so smoothly with all other goods/market structures. But maybe I’m wrong, and in the end it’s so obvious price controls themselves have so bad repercussions anyway.
1. ^
  Placeholder. May replace with other goods that fit the story.

FlorianH 4 Oct 2024 21:01 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Crissman’s comment on: Crissman’s Shortform
Appreciate actually the overall take (although not sure how many would not have found most of it simply common sense anyway), but: A bit more caution with the stats would have been great
- Just-about-significant $\neq$ ‘insignificant and basta’. While you say the paper shows up to incl. 27 there’s no ‘effect’ (and concluding on causality is anyway problematic here, see below), all data provided in the graph you show and in the table of the paper suggest BMI 27 has a significant or nearly significant (on 95%..) association with death even in this study. You may instead want to say the factor is not huge (or small compared to much larger BMI variations), although the all-cause point-estimate mortality factor of roughly 1.06 for already that BMI is arguably not trivial at all: give me something that, as central-albeit-imprecise estimate, increases my all-cause mortality by 6%, and I hope you’d accept if I politely refused, explaining you propose something that seems quite harmful, maybe even in those outcomes where I don’t exactly die from it.
- Non-significance $\neq$ No-Effect. Even abstracting from the fact that the BMI 27 data is actually significant or just about so: “not significant” reduction in deaths on BMI 18-27 in the study wouldn’t mean as you claim “will not extend your life”. It means, the study was too imprecise to be exactly 95% or more sure that there’s a relationship. Without strong prior to the contrary, the point estimate, or even any value to the upper CI bound, cannot be excluded at all as describing the ‘real’ relationship.
- Stats lesson 0: Association $\neq$ Causality. The paper seems to purposely talk about association, mentioning some major potential issues with interfering unobserved factors already in the Abstract, and there are certainly a ton of confounding factors that may well bias the results (it would seem rather unnatural to expect people who work towards having a supposedly-healthy BMI to behave not differently on average in any other health-releveant way than people who may be working less towards such BMI).

FlorianH 1 Oct 2024 15:16 UTC
1 point
3
on: Conventional footnotes considered harmful
Agree that cued FNs would often be useful innovation I’ve not yet seen. Nevertheless, this statement
So, if you wonder whether you’d care for the content of a note, you have to look at the note, switching to the bottom of the page and breaking your focus. Thus the notion that footnotes are optional is an illusion.
ends with a false conclusion; most footnotes in text I have read were optional and I’m convinced I’m happy to not have read most of them indeed. FNs, already as they are, are thus indeed highly “optional” and potentially very helpful—in many, maybe most, cases, for many, maybe most, readers.

FlorianH 14 Sep 2024 15:59 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: gb’s comment on: Is Redistributive Taxation Justifiable? Part 1: Do the Rich Deserve their Wealth?
That could help explain the wording. Though the way the tax topic is addressed here I have the impression—or maybe hope—the discussion is intended to be more practical in the end.

FlorianH 7 Sep 2024 13:13 UTC
1 point
0
on: Is Redistributive Taxation Justifiable? Part 1: Do the Rich Deserve their Wealth?
A detail: I find the “much harder” in the following unnecessarily strong, or maybe also simply the ‘moral claim’ yes/no too binary (all emphasizes added):
If the rich generally do not have a moral claim to their riches, then the only justification needed to redistribute is a good affirmative reason to do so: perhaps that the total welfare of society would improve [..]
If one believes that they generally do have moral claim, then redistributive taxation becomes much harder to justify: we need to argue either that there is a sufficiently strong affirmative reason to redistribute that what amounts to theft is nevertheless acceptable, or that taxation is not in fact theft under certain circumstances.
What we want to call ‘harder’ or ‘much harder’ is of course a matter of taste, but to the degree that it reads like meaning ‘it becomes (very) hard’, I’d say instead:
It appears to be rather intuitive to agree to some degree of redistributive taxation even if one assumed the rich had mostly worked hard for their wealth and therefore supposedly had some ‘moral claim’ to it.
For example, looking at classical public finance 101, I see textbooks & teachers (some definitely not so much on the ‘left’) readily explaining their students (definitely not systematically full utilitarians) why concave utility means we’d want to tax the rich, without even hinting at the rich not ‘deserving’ their incomes, and the overwhelming majority of student rather intuitively agreeing with the mechanism, as it seems to me from observation.

FlorianH 6 Aug 2024 15:52 UTC
0 points
−2
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
Core claim in my post is that the ‘instantaneous’ mind (with its preferences etc., see post) is—if we look closely and don’t forget to keep a healthy dose of skepticism about our intuitions about our own mind/self—sufficient to make sense of what we actually observe. And given this instantaneous mind with its memories and preferences is stuff we can most directly observe without much surprise in it, I struggle to find any competing theories as simple or ‘simpler’ and therefore more compelling (Occam’s razor), as I meant to explain in the post.
As I make very clear in the post, nothing in this suggests other theories are impossible. For everything there can of course be (infinitely) many alternative theories available to explain it. I maintain the one I propose has a particular virtue of simplicity.
Regarding computationalism: I’m not sure whether you meant a very specific ‘flavor’ of computationalism in your comment; but for sure I did not mean to exclude computationalist explanations in general; in fact I’ve defended some strong computationalist position in the past and see what I propose here to be readily applicable to it.

FlorianH 2 Aug 2024 22:03 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
I’m sorry but I find you’re nitpicking on words out of context, rather than to engage with what I mean. Maybe my EN is imperfect but I think not that unreadable:
A)
The word “just” in the sense used here is always a danger sign. “X is just Y” means “X is Y and is not a certain other thing Z”, but without stating the Z.
… ‘just’ might sometimes be used in such abbreviated way, but here, the second part of my very sentence itself readily says what I mean with the ‘just’ (see “w/o meaning you’re …”).
B)
You quoting me: “It is equally all too natural for me to still keep my specific (and excessive) focus & care on the well-being of my ‘natural’ successors, i.e. on what we traditionally call”
You: Too natural? Excessive focus and care? What we traditionally call? This all sounds to me like you are trying not to know something.
Recall, as I wrote in my comment, I try to support “why care [under my stated views], even about ‘my’ own future”. I try to rephrase the sentence you quote, in a paragraph that avoids the 3 elements you criticize. I hope the meaning becomes clear then:
Evolution has ingrained into my mind with a very strong preference to care for the next-period inhabitant(s) X of my body. This deeply ingrained preference to preserve the well-being of X tends to override everything else. So, however much my reflections suggest to me that X is not as unquestionably related to me as I instinctively would have thought before closer examination, I will not be able to give up my commonly observed preferences for doing (mostly) the best for X, in situations where there is no cloning or anything of the like going on.
(you can safely ignore “(and excessive)”. With it, I just meant to casually mention also we tend to be too egoistic; our strong specific focus on (or care for) our own body’s future is not good for the world overall. But this is quite a separate thing.)

FlorianH 2 Aug 2024 18:34 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Fractalideation’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
Thanks! In particular also for your more-kind-than-warranted hint at your original w/o accusing me of theft!! Especially as I now realize (or maybe realize again) your sleep-clone-swap example, which indeed I love as an perfectly concise illustration, had also come along with at least an “I guess”-caveated “it is subjective”, i.e. which some sense is really already included a core part of the conclusion/claim here.
I should have also picked up your ‘stream-of-consciousness continuity’ vs. ‘substrate/matter continuity’ terminology. Finally, the Ship of Theseus question thus, with “Temporal parts” vs. “Continued identity” would also be good links, although I guess I’d be spontaneously inclined to dismiss part of the discussion of these as questions ‘merely of definition’ - just until we get to the question of the mind/consciousness, where it seems to me indeed to become more fundamentally relevant (although, maybe, and ironically, after relegating the idea of a magical persistent self, maybe one could say, also here in the end it becomes slightly closer to that ‘merely question of definition/preference’ domain).
Btw, I’ll now take your own link-to-comment and add it to my post—thanks if you can let me know where I can create such links; I remembered looking and not finding it ANYWHERE even on your own LW profile page.

FlorianH 2 Aug 2024 17:03 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
Btw, regarding:
it would not seem to have made any difference and was just a philosophical recreation
Mind, in this discussion about cloning thought experiments I’d find it natural that there are not many currently tangible consequences, even if we did find a satisfying answer to some of the puzzling questions around that topic.
That said, I guess I’m not the only one here with a keen intrinsic interest in understanding the nature of self even absent tangible & direct implications, or if these implications may remain rather subtle at this very moment.

FlorianH 2 Aug 2024 16:49 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
I obviously still care for tomorrow, as is perfectly in line with the theory.
I take you to imply that, under the here emphasized hypothesis about self not being a unified long-term self the way we tend to imagine, one would have to logically conclude sth like: “why care then, even about ‘my’ own future?!”. This is absolutely not implied:
The questions around which we can get “resolving peace” (see context above!) refers to things like: If someone came along proposing to clone/transmit/… you, what to do? We may of course find peace about that question (which I’d say I have for now) without giving up to care about the ‘natural’ successors of ours in standard live.
Note how you can still have particular care for your close kin or so after realizing your preferential care about these is just your personal (or our general cultural) preference w/o meaning you’re “unified” with your close kin in any magical way. It is equally all too natural for me to still keep my specific (and excessive) focus & care on the well-being of my ‘natural’ successors, i.e. on what we traditionally call “my tomorrow’s self”, even if I realize that we have no hint at anything magical (no persistent super-natural self) linking me to it; it’s just my ingrained preference.

FlorianH 31 Jul 2024 18:36 UTC
1 point
1
in reply to: Ape in the coat’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
The original mistake is that feeling of a “carrier for identity across time”—for which upon closer inspection we find no evidence, and which we thus have to let go of. Once you realize that you can explain all we observe and all you feel with merely, at any given time, your current mind, including its memories, and aspirations for the future, but without any further “carrier for identity”, i.e. without any super-material valuable extra soul, there is resolving peace about this question.

FlorianH 30 Jul 2024 21:43 UTC
1 point
1
in reply to: avturchin’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
The upload +- by definition inherits your secret plan and will thus do your jumps.

FlorianH 30 Jul 2024 21:39 UTC
0 points
−2
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
Good decisions need to be based on correct beliefs as well as values.
Yes, but here the right belief is the realization that what connects you to what we traditionally called your future “self”, is nothing supernatural i.e. no super-material unified continuous self of extra value: we don’t have any hint at such stuff; too well we can explain your feeling about such things as fancy brain instincts akin to seeing the objects in the 24FPS movie as ‘moving’ (not to say ‘alive’); and too well we know we could theoretically make you feel you’ve experienced your past as a continuous self while you were just nano-assembled a mirco-second ago with exactly the right memory inducing this beliefs/‘feeling’. So due to the absence of this extra “self”: “You” are simply this instant’s mind we currently observe from you. Now, crucially, this mind has, obviously, a certain regard, hopes, plans, for, in essence, what happens with your natural successor. In the natural world, it turns out to be perfectly predictable from the outside, who this natural successor is: your own body.
In situations like those imagined with cloning thought experiments instead, it suddenly is less obvious from the outside, whom you’ll consider your most dearly cared for ‘natural’ (or now less obviously ‘natural’) successor. But as the only thing that in reality connects you with what we traditionally would have called “your future self”, is your own particular preferences/hopes/cares to that elected future mind, there is no objective rule to tell you from outside, which one you have to consider the relevant future mind. The relevant is the one you find relevant. This is very analogous for, say, when you’re in love, the one ‘relevant’ person in a room for you to save first in a fire (if you’re egoistic about you and your loved one) is the one you (your brain instinct, your hormones, or whatever) picked; you don’t have to ask anyone outside about whom that should be.
so if there is some fact of the matter that you don’t survive destructive teleportation, you shouldn’t go for it, irrespective of your values
The traditional notion of “survival” as in invoking a continuous integrated “self” over and above the succession of individual ephemeral minds with forward-looking preferences, must be put into perspective just as that of that long-term “self” itself indeed.
There’s a theory that personal identity is only ever instantaneous...an “observer. moment”… such that as an objective fact, you have no successors. I don’t know whether you believe it. If it’s true , you epistemically-should believe it, but you don’t seem to believe in epistemic norms.
There’s another, locally popular , theory that the continuity of personal identity is only about what you care about. (It either just is that, or it needs to be simplified to that...it’s not clear which). But it’s still irrational to care about things that aren’t real...you shouldn’t care about collecting unicorns...so if there is some fact of the matter that you don’t survive destructive teleportation, you shouldn’t go for it, irrespective of your values.
Thanks. I’d be keen to read more on this if you have links. I’ve wondered to which degree the relegation of the “self” I’m proposing (or that may have been proposed in a similar way in Rob Bensinger’s post and maybe before) is related to what we always hear about ‘no self’ from the more meditative crowd, though I’m not sure there’s a link there at all. But I’d be keen to read of people who have proposed theoretical things in a similar direction.
There’s a theory that personal identity is only ever instantaneous...an “observer. moment”… such that as an objective fact, you have no successors. I don’t know whether you believe it.
On the one hand, ‘No [third-party] objective successor’ makes sense. On the other hand: I’m still so strongly programmed to absolutely want to preserve my ‘natural’ [unobjective but engrained in my brain..] successors, that the lack of ‘outside-objective’ successor doesn’t impact me much.^[1]
1. ^
  I think a simple analogy here, for which we can remain with the traditional view of self, is: Objectively, there’s no reason I should care about myself so much, or about my closed ones; my basic moral theory would ask me to be a bit less kind to myself and kinder to others, but given my wiring I just don’t manage to behave so perfectly.

FlorianH 29 Jul 2024 15:47 UTC
1 point
−1
in reply to: Ape in the coat’s comment on: Relativity Theory for What the Future ‘You’ Is and Isn’t
Oh, it’s much worse. It is epistemic relativism. You are saying that there is no one true answer to the question and we are free to trust whatever intuitions we have. And you do not provide any particular reason for this state of affairs.
Nice challenge! There’s no “epistemic relativism” here, even if I see where you’re coming from.
First recall the broader altruism analogy: Would you say it’s epistemic relativisim if I tell you, you can simply look inside yourself and see freely, how much you care, how closely connected you feel about people in a faraway country? You sure wouldn’t reproach that to me; you sure agree it’s your own ‘decision’ (or intrinsic inclination or so) that decides how much weight or care you personally put on these persons.
Now, remember the core elements I posit. “You” are (i) your mind of right here and now, including (ii) it’s tendency for deeply felt care & connection to the ‘natural’ successors of yours, and that’s about what there is to be said about you (+ there’s memory). From this everything follows. It is evolution that has shaped us to shortcut the standard physical ‘continuation’ of you in coming periods, as a ‘unique entity’ in our mind, and has made you typically care sort of ’100%′ about your first few sec worth of forthcoming successors of yours [in analogy: Just as nature has shaped you to (usually) care tremendously also for your direct children or siblings]. Now there are (hypothetically) cases, where things are so warped and that are so unusual evolutionarily, that you have no clear tastes: that clone or this clone, if you are/are not destroyed in the process/while asleep or not/blabla—all the puzzles we can come up with. For all these cases, you have no clear taste as to which of the ‘successors’ of yours you care much and which you don’t. In our inner mind’s sloppy speak: we don’t know “who we’ll be”. Equally importantly, you may see it one way, and your best friends may see it very differently. And what I’m explaining is that, given the axiom of “you” being you only right here and now, there simply IS no objective truth to be found about who is you later or not, and so there is no objective answer as to whom of those many clones in all different situations you ought to care how much about: it really does only boil down to how much you care about these. As, on a most fundamental level, “you” are only your mind right now.
And if you find you’re still wondering about how much to care about which potential clone in which circumstances, it’s not the fault of the theory that it does not answer it to you. You’re asking to the outside a question that can only be answered inside you. The same way that, again, I cannot tell you how much you feel (or should feel) for third person x.
I for sure can tell you you ought to behaviorally care more from a moral perspective, and there I might use a specific rule that attributes each conscious clone an equal weight or so, and in that domain you could complain if I don’t give you a clear answer. But that’s exactly not what the discussion here is about.
I can imagine a universe with such rules that teleportation kills a person and a universe in which it doesn’t. I’d like to know how does our universe work.
I propose a specific “self” is a specific mind at a given moment. The usual-speak “killing” X and the relevant harm associated with it means to prevent X’s natural successors, about whom X cares so deeply, from coming into existence. If X cares about his physical-direct-body successors only, disintegrating and teleporting him means we destroy all he cared for, we prevented all he wanted to happen from happening, we have so-to-say killed him, as we prevented his successors from coming to live. If he looked forward to a nice trip to Mars where he is to be teleported to, there’s no reason to think we ‘killed’ anyone in any meaningful sense, as “he”‘s a happy space traveller finding ‘himself’ (well, his successors..) doing just the stuff he anticipated for them to be doing. There’s nothing more objective to be said about our universe ‘functioning’ this or that way. As any self is only ephemeral, and a person is a succession of instantaneous selves linked to one another with memory and with forward-looking preferences, it really is these own preferences that matter for the decision, no outside ‘fact’ about the universe.