From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 13:10:34 MST
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > So dreadful is the punishment attending choice "10",
> > however, that sooner or later you try "55". You find
> > that it seems as though you escape the punishment
> > despite your intellectual knowledge and despite
> > the pleas and exhortations from the audience.
>
> Maybe asking what one should do "for one's own benefit" is unnecessarily
> complicating the question? I'd hit 55 with no qualms. My sanity has more
> extrinsic positive value than my forgotten pain has intrinsic negative value.
That's quite reasonable, but I'm sure that you know that
you should anticipate the full 55 seconds of torture.
As it begins, you realize how much preferable the "10"
would have been. An argument occurs to you that "Eliezer
in pain" is a bad thing, and that "10" was the better choice.
I believe that "what is best for Lee Corbin" to be an objective
property of processes that are running on systems. Good things
can happen to such processes, or bad things can happen to them.
Rationally, I wish good things to happen.
> On a local selfish scale I think the same would hold true. I expect to
> live a long time. Again, sanity is valuable.
Yes. That's an important factor, and will be interesting to
discuss when it's time to vary the parameters of this experiment.
> If I definitely knew that I were to be executed afterward and that I would
> not have the opportunity to affect the Singularity in any way, one
> decision would be to hit "10" until negative reinforcement destroyed that
> decisionmaking process, then presumably hit 55 thereafter.
This expresses my conclusions too. I don't happen to be
devoted to any sublimely idealistic goal at this time.
> Incidentally, I wonder how many Extropians readers are disturbed by our
> having this conversation.
The one's who are disturbed by such have, I think, learned to
ignore my posts. On the plus side, I don't have to bother
with all the usual lectures on the differences between thoughts
and actions, between imaginary worlds and real worlds. Of course,
it's kind of scary that such explanations would be needed in a
group of thinkers.
> *I'm* disturbed, but I consider it a necessary survival skill
> - well worth practicing - not to flinch away from disturbing
> hypothetical situations.
Of course; when there is anything to be gained.
> A coherent goal system should be able to go anywhere.
> Are you practicing this skill too?
Not consciously. Actually, I don't think that I need practice ;-)
I've always been fortunate in being able to think about "the
unthinkable" and to be puzzled why others could not. At the
same time, however, I'm quite disturbed when reading about
the necessary testing done on animals to advance scientific
knowledge. I'm disturbed whenever real entities suffer, and
the effect is getting stronger. But that's only because I'm
becoming more knowledgeable about the world, and readily
understand the real events at a funeral whenever anyone dies.
> I admit I am wondering why you dream up these things.
I dream these things up in order to pursue the ideal goal
of consistency, in having a complete prescription of what
I should do in any conceivable situation. So I'm drawn
to hard questions, whether they concern duplication chambers,
delayed teleportation, torture of my duplicates, how I'd
act as a VR Solipsist, what I'd do if I were the last person
on Earth, what if I knew that at 12:00 midnight I'd find myself
with your body and you'd have mine, what if the Solar System
was to come to an end in two days, and so on. I've always
done that.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:05 MST