From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Nov 14 2002 - 19:05:12 MST
Wei Dai writes
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:35:52AM -0800, Lee Corbin wrote:
> > But continuing my theme, isn't there an equality between
> > what is best for me objectively speaking, and the integral
> > over all space and time of my subjective benefit?
>
> No, because otherwise you would choose to play back your favorite experience
> over and over again (and erase your personal memory of it after each playback
> so they all feel exactly like the original experience).
That's very perceptive of you. Indeed that does follow. I have
started several threads on this list under the title of "Repeated
Experience", and I defend that course of action in certain situations.
It beats several alternatives, IMO.
> Once we can manipulate subjective experiences at will, it
> becomes imperative to stop valuing subjective experiences
> as an end. (They'll still be valuable as a means of obtaining
> information about the objective world.)
This is strange. Why shouldn't we want to value those subjective
experiences that give us great joy or satisfaction?
> An alternative is for us to develop strong irrational taboos against
> directly manipulating subjective experiences and then continue to base our
> decisions on expected subjective experiences.
In your earlier post, I thought you said that all decisions should
be made objectively. How am I misunderstanding you?
> In this second alternative, when duplication becomes possible we'll
> also have to learn and internalize new ways of expecting subjective
> experiences that are not based on patterns of past experiences. For
> example in your pit story, the character in your pit story has to
> "expect" to experience being out of the pit every time he pushes the
> button, even if he has already pushed it thousands of times and
> experienced staying in the pit each time.
Yes, this sort of "expecting" is called "anticipation". The character
in my story must expect both things to happen to him. He should no
more anticipate next being out of the pit than he does next being
still in the pit. Both must be expected equally---not probabilistically,
but just plainly both expected, because both will occur.
> > Lastly, we are moral animals, (Jef Albright urges that one read Robert
> > Wright's "The Moral Animal" in preference to Matt Ridley's "The Origins
> > of Virtue"). Our evolutionary altruistic circuits (IMO) lie at the
> > basis of much of our kindness towards other creatures, and I certainly
> > don't want ever to sacrifice that part of our makeup. But when some folks
> > learn that animals and people are only molecules in motion, then in
> > *objective terms*, or so they say, happiness and suffering of others
> > cease to be important considerations (to the degree that they are
> > able to override these ancient impulses).
>
> I don't understand these folks. Why do they want to override their
> altruistic impulses and not also want to also override their selfish
> impulses? If they believe that nothing matters, then why bother
> trying to override any impulses at all?
Ah well, they think that it is somehow more "rational" to be
selfish. In the cases I've seen, they've just over-reacted
to leftist and religious memes urging complete selflessness.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:07 MST