Posts
Comments
From a utilitarian perspective it doesn't matter how many people we divide up N * K among, be it ten or some Knuth up-arrow abomination, as long as the resulting suffering can register as suffering.
I agree with this statement 100%. That was the point in my TvCR thought experiment. People who obviously picked T should again pick T. No one except one commentor actually conceded this point.
The fewer slices we use, the more our flawed moral intuitions take notice of them and the more commensurate they look; actually, for small numbers of subjects it starts to look like a choice between letting one person suffer horribly and doing the same to multiple people, at which point the right answer is either trivially obvious or cognate to the trolley problem depending on how we cast it.
Again, I feel as if you are making my argument for me. The problem is as you say obvious to the trolley problem on how we cast it.
You say my experiment is not really the same as Eliezer's. fine. If doesn't matter because we could just use your example. If utilitarians do not care for how many people we divide N*K with, then these utilitarians should state that they would indeed allow T to happen no matter what subject matter the K is as long as K is >1
Grognor,
Thanks for your reply. You are right you are consistent as you did admit in your second scenario that you would let the sickos have their fun.
I would like to continue the discussion on why my problem is wrong in a friendly and respectable way, but the negative score points really are threatening my ability to post, which is quite unfortunate.
Torture vs. Dust Specks attempts to illustrate scope insensitivity in ethical thought by contrasting a large unitary disutility against a fantastically huge number of small disutilities
Your Ten Very Committed Rapists example (still not happy about that choice of subject, by the way) throws out scope issues almost entirely. Ten subjects vs. one subject is an almost infinitely more tractable ratio than 3^3^3^3 vs. one, and that allows us to argue for one option or another by discounting one of the options for any number of reasons.
I do sincerely apologize if you are offended, but rape is torture as well and Eliezer's example can be equally if not more reprehensible.
It is simple why I chose 10. It is to highlight the paradox of those who choose to torture. I have made it easier for you. Lets see that we increase 10 to 3^^^3 deprived rapists. The point is, if you surely would not let the victim be raped when there are 3^^^3 deprived rapists suffering, you surely would not allow it to happen if it was only 10 suffering rapists. So with that said, how is it different?
Richard
I sincerely appreciate your reply. Why do we accept Omega in Eleizers thought experiment and not mine? In the original some people claim to obviously pick torture, yet unwilling to pick rape because why? Well, like you said, you refuse to believe that rapist suffer. That is fair. But if that is fair, then Bob might refuse to believe that people with specks in their eyes suffer as well...
You can not assign rules for one and not the other.
All you're saying is "suppose were actually good"? Well, suppose away. So what?
Not true. I am saying that some people get utility from evil. Not me, not you but why am I not allowed to use that as an example?
Bottom line is that I personaly am unresolved and I will remain unresolved rationally across all examples. I know what I would do. I would 3^^^3 pick dust and follow up with 3^^^3 deprived rapists. But for strong "torturers" such as Grognor, depriving rapists will be inconsistent with his beliefs.
Then you are not consistent. For one example you are willing to allow suffering because the 50 years of torture is less than 3^^^3 dust holocaust yet. You claim that suffering is suffering. Yet only 10 deprived rapist already has you changing your thoughts.
I do not have an answer. If anything I would consider my self a weak dusk specker. The only thing that I claim is I am not arrogant, I am consistent in my stance. I do not know the answer but am willing to explore the dilemma of torture vs speck, and rape vs deprived rapists. Torture is rape is it not? Yet I will allow torture for 50 years because you do not believe that deprived rapist are not suffering. I am afraid that is not up to you to decide.
All I ask is to present tough questions. The down votes I believe are hurting discussion as I have never declared any thing controversial accept ask people to reconcile their beliefs to be consistent. I am actually quite disappointing in how easily people are frustrated. I apologize if I have pissed you off.
Unfortunately it looks like the lines between them have gotten a little blurry.
I will consider this claim, if you can show my how it is really different.
I have taken considerable care to construct a problem in which we are indeed are dealing with the trading suffering for potentially more suffering. It does not effect me one bit, that the topic has now switched from specks to rape. In fact if "detraction" happens, shouldn't it be the burden of the person who feels detracted to explain it? I merely ask for consistency.
In my mind I choose to affiliate with the I do not know the answer camp. There is no shame in that. I have not resolved the question yet. Yet there are people for whom it is obvious to choose torture, and refuse to answer the rape question. I am consistent in that I claim not to know or not to have resolved the question yet. May I ask for the same amount of consistency?
If you really understood how much torture 3^^^3 dust specks produces...
You make a valid point. I will not deny that you have a strong point. All I ask is that you not deny me of having you remain consistent with your reasoning. I have reposted a thought experiment, please tell me what your answer is:
Omega has given you choice to allow or disallow 10 rapists to rape someone. Why 10 rapists? Omega knows the absolute utility across all humans, and unfortunately as terrible as it sounds, the suffering/torturing of 10 rapists not being able to rape is more suffering than what the victim feels. What do you do? 10 is < 3^^^3 suffering rapists. So lucky you, Omega need not burden you with the suffering of 3^^^3, if you chose to have rapist suffer. It is important that you not finagle your way out of the question. Please do not say that not being able to rape is not torture. Omega has already stated that indeed there is suffering for these rapist. It matters not if you would suffer such a thing.
Disclaimer: I am searching for the truth through rationality. I do not care whether the answer is torture, specks, or rape, only that it is the truth. If the rational answer is rape, I can do nothing but accept that for I am only in search of truth and not truth that fits me.
There are implications to choosing rape as the right answer. It means that in a rational society we must allow bad things to happen if that bad thing allows for total less suffering. We have to be consistent. Omega has given you a number of rapist far far far less than 3^^^3, surely you must allow for the rape to occur.
Literally, DanielLC, walks into a room with 10 rapists and a victim. The rapists tell him to "go away, and don't call the cops.". Omega appears and says, you may stop it if you want to, but I am all knowing and know that the utility experienced by the rapist or suffering from being deprived of raping is indeed greater than the suffering of the victim. What does Daniel do?
If you really understood how much torture 3^^^3 dust specks deprived rapists produces...
That is the crux of the problem. Bob understands just as much as you claim you understand what 3^^^3 is. Yet he chooses the "Dust Holocaust".
First let me assume that you, peter_hurford, are a "Torturer" or rather, you are from the camp that obviously chooses 50 years. I have no doubt in my mind that you bring extremely rational and valid points to this discussions. You are poking holes in Bobs reasoning at its weakest points. This is a good thing.
I whole-heartedly concede that you have compelling points, by poking into holes into Bob's reasons. But lets start poking around your reasoning now.
Omega has given you choice to allow or disallow 10 rapist to rape someone. Why 10 rapist? Omega knows the absolute utility across all humans, and unfortunately as terrible as it sounds, the suffering/torturing of 10 rapist not being able to rape is more suffering than what the victim feels. What do you do? 10 is < 3^^^3 suffering rapists. So lucky you, Omega need not burden you with the suffering of 3^^^3, if you chose to have rapist suffer. It is important that you not finagle your way out of the question. Please do not say that not being able to rape is not torture. Omega has already stated that indeed there is suffering for these rapist. It matters not if you would suffer such a thing.
Disclaimer: I am searching for the truth through rationality. I do not care whether the answer is torture, specks, or rape, only that it is the truth. If the rational answer is rape, I can do nothing but accept that for I am only in search of truth and not truth that fits me.
There are implications to choosing rape as the right answer. It means that in a rational society we must allow bad things to happen if that bad thing allows for total less suffering. We have to be consistent. Omega has given you a number of rapist far far far less than 3^^^3, surely you must allow for the rape to occur.
Literally, peter_hurford ,walks into a room with 10 rapists and a victim. The rapists tell him to "go away, and don't call the cops.". Omega appears and says, you may stop it if you want to, but I am all knowing and know that the utility experienced by the rapist or suffering from being deprived of raping is indeed greater than the suffering of the victim. What does peter do?
Edit: Grammer
Excellent points. I now seek your consistency to test your beliefs. Prepare yourself to hear a sick and twisted problem.
Omega has given you choice to allow or disallow 10 rapist to rape someone. Why 10 rapist? Omega knows the absolute utility across all humans, and unfortunately as terrible as it sounds, the suffering/torturing of 10 rapist not being able to rape is more suffering than what the victim feels. What do you do? 10 is < 3^^^3 suffering rapists. So lucky you, Omega need not burden you with the suffering of 3^^^3, if you chose to have rapist suffer. It is important that you not finagle your way out of the question. Please do not say that not being able to rape is not torture. Omega has already stated that indeed there is suffering for these rapist. It matters not if you would suffer such a thing.
Disclaimer: I am searching for the truth through rationality. I do not care whether the answer is torture, specks, or rape, only that it is the truth. If the rational answer is rape, I can do nothing but accept that for I am only in search of truth and not truth that fits me.
There are implications to choosing rape as the right answer. It means that in a rational society we must allow bad things to happen if that bad thing allows for total less suffering. We have to be consistent. Omega has given you a number of rapist far far far less than 3^^^3, surely you must allow for the rape to occur.
Literally, Grognor walks into a room with 10 rapists and a victim. The rapists tell him to "go away, and don't call the cops.". Omega appears and says, you may stop it if you want to, but I am all knowing and know that the utility experienced by the rapist or suffering from being deprived of raping is indeed greater than the suffering of the victim. What does Grognor do?
Are you familiar with prospect theory?
No, but I will surely read up on that now.
You seem to be describing what you (an imperfectly rational agent) would choose, simply using "PVG" to label the stuff that makes you choose what you actually choose, and you end up taking probability into consideration in a way similar to prospect theory.
Absolutely. In fact I can see how a theist will simply say, "it is my PVG to believe in God, therefore It is rational for me to do so."
I do not have a response to that. I will need to learn more before I can work this out in my head. Thank you for the insightful comments.
Having read, Influence, The Prince and, 48 laws of Power I found Cialdini's book the most satisfying to read because it was filled with empirical research. The latter books I mentioned were no doubt excellent reads however anecdotal. Also, Influence is presented in the least "dark arts" ways from the other two. The book is about learning to stay ahead of influence just as much as it is about influencing.
Thank you for your response. I believe I understand you correctly, I made a response to Manfred's comment in which I reference your response as well. Do you believe I interpreted you correctly?
An agent that has an empathetic utility functions will only edit its own code if and only if it maximizes expected utility of the same empathetic utility function. Do I get your drift?
If Bob cares about cute puppies, then Bob will use his monstrous intelligence to bend the energy of the universe towards cute puppies. And love and flowers and sunrises and babies and cake.
I follow you. It does resolve my question of whether or not rationality + power necessarily involves a terrible outcomes. I had asked the question of whether or not a perfect rationalist given enough time and resources would become perfectly selfish. I believe I understand the answer as no.
Matt_Simpson gave a similar answer:
Suppose a rational agent has the ability to modify their own utility function (i.e. preferences) - maybe an AI that can rewrite its own source code. Would it do it? Well, only if it maximizes that agent's utility function. In other words, a rational agent will change its utility function if and only if it maximizes expected utility according to that same utility function
If Bob's utility function is puppies, babies and cakes, then he would not change his utility function for a universe with out these things. Do I have the right idea now?
Where would one go to read more about modafinil?
I have read Wikipedia and Erowid.
If you were to assign a percentage of how much all around "better" you feel when you are on it, what would it be? For example 10% better than off? 20%,30%?
I'm a 28-yo male in the SF area previously from NYC.
This site is intimidating and I think there are many more just like me who are intimidated to introduce themselves because they might not feel they are as articulate or smart as some of the people on this forum. There are some posts that are so well written that I couldn't write in a 100 years. There is so much information that it seems overwhelming. I want to stop lurking and invite others to join too. I'm not a scientist and I didn't study AI in college, I just want to meet good people and so do you, so come out and say hello.
My fascination with rationality probably started with ideas of fairness. I was the guy who turned the hour glass sideways to stop the time, if an argument broke out between teams while playing Charades, so when resolved, the actor would be allotted their fair time back. Not being fair bothered me a lot, because it didn't seem rational.
What also helped push me along my path towards rationality is my interests in biases. After learning about biases in college, I thought it had absolutely profound consequences, I was made aware of my own biases and thought it was the greatest thing in the world — to become more self-aware, to know ones self better is awesome... And with my new found knowledge, I was quickly disappointed with people. I do not let it bother me as much before, but occasionally, when ever someone thinks they experience more utility with expensive vodka because of the quality and not at all the price, I die a little inside.
Starting around the time I graduated university, it's hard to pin point an exact date of time frame, but I shed religion, and gradually started reading more about humanism and skepticism. It was nothing too deep, but enough for me to have a clear foundation for what I believed. I owe this all to the internet, it led me to watching Atheist videos, TED, being exposed to skepticism, the debunking of myths, Reddit, and finally Lesswrong.