Eudaimonia, a Greek word literally translating to the state or condition of ‘good spirit’, and which is commonly translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘welfare’.
I sense you mean something else than this wiki quote above when you use that word, given downvote and disagree vote? But, man, that’s exactly what made me think “rules out you having preferences that aren’t about your feelings” or at least establishes conversion to them.
Yes, conversion to them is what’s implied, not the ruling out of any other kind of preference. The wiki quote is basically what I had in mind.
I agree that this conversion ability is an assumption. It’s a shaky assumption to me, I haven’t thought it through to the point that I could defend it, and I’d be interested in talking about it more, especially if you disagree with it.
The reason I didn’t mention that in the top-level comment is because it’s a very standard assumption; it’s the premise that the concept of utilons (/ utility functions) are based on in general, not a feature of my specific proposal. If you think the assumption is false, then you disagree with the concept of utility functions, not with any specific proposal for what units to use when expressing them.
(Edit: btw, the specific assumption that’s standard is not just that you can convert all preferences to feelings-preferences, but actually that you can convert between any two preferences.)
I disagree-voted with your bare quote because it was a non-sequitur, and I downvoted because I found it rude.
I’m confused what you think I’m saying that rules out you having preferences that aren’t about your feelings?
I sense you mean something else than this wiki quote above when you use that word, given downvote and disagree vote? But, man, that’s exactly what made me think “rules out you having preferences that aren’t about your feelings” or at least establishes conversion to them.
Yes, conversion to them is what’s implied, not the ruling out of any other kind of preference. The wiki quote is basically what I had in mind.
I agree that this conversion ability is an assumption. It’s a shaky assumption to me, I haven’t thought it through to the point that I could defend it, and I’d be interested in talking about it more, especially if you disagree with it.
The reason I didn’t mention that in the top-level comment is because it’s a very standard assumption; it’s the premise that the concept of utilons (/ utility functions) are based on in general, not a feature of my specific proposal. If you think the assumption is false, then you disagree with the concept of utility functions, not with any specific proposal for what units to use when expressing them.
(Edit: btw, the specific assumption that’s standard is not just that you can convert all preferences to feelings-preferences, but actually that you can convert between any two preferences.)
I disagree-voted with your bare quote because it was a non-sequitur, and I downvoted because I found it rude.