Why would human terminal values necessarily have to encompass or be compatible with genetic terminal values? Doesn’t this assume whatever mental algorithm determines which instrumental values are most conducive to reproductive efficiency in any environment has access to explicit and accurate information about the genetic endgoal? If it’s using heuristic proxies instead, and of course it is, since it’s not possible to directly observe reproductive fitness, the proxies would then be human terminal values.
The genetic values are terminal because they don’t serve other values and hence don’t change. Human preferences serve genetic terminal purposes, so human preferences change with the environment. Also, they’re heuristics more than values, so they’re likely to be inconsistent and to sometimes counter terminal values.
Precisely. So human values, terminal or not, are divorced from genetic terminal values. We may be survival machines, but that doesn’t mean we’re aware of it or think like we’re aware of it, so that fact is only related to what our actual values are. It doesn’t dictate it.
Why would human terminal values necessarily have to encompass or be compatible with genetic terminal values?
Because sometimes giving oneself existential angst is more important than having reflectively coherent definitions for concepts.
If it’s using heuristic proxies instead, and of course it is, since it’s not possible to directly observe reproductive fitness, the proxies would then be human terminal values.
Well that’s the first-level notion rather than the considered-on-reflection-and-full-information version we’re actually aiming at, but yes. But just go along for the ride and pretend to be scared when Azathoth jumps out at you.
Don’t you know darkness and terror are just more philosophical than mere knowledge?
Don’t you know darkness and terror are just more philosophical than mere knowledge?
So is sarcasm, apparently.
If you’ve got something to say, say it. If you have a “reflective equilibrium” approach that will allow you to find a consistent set of human values without going back to terminal values, cite a reference.
I’m confused.
Why would human terminal values necessarily have to encompass or be compatible with genetic terminal values? Doesn’t this assume whatever mental algorithm determines which instrumental values are most conducive to reproductive efficiency in any environment has access to explicit and accurate information about the genetic endgoal? If it’s using heuristic proxies instead, and of course it is, since it’s not possible to directly observe reproductive fitness, the proxies would then be human terminal values.
The genetic values are terminal because they don’t serve other values and hence don’t change. Human preferences serve genetic terminal purposes, so human preferences change with the environment. Also, they’re heuristics more than values, so they’re likely to be inconsistent and to sometimes counter terminal values.
Precisely. So human values, terminal or not, are divorced from genetic terminal values. We may be survival machines, but that doesn’t mean we’re aware of it or think like we’re aware of it, so that fact is only related to what our actual values are. It doesn’t dictate it.
Because sometimes giving oneself existential angst is more important than having reflectively coherent definitions for concepts.
Well that’s the first-level notion rather than the considered-on-reflection-and-full-information version we’re actually aiming at, but yes. But just go along for the ride and pretend to be scared when Azathoth jumps out at you.
Don’t you know darkness and terror are just more philosophical than mere knowledge?
So is sarcasm, apparently.
If you’ve got something to say, say it. If you have a “reflective equilibrium” approach that will allow you to find a consistent set of human values without going back to terminal values, cite a reference.