I also find the ice-cream example confusing because it’s your main example but it doesn’t seem like it supports your main points. For example replace Ash with a drug addict and ice cream with meth and Bryce suddenly looks like a hero trying to help his friend from making a big mistake.
I think the below example still makes Bryce look like how it seems you intended him to look even if it was talking about meth.
Ash: “Ooh, I want ice cream.” Bryce: “Seriously?” Ash: “Well, I’m not actually going to buy some, I just want some” Bryce: “That’s the problem. You know it’s not good for you. You should want to be eating healthy food” Ash: “I mean, yeah, but right now I just really feel like ice cream.” Bryce: “That’s stupid”
This is a good point, but the actual difference in the scenario is that ice cream is not meth ;P I think it is actually meaningful to notice that, while there may in fact be good reasons not to have ice cream, there are many, much stronger reasons not to do meth, and Bryce bringing those up are much more likely to dissuade Ash, and if they don’t, Ash is much more irrational if Ash chooses to do it anyway… but that choice is still independent from wanting meth.
Your version of Bryce is doing a less defensible thing, while mine is being more reasonable, while still being wrong, and I think that’s the important point I’m making.
So, I have to admit I’m still confused. Is the icecream example fairly unrelated to the introduction and first chapter? They seem to be talking mostly about pure qualia, while the ice-cream example is talking about actions.
I agree qualia is entirely disconnected from rationality, but I think anything beyond qualia such as actions or intending to take actions is rationality fair game so to speak. I don’t see an issue in Bryce assessing the rationality of Ash stopping for ice-cream, it was his communication/social skills that were lacking.
After reading your post very carefully, I think you are agreeing with the above, I just had the opposite impression upon my first and second reading. Apologies if i’m still misunderstandin, either way I find this topic very interesting so thanks for writing this post.
No apologies necessary, it’s possible I wasn’t clear enough!
My main point is that the orthogonality thesis applies to humans too: intelligence and values are distinct things. To judge someone’s actions as irrational, you need to actually understand their values and preferences. If you think they shouldn’t do something because the tradeoff is too high, and they acknowledge the tradeoff but want to do it anyway, that may just reveal preferences different from yours, not necessaril irrationality.
I also find the ice-cream example confusing because it’s your main example but it doesn’t seem like it supports your main points. For example replace Ash with a drug addict and ice cream with meth and Bryce suddenly looks like a hero trying to help his friend from making a big mistake.
I think the below example still makes Bryce look like how it seems you intended him to look even if it was talking about meth.
Ash: “Ooh, I want ice cream.”
Bryce: “Seriously?”
Ash: “Well, I’m not actually going to buy some, I just want some”
Bryce: “That’s the problem. You know it’s not good for you. You should want to be eating healthy food”
Ash: “I mean, yeah, but right now I just really feel like ice cream.”
Bryce: “That’s stupid”
This is a good point, but the actual difference in the scenario is that ice cream is not meth ;P I think it is actually meaningful to notice that, while there may in fact be good reasons not to have ice cream, there are many, much stronger reasons not to do meth, and Bryce bringing those up are much more likely to dissuade Ash, and if they don’t, Ash is much more irrational if Ash chooses to do it anyway… but that choice is still independent from wanting meth.
Your version of Bryce is doing a less defensible thing, while mine is being more reasonable, while still being wrong, and I think that’s the important point I’m making.
So, I have to admit I’m still confused. Is the icecream example fairly unrelated to the introduction and first chapter? They seem to be talking mostly about pure qualia, while the ice-cream example is talking about actions.
I agree qualia is entirely disconnected from rationality, but I think anything beyond qualia such as actions or intending to take actions is rationality fair game so to speak. I don’t see an issue in Bryce assessing the rationality of Ash stopping for ice-cream, it was his communication/social skills that were lacking.
After reading your post very carefully, I think you are agreeing with the above, I just had the opposite impression upon my first and second reading. Apologies if i’m still misunderstandin, either way I find this topic very interesting so thanks for writing this post.
No apologies necessary, it’s possible I wasn’t clear enough!
My main point is that the orthogonality thesis applies to humans too: intelligence and values are distinct things. To judge someone’s actions as irrational, you need to actually understand their values and preferences. If you think they shouldn’t do something because the tradeoff is too high, and they acknowledge the tradeoff but want to do it anyway, that may just reveal preferences different from yours, not necessaril irrationality.