It seems the key fact that Mr. Pearce is missing is the fact he is judging this utility function to better than his “provincial” values by… his “provincial” values.
If he truly believes this is the best way to organize the universe, why doesn’t he believe that a CEV would spit it out?
It actually sounds to me like CEV will indeed spit it out. It will explain how a better understanding of what we are will lead us to abandon the constrains of the human experience in th search for maximizing the goodness of the universe, a scenario that we would understand if we were smarter, had grown more closer together and had a better grasp of the nature of identity and consciosness and subjective reward.
It seems the key fact that Mr. Pearce is missing is the fact he is judging this utility function to better than his “provincial” values by… his “provincial” values.
If he truly believes this is the best way to organize the universe, why doesn’t he believe that a CEV would spit it out?
It actually sounds to me like CEV will indeed spit it out. It will explain how a better understanding of what we are will lead us to abandon the constrains of the human experience in th search for maximizing the goodness of the universe, a scenario that we would understand if we were smarter, had grown more closer together and had a better grasp of the nature of identity and consciosness and subjective reward.
Where are you getting David’s views on the output of CEV from?