Emotions ≠ preferences. It may be that something in the vague category “loving the universe” is (maybe depending on your personality) a winning attitude (or more winning than many people’s existing attitudes) regardless of your morality. (Of course, yes, in changing your attitude you would have to be careful not to delude yourself about your preferences, and most people advocating changing your attitude don’t seem to clearly make the distinction.)
I certainly make that distinction. But it seems to me that “loving” the current wasteland is not an appropriate emotion. Wireheading is wrong not only when/because you stop caring about other things.
But it seems to me that “loving” the current wasteland is not an appropriate emotion.
Granted. It seems to me that the kernel of truth in the original statement is something like “you are not obligated to be depressed that the universe poorly satisfies your preferences”, which (ISTM) some people do need to be told.
Since when has being “good enough” been a prerequisite for loving something (or someone)? In this world, that’s a quick route to a dismal life indeed.
There’s the old saying in the USA: “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” The sentiment carries just as well, I think, for the universe as a whole. Things as they are may be very wrong indeed, but what does it solve to hate the universe for it? Humans have a long history of loving not what is perfect, but what is broken—the danger lies not in the emotion, but in failing to heal the damage. It may be a crapsack universe out there, but it’s still our sack of crap.
By all means, don’t look away from the tragedies of the world. Figuratively, you can rage at the void and twist the universe to your will, or you can sit the universe down and stage a loving intervention. The main difference between the two, however, is how you feel about the process; the universe, for better or worse, really isn’t going to notice.
Insisting on being unhappy that the universe poorly satisfies your preferences is certainly contrary, if not perverse. Of course, humans greatly value their ability to imagine and desire that the universe be different. This desire might only be perverse if it is impossible to modify the universe to satisfy your preferences. This is the situation that dis-satisfied materialists could find themselves in: a materialistic world is a world that cannot be modified to suit their preferences.
[last paragraph taken out as off-topic and overly speculative]
Emotions ≠ preferences. It seems likely to me that loving the universe is (maybe depending on your personality) a winning attitude (or is more winning than many people’s attitudes) regardless of your morality.
There’s no need to “transform” the universe. The universe is the same if we modify the universe to satisfy our evolved goals, or we modify our goals to be satisfied by the universe. The latter is at least coherent, whereas the former is persisting in the desire to impose a set of values on the universe even after you’ve realized those desires are arbitrary and perhaps not even salvageably self-consistent without modification. What kind of intelligence would be interested in that?
To put it another way, as intelligence increases, we will increasingly modify our goals to what is possible. Given the deterministic nature of the universe, that’s a lot of modification.
My attitude is easier to transform than the universe’s attitude.
Maybe easier, but is it the right thing to do? Obvious analogy is wireheading. See also: Morality as Fixed Computation.
Emotions ≠ preferences. It may be that something in the vague category “loving the universe” is (maybe depending on your personality) a winning attitude (or more winning than many people’s existing attitudes) regardless of your morality. (Of course, yes, in changing your attitude you would have to be careful not to delude yourself about your preferences, and most people advocating changing your attitude don’t seem to clearly make the distinction.)
I certainly make that distinction. But it seems to me that “loving” the current wasteland is not an appropriate emotion. Wireheading is wrong not only when/because you stop caring about other things.
Granted. It seems to me that the kernel of truth in the original statement is something like “you are not obligated to be depressed that the universe poorly satisfies your preferences”, which (ISTM) some people do need to be told.
Since when has being “good enough” been a prerequisite for loving something (or someone)? In this world, that’s a quick route to a dismal life indeed.
There’s the old saying in the USA: “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” The sentiment carries just as well, I think, for the universe as a whole. Things as they are may be very wrong indeed, but what does it solve to hate the universe for it? Humans have a long history of loving not what is perfect, but what is broken—the danger lies not in the emotion, but in failing to heal the damage. It may be a crapsack universe out there, but it’s still our sack of crap.
By all means, don’t look away from the tragedies of the world. Figuratively, you can rage at the void and twist the universe to your will, or you can sit the universe down and stage a loving intervention. The main difference between the two, however, is how you feel about the process; the universe, for better or worse, really isn’t going to notice.
Insisting on being unhappy that the universe poorly satisfies your preferences is certainly contrary, if not perverse. Of course, humans greatly value their ability to imagine and desire that the universe be different. This desire might only be perverse if it is impossible to modify the universe to satisfy your preferences. This is the situation that dis-satisfied materialists could find themselves in: a materialistic world is a world that cannot be modified to suit their preferences.
[last paragraph taken out as off-topic and overly speculative]
Emotions ≠ preferences. It seems likely to me that loving the universe is (maybe depending on your personality) a winning attitude (or is more winning than many people’s attitudes) regardless of your morality.
There’s no need to “transform” the universe. The universe is the same if we modify the universe to satisfy our evolved goals, or we modify our goals to be satisfied by the universe. The latter is at least coherent, whereas the former is persisting in the desire to impose a set of values on the universe even after you’ve realized those desires are arbitrary and perhaps not even salvageably self-consistent without modification. What kind of intelligence would be interested in that?
To put it another way, as intelligence increases, we will increasingly modify our goals to what is possible. Given the deterministic nature of the universe, that’s a lot of modification.
A lot more is possible than what is currently present. You don’t need to modify unreachable programming, it just doesn’t run (until it does).
I heard lobotomy is an excellent way to do that.