metapreferences are important, but their salience is way out of proportion to their importance.
You mean the salience is too high? On the contrary, it’s too low.
one of the most immediate natural answers is “metapreferences!”.
Of course, this is not an answer, but a question-blob.
as evidenced by experiences like “I thought I wanted X, but in hindsight I didn’t”
Yeah I think this is often, maybe almost always, more like “I hadn’t computed / decided to not want [whatever Thing-like thing X gestured at], and then I did compute that”.
a last-line fallback for extreme cases
It’s really not! Our most central values are all of the proleptic (pre-received; foreshadowed) type: friendship, love, experience, relating, becoming. They all can only be expressed in an either vague or incomplete way: “There’s something about this person / myself / this collectivity / this mental activity that draws me in to keep walking that way.”. Part of this is resolvable confusion, but probably not all of it. Part of the fun of relating with other people is that there’s a true open-endedness; you get to cocreate something non-pre-delimited, find out what another [entity that is your size / as complex/surprising/anti-inductive as you] is like, etc. “Metapreferences” isn’t an answer of course, but there’s definitely a question that has to be asked here, and the answer will fall under “metapreferences” broadly construed, in that it will involve stuff that is ongoingly actively determining [all that stuff we would call legible values/preferences].
“What does it even mean to be wrong about our own values? What’s the ground truth?”
Ok we can agree that this should point the way to the right questions and answers, but it’s an extremely broad question-blob.
You mean the salience is too high? On the contrary, it’s too low.
Of course, this is not an answer, but a question-blob.
Yeah I think this is often, maybe almost always, more like “I hadn’t computed / decided to not want [whatever Thing-like thing X gestured at], and then I did compute that”.
It’s really not! Our most central values are all of the proleptic (pre-received; foreshadowed) type: friendship, love, experience, relating, becoming. They all can only be expressed in an either vague or incomplete way: “There’s something about this person / myself / this collectivity / this mental activity that draws me in to keep walking that way.”. Part of this is resolvable confusion, but probably not all of it. Part of the fun of relating with other people is that there’s a true open-endedness; you get to cocreate something non-pre-delimited, find out what another [entity that is your size / as complex/surprising/anti-inductive as you] is like, etc. “Metapreferences” isn’t an answer of course, but there’s definitely a question that has to be asked here, and the answer will fall under “metapreferences” broadly construed, in that it will involve stuff that is ongoingly actively determining [all that stuff we would call legible values/preferences].
Ok we can agree that this should point the way to the right questions and answers, but it’s an extremely broad question-blob.