It is objectively real. It is not objectively bad, or objectively good.
Sure one can still say “But you have to care about the subjects’ suffering!”
Exactly. You have to care about their suffering to begin with, to say that maximizing suffering is bad.
Why now do you think that it is not “objective” to say that B is better than A?
If your preference is to minimize suffering, B is better than A.
If your preference is to maximize suffering, A is better than B.
If you are indifferent to suffering, then neither is better than another one.
If you are right and I am wrong on this good/bad objectivity topic, then I could still continue using my value system to (if I can) wipe everything there is out because it doesn’t objectively matter and might de facto makes “right”.
Yes? If you are an entity that wants to wipe everything out, and have to the power to do so, that is indeed what I expect to happen.
I wouldn’t say that might makes “right”, but reality does not care about what is “right”. A nuclear bomb does not ask “wait, am I doing the right thing here by detonating and killing millions of people?”
If however I am right, you rejecting the idea of objective good/bad may make it less likely that you are aligned with this “one true value” system.
Ok.
Not matter what, the idea of moral nihilism is doomed to be either pointless or negative.
I would say that “moral nihilism” is the confused idea/conclusion that “objective morality matters” and “no objective morality exists”, therefore “nothing matters”.
My perspective is: no objective morality exists, but objective morality doesn’t matter anyway, everything is fine.
I could imagine a society of humans that care for each others, not because it is objectively correct to do, but because their own values are such that they care for others (and I don’t mean in a purely self-interested way either. A person can be an altruist, because their own values are altruistic, without believing in some objective morality of altruism).
Ultimately, what facts about reality are we in disagreement about?
It seems to me that the things you hope are true are that:
There are things that are objectively good and bad
The things that are objectively good and bad are in line with your idea of good and bad. (it is not the case, for example, that infinite suffering is objectively good)
A superintelligent mind would figure out what the objectively good/bad things are, and choose to do them, no matter what value system it started with.
And it seems to me it’s really important to figure out if this is true, before we build that superintelligent mind. Because if we are wrong about that, it could end very badly for us.
It is objectively real. It is not objectively bad, or objectively good.
(...)
Ultimately, what facts about reality are we in disagreement about?
The probably most severe disagreement between us is thinking whether there can be “objectively” bad parts within reality or not.
Let me try one more time:
A consciousness can perceive something as bad or good, “subjectively”, right?
Then this very fact that there is a consciousness that can perceive something as bad or good means that such a configuration within reality is possible.
The presence of such a bad- or good-feeling “subject” is “objectively” bad- or good. Really the entire “subjective”/”objective” wording is quite confused. A “subject” is just a part of (“objective”) reality, the distinction is nonsensical when it comes to good and bad.
An additional form of confusion on top is to equate the “trigger” for bad/good subject states with the states themselves, for the “trigger” can be something arbitrary and even contradictory among subjects (“I don’t like the color blue!” and “But I like the color blue!” can contradict each other as much as they want, because they simply aren’t suffering or pleasure themselves).
reality does not care about what is “right”.
Of course it doesn’t care about anything. But reality doesn’t need to care about anything for anything to be objectively good or bad.
Reality doesn’t care about any laws of physics either, yet they exist.
It seems to me that the things you hope are true are that: (...)
Not quite, I think it clearly would be better if you were right, because then nothing actually could matter negatively.
Unfortunately it is obvious to me that this is not the case.
A superintelligent mind would figure out what the objectively good/bad things are, and choose to do them, no matter what value system it started with.
I don’t precisely think that “no matter what value system it started with” part, otherwise I wouldn’t question whether any human can be trusted with a thinkable tightly controlled (“aligned”) superintelligence.
But I do think that it probably is easier to create a superintelligence that isn’t tightly controlled and yet can figure out what is objectively good and bad.
Because if we are wrong about that, it could end very badly for us.
Again, do you not realize that if you are right and nothing objectively matters, that this also doesn’t matter?
Yeah, “But it matters for my subjective value system!”, sure, but according to your understanding the value system is ultimately pointless.
The presence of such a bad- or good-feeling “subject” is “objectively” bad- or good. Really the entire “subjective”/”objective” wording is quite confused. A “subject” is just a part of (“objective”) reality, the distinction is nonsensical when it comes to good and bad.
Do you understand the distinction between “Dragons exist” and “I believe that dragons exist”?
The first one is a statement about dragons. The second one is a statement about the configuration of neurons in my mind.
Yes, both statements are objective, in some sense, but the second one is not an objective statement about dragons. It is an objective statement about my beliefs.
Then hopefully you understand the distinction between “Suffering is (objectively) bad” and “I believe/feel/percieve suffering as bad”.
The first one is an statement about suffering itself. The second one is a statement about the configuration of neurons in my mind.
Yes, the second statement is also objective. But it is not an objective statement about suffering. It is an objective statement about my beliefs, my values, and/or about how my mind works.
Your argument is something akin to “I believe that dragons exist. But my mind is part of reality, therefore my beliefs are real. Therefore dragons are real!”. Sorry, no.
Of course it doesn’t care about anything. But reality doesn’t need to care about anything for anything to be objectively good or bad. Reality doesn’t care about any laws of physics either, yet they exist.
My point is that reality enforces the law of physics, but it does not enforce any particular morality system.
Again, do you not realize that if you are right and nothing objectively matters, that this also doesn’t matter? Yeah, “But it matters for my subjective value system!”, sure, but according to your understanding the value system is ultimately pointless.
You understand that “But it matters for my subjective value system!” is indeed what matters to me, but you don’t understand that my metric of whether something is “pointless” ot not, is also based in my subjective value system?
Do you understand the distinction between “Dragons exist” and “I believe that dragons exist”?
Yes, of course.
“X exists”: Suffering exists.
“I believe that X exists”: I believe that suffering exists.
I use “suffering” to describe a state of mind in which the mind “perceives negatively”. Do you understand?
Now:
“X causes subject S suffering.” and “Subject S is suffering.” are also two different things.
The cause can be arbitrary, the causes can even be completely different between subjects, as you know, but the presence or absence of a suffering mind is an “objective” fact. Do you get the point now?
Obviously “X causes subject S suffering.” does not mean that X is objectively bad, that isn’t what I am trying to tell you. What I am trying to tell you is that “Subject S is suffering.” is intrinsically bad.
That doesn’t mean that preventing X is the only solution! For example X could just be a treatable phobia, so perhaps the subject S can be helped to no longer suffer due to the trigger X. Or to go darker, annihilating subject S also solves the issue. Funny how that works.
It is not X that is objectively negative, but (a hard to explain) state of the subject S, the “suffering” state (which you no doubt have experienced too, so I don’t need to attempt to describe it further I hope).
My point is that reality enforces the law of physics, but it does not enforce any particular morality system.
Yeah of course it doesn’t enforce any morality system, I never claimed that. If it would, then I probably wouldn’t need to explain this, now would I?
You understand that “But it matters for my subjective value system!” is indeed what matters to me, but you don’t understand that my metric of whether something is “pointless” ot not, is also based in my subjective value system?
Sure, you claim “nothing objectively matters, but despite assuming that I still care about my value system, because I do!”, sounds like some major cognitive dissonance.
“My” value system has none of these problems, and if you are right there is zero point in changing it anyway.
Obviously “X causes subject S suffering.” does not mean that X is objectively bad, that isn’t what I am trying to tell you.
I’m not disputing that.
I use “suffering” to describe a state of mind in which the mind “perceives negatively”
What I am trying to tell you is that “Subject S is suffering.” is intrinsically bad.
I understand that you are trying to tell me that.
Why is it intrinsically bad?
“Subject S is suffering” = “Subject S is experiencing a state of mind that subject S perceives negatively” (according to your definition above)
Why is that intrinsically bad?
The arguments you have made so far come across to me as something like “badness exists in person’s mind, minds are real, therefore badness objectively exists”. This is like claiming “dragons exist in person’s mind, minds are real, therefore dragons objectively exist”. It’s not a valid argument.
Sure, you claim “nothing objectively matters, but despite assuming that I still care about my value system, because I do!”, sounds like some major cognitive dissonance.
Only if you assume I secretly care about what matters “objectively”, in which case, sure, it would be something like cognitive dissonance.
The arguments you have made so far come across to me as something like “badness exists in person’s mind, minds are real, therefore badness objectively exists”.
Yes!
This is like claiming “dragons exist in person’s mind, minds are real, therefore dragons objectively exist”. It’s not a valid argument.
No! It is not like that. The state of “badness” in the mind is very real after all.
Do you also think your own consciousness isn’t real? Do you think your own qualia are not real? Are your thought patterns themselves not real? Your dragon example doesn’t apply to what I am talking about.
Why is it intrinsically bad?
Imagine this scenario:
You experience extreme suffering for eternity. Everyone else is dead, you can see no evidence that you can ever escape as you continue to suffer, there is no place to escape to. You can’t even commit suicide if want to.
According to your value system this is all incredibly bad, subjectively.
But you say objectively it is not bad, cool.
I on the other hand say that this scenario objectively is worse than nothingness would be, because there is an infinitely suffering subject, and suffering is the very definition of “objective”/”intrinsic” bad. This definition stands above any particular subject, because it can apply to every conceivable subject, making it “objective”. Something like “What if the subject likes to suffer?” means the subject doesn’t actually suffer; when I say “suffering” I mean a state the subject doesn’t want to be in.
Now...
Only if you assume I secretly care about what matters “objectively”, in which case, sure, it would be something like cognitive dissonance.
...the cognitive dissonance is that you simultaneously think that everything is objectively absolutely meaningless/neutral (not good or bad), yet somehow still subjectively meaningful (good or bad).
That doesn’t even make sense. The only way it could sort of make sense would be if there were no emergent phenomena such as consciousness in reality, so if everyone were a p-zombie. I assume you are not a p-zombie, so you should be able to verify that consciousness is in fact the most “real” thing you can possibly observe.
And I will reiterate one important point once more, the one that you cannot deny even if you keep your belief:
The argument “There is no objective bad/good within reality! So everything is objectively equally irrelevant!” renders itself immediately impotent.
It admits that it itself cannot objectively matter if it is correct. It truly is a non-starter, a completely self-defeating argument.
It is a bit like some run-of-the-mill belief in some God™ that is supposedly both totally benevolent and omnipotent (and omniscient), despite all the suffering, a paradoxical idea broken from the start.
The unfortunate truth is that there can be negative “meaning”/states within reality, not wanting to believe it doesn’t change it.
You know what, I think you are right that there is one major flaw I continued to make here and elsewhere!
That flaw being the usage of the very word “objective”, which I didn’t use with the probably common meaning, so I really should have questioned what each of us even understands as “objective” in the first place.
My bad!
The following should be closer to what I actually meant to claim:
One can generalize subjective “pleasure” and “suffering” (or perhaps “value” if you prefer) across all realistically possible subjects (or value systems). Based thereon one can derive this “one true value system” that considers all possible value systems within it.
Our disagreement may still remain unresolved by this attempted clarification of course, if I didn’t misunderstand your position completely, but at least I can avoid this particular mistake in the future.
It is objectively real. It is not objectively bad, or objectively good.
Exactly. You have to care about their suffering to begin with, to say that maximizing suffering is bad.
If your preference is to minimize suffering, B is better than A.
If your preference is to maximize suffering, A is better than B.
If you are indifferent to suffering, then neither is better than another one.
Yes? If you are an entity that wants to wipe everything out, and have to the power to do so, that is indeed what I expect to happen.
I wouldn’t say that might makes “right”, but reality does not care about what is “right”. A nuclear bomb does not ask “wait, am I doing the right thing here by detonating and killing millions of people?”
Ok.
I would say that “moral nihilism” is the confused idea/conclusion that “objective morality matters” and “no objective morality exists”, therefore “nothing matters”.
My perspective is: no objective morality exists, but objective morality doesn’t matter anyway, everything is fine.
I could imagine a society of humans that care for each others, not because it is objectively correct to do, but because their own values are such that they care for others (and I don’t mean in a purely self-interested way either. A person can be an altruist, because their own values are altruistic, without believing in some objective morality of altruism).
Ultimately, what facts about reality are we in disagreement about?
It seems to me that the things you hope are true are that:
There are things that are objectively good and bad
The things that are objectively good and bad are in line with your idea of good and bad. (it is not the case, for example, that infinite suffering is objectively good)
A superintelligent mind would figure out what the objectively good/bad things are, and choose to do them, no matter what value system it started with.
And it seems to me it’s really important to figure out if this is true, before we build that superintelligent mind. Because if we are wrong about that, it could end very badly for us.
The probably most severe disagreement between us is thinking whether there can be “objectively” bad parts within reality or not.
Let me try one more time:
A consciousness can perceive something as bad or good, “subjectively”, right?
Then this very fact that there is a consciousness that can perceive something as bad or good means that such a configuration within reality is possible.
The presence of such a bad- or good-feeling “subject” is “objectively” bad- or good. Really the entire “subjective”/”objective” wording is quite confused. A “subject” is just a part of (“objective”) reality, the distinction is nonsensical when it comes to good and bad.
An additional form of confusion on top is to equate the “trigger” for bad/good subject states with the states themselves, for the “trigger” can be something arbitrary and even contradictory among subjects (“I don’t like the color blue!” and “But I like the color blue!” can contradict each other as much as they want, because they simply aren’t suffering or pleasure themselves).
Of course it doesn’t care about anything. But reality doesn’t need to care about anything for anything to be objectively good or bad. Reality doesn’t care about any laws of physics either, yet they exist.
Not quite, I think it clearly would be better if you were right, because then nothing actually could matter negatively. Unfortunately it is obvious to me that this is not the case.
I don’t precisely think that “no matter what value system it started with” part, otherwise I wouldn’t question whether any human can be trusted with a thinkable tightly controlled (“aligned”) superintelligence. But I do think that it probably is easier to create a superintelligence that isn’t tightly controlled and yet can figure out what is objectively good and bad.
Again, do you not realize that if you are right and nothing objectively matters, that this also doesn’t matter? Yeah, “But it matters for my subjective value system!”, sure, but according to your understanding the value system is ultimately pointless.
Do you understand the distinction between “Dragons exist” and “I believe that dragons exist”?
The first one is a statement about dragons. The second one is a statement about the configuration of neurons in my mind.
Yes, both statements are objective, in some sense, but the second one is not an objective statement about dragons. It is an objective statement about my beliefs.
Then hopefully you understand the distinction between “Suffering is (objectively) bad” and “I believe/feel/percieve suffering as bad”.
The first one is an statement about suffering itself. The second one is a statement about the configuration of neurons in my mind.
Yes, the second statement is also objective. But it is not an objective statement about suffering. It is an objective statement about my beliefs, my values, and/or about how my mind works.
Your argument is something akin to “I believe that dragons exist. But my mind is part of reality, therefore my beliefs are real. Therefore dragons are real!”. Sorry, no.
My point is that reality enforces the law of physics, but it does not enforce any particular morality system.
You understand that “But it matters for my subjective value system!” is indeed what matters to me, but you don’t understand that my metric of whether something is “pointless” ot not, is also based in my subjective value system?
Yes, of course.
“X exists”: Suffering exists.
“I believe that X exists”: I believe that suffering exists.
I use “suffering” to describe a state of mind in which the mind “perceives negatively”. Do you understand?
Now:
“X causes subject S suffering.” and “Subject S is suffering.” are also two different things.
The cause can be arbitrary, the causes can even be completely different between subjects, as you know, but the presence or absence of a suffering mind is an “objective” fact. Do you get the point now?
Obviously “X causes subject S suffering.” does not mean that X is objectively bad, that isn’t what I am trying to tell you. What I am trying to tell you is that “Subject S is suffering.” is intrinsically bad.
That doesn’t mean that preventing X is the only solution! For example X could just be a treatable phobia, so perhaps the subject S can be helped to no longer suffer due to the trigger X. Or to go darker, annihilating subject S also solves the issue. Funny how that works.
It is not X that is objectively negative, but (a hard to explain) state of the subject S, the “suffering” state (which you no doubt have experienced too, so I don’t need to attempt to describe it further I hope).
Yeah of course it doesn’t enforce any morality system, I never claimed that. If it would, then I probably wouldn’t need to explain this, now would I?
Sure, you claim “nothing objectively matters, but despite assuming that I still care about my value system, because I do!”, sounds like some major cognitive dissonance. “My” value system has none of these problems, and if you are right there is zero point in changing it anyway.
I’m not disputing that.
I understand that you are trying to tell me that.
Why is it intrinsically bad?
“Subject S is suffering” = “Subject S is experiencing a state of mind that subject S perceives negatively” (according to your definition above)
Why is that intrinsically bad?
The arguments you have made so far come across to me as something like “badness exists in person’s mind, minds are real, therefore badness objectively exists”. This is like claiming “dragons exist in person’s mind, minds are real, therefore dragons objectively exist”. It’s not a valid argument.
Only if you assume I secretly care about what matters “objectively”, in which case, sure, it would be something like cognitive dissonance.
Yes!
No! It is not like that. The state of “badness” in the mind is very real after all.
Do you also think your own consciousness isn’t real? Do you think your own qualia are not real? Are your thought patterns themselves not real? Your dragon example doesn’t apply to what I am talking about.
Imagine this scenario:
You experience extreme suffering for eternity. Everyone else is dead, you can see no evidence that you can ever escape as you continue to suffer, there is no place to escape to. You can’t even commit suicide if want to. According to your value system this is all incredibly bad, subjectively.
But you say objectively it is not bad, cool.
I on the other hand say that this scenario objectively is worse than nothingness would be, because there is an infinitely suffering subject, and suffering is the very definition of “objective”/”intrinsic” bad. This definition stands above any particular subject, because it can apply to every conceivable subject, making it “objective”. Something like “What if the subject likes to suffer?” means the subject doesn’t actually suffer; when I say “suffering” I mean a state the subject doesn’t want to be in.
Now...
...the cognitive dissonance is that you simultaneously think that everything is objectively absolutely meaningless/neutral (not good or bad), yet somehow still subjectively meaningful (good or bad). That doesn’t even make sense. The only way it could sort of make sense would be if there were no emergent phenomena such as consciousness in reality, so if everyone were a p-zombie. I assume you are not a p-zombie, so you should be able to verify that consciousness is in fact the most “real” thing you can possibly observe.
And I will reiterate one important point once more, the one that you cannot deny even if you keep your belief:
The argument “There is no objective bad/good within reality! So everything is objectively equally irrelevant!” renders itself immediately impotent. It admits that it itself cannot objectively matter if it is correct. It truly is a non-starter, a completely self-defeating argument.
It is a bit like some run-of-the-mill belief in some God™ that is supposedly both totally benevolent and omnipotent (and omniscient), despite all the suffering, a paradoxical idea broken from the start.
The unfortunate truth is that there can be negative “meaning”/states within reality, not wanting to believe it doesn’t change it.
No it isn’t! It literally is not defined this way.
suffering is “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.”
Please, stop making things up.
If you want very badly for your morals to be objectively true, sure, you can make up whatever you want.
You are not going to able to convince me of it, because your arguments are flawed.
I have no desire to spend any more time on this conversation.
You know what, I think you are right that there is one major flaw I continued to make here and elsewhere!
That flaw being the usage of the very word “objective”, which I didn’t use with the probably common meaning, so I really should have questioned what each of us even understands as “objective” in the first place. My bad!
The following should be closer to what I actually meant to claim:
One can generalize subjective “pleasure” and “suffering” (or perhaps “value” if you prefer) across all realistically possible subjects (or value systems). Based thereon one can derive this “one true value system” that considers all possible value systems within it.
Our disagreement may still remain unresolved by this attempted clarification of course, if I didn’t misunderstand your position completely, but at least I can avoid this particular mistake in the future.