On the one hand, it seems like we need a value/goal/desire in order for something to be “good” or “bad.” If I want a knife, then a knife is good. If I want a cup, then a knife is bad. On the other hand, why do I want a knife or a cup, or love, money, family, or in general a good life? We don’t want it because it’s supposedly good, or said to be good. We don’t want the prescribed good life. The good life is just “that which we want.”
So I claim it’s the wanting/valuing that matters most to us—that is our rock bottom terminal value. Other values (call them terminal or instrumental or a mixture) are not static but dynamic.
So, what the pebblesorters want (supposedly) is correct heaps. What I want is to value my experiences/behavior/etc...so what I see as the correct actions (and even the correct values) are dynamic.
If this is really what the pebblesorters statically want, can they be sentient? Is it possible to have a static terminal value other than valuing itself? If so, what makes it good?
It’s kind of just the effect where it’s really hard to engage with writing that has a lot of confusions/errors/disagreements in it, both in conclusions and in methods in reaching them. (From the perspective of the reader, I mean). Low value, low amount of the work you’ve done makes it worse, this post is basically a question.
I think this is mostly a meta problem, it’s not particularly about your object level. Choose your battles, etc
Thank you. I actually meant to make it a question. I think I will try to change that and see if it helps. I’m not sure I completely understand the use cases for questions vs posts.
Oh yeah, I actually missed that this is a question! But anyway, yeah, it’s not particularly good question as in, it makes a lot of tangled claims also. I don’t think changing it will help, but you can try it, I guess.
[Question] Are (sentient) pebblesorters possible?
Is a thing good because God wills it so, or does God will it so because it is good? Do we cringe at the thought of stealing from old ladies because it’s wrong, or is it wrong because we cringe at the thought?
On the one hand, it seems like we need a value/goal/desire in order for something to be “good” or “bad.” If I want a knife, then a knife is good. If I want a cup, then a knife is bad. On the other hand, why do I want a knife or a cup, or love, money, family, or in general a good life? We don’t want it because it’s supposedly good, or said to be good. We don’t want the prescribed good life. The good life is just “that which we want.”
So I claim it’s the wanting/valuing that matters most to us—that is our rock bottom terminal value. Other values (call them terminal or instrumental or a mixture) are not static but dynamic.
So, what the pebblesorters want (supposedly) is correct heaps. What I want is to value my experiences/behavior/etc...so what I see as the correct actions (and even the correct values) are dynamic.
If this is really what the pebblesorters statically want, can they be sentient? Is it possible to have a static terminal value other than valuing itself? If so, what makes it good?
I’m disappointed not that this has been downvoted, but that no one has commented to correct me.
It’s kind of just the effect where it’s really hard to engage with writing that has a lot of confusions/errors/disagreements in it, both in conclusions and in methods in reaching them. (From the perspective of the reader, I mean). Low value, low amount of the work you’ve done makes it worse, this post is basically a question.
I think this is mostly a meta problem, it’s not particularly about your object level. Choose your battles, etc
Thank you. I actually meant to make it a question. I think I will try to change that and see if it helps. I’m not sure I completely understand the use cases for questions vs posts.
Oh yeah, I actually missed that this is a question! But anyway, yeah, it’s not particularly good question as in, it makes a lot of tangled claims also. I don’t think changing it will help, but you can try it, I guess.