Draw a circle around your entire series of selves, and call that “me”. I think this fits the human notion of identity a lot better than trying to draw a circle about the infinitesimally-existing “present self”. Treating this “me” as a single entity, it’s suddenly very clear how it could act to benefit itself (again, unlike the “present self”, which can’t do anything to change its state). I think this is a much better first approximation of selfish motivations.
Now you can ask whether this this entity should pursue those selfish motivations, or help other such entities instead. All of a sudden we are asking a real question. This is a good sign! Altruism is complicated. If we make a definition that makes us go “What is this thing you call love” in a deep alien voice, maybe that’s not the best approach to take. Because sure, our perspective can be flawed. But I can’t imagine getting an answer to a problem from a perspective that can’t even understand the problem.
Draw a circle around your entire series of selves, and call that “me”. I think this fits the human notion of identity a lot better than trying to draw a circle about the infinitesimally-existing “present self”. Treating this “me” as a single entity, it’s suddenly very clear how it could act to benefit itself (again, unlike the “present self”, which can’t do anything to change its state). I think this is a much better first approximation of selfish motivations.
Now you can ask whether this this entity should pursue those selfish motivations, or help other such entities instead. All of a sudden we are asking a real question. This is a good sign! Altruism is complicated. If we make a definition that makes us go “What is this thing you call love” in a deep alien voice, maybe that’s not the best approach to take. Because sure, our perspective can be flawed. But I can’t imagine getting an answer to a problem from a perspective that can’t even understand the problem.