Following the physiological limit argument, I renew my objection of 2) as being below the pain threshold.
I agree that dust specks are not ignorable disutility, but the linearity objection applies to this too—one dust spec is very different from a dust storm. I find this example instructive, because while a storm is comprised of many specs, clearly the relationship is not simply the sum of all the specs.
Then I agree with you, certain phenomena present characteristics that emerge only from the interactions of their parts.
I tried to express a similar concept when I wrote: “All this things are valuable but only together they make something qualitatively more important, which is often called human flourishing or Eudaimonia.
Similarly only if pain is combined with frustration, fear, desperation, panic, etc. it becomes something qualitatively worst such as agony.”
I would like to ask you a question (because I became curious about people’s opinion on the subject after I read theseposts): do you think that humans are, or at least should be utility maximizer when pursuing their goals? (I think that we should be utility maximizer when pursuing the resources to reach our goals, but I wonder if people decision process is too incoherent to be expressed as a function)
At first I was tempted to answer yes, but then I reconsidered. It would be more accurate to say I believe humans should consider utility maximizing strategies when pursuing their goals; I don’t just say ‘be a utility maximizer’ because we have multiple goals, and we are notoriously terrible at considering multiple goals at once.
I am comfortable flatly asserting that people’s decision processes are too incoherent to be expressed as a function, at least with respect to utility. If you take a look at the Functional Decision Theory paper, you will see that the latest development in decisionmaking is to imagine a function for your decisions and then behave as if you were implementing it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060
To better express my argument I could use this analogy.
Pain can be seen as a poison: people would prefer to avoid it altogether. However it is really dangerous only when it reaches a certain concentration and causes long term damages that really impairs people ability to experience a worthy, or at least bearable, life (which is probably the first goal of most people).
I too have reached the conclusion that people goals are too numerous, mutable, and nebulous to be expressed by a function; and even if I am wrong, probably the resulting function will be too complex to be applied by humans, at least in their everyday choices.
On the other hand, utility functions surely are useful to maximize our resources and efficiency. So they can be used as tools to reach our goals.
Following the physiological limit argument, I renew my objection of 2) as being below the pain threshold.
I agree that dust specks are not ignorable disutility, but the linearity objection applies to this too—one dust spec is very different from a dust storm. I find this example instructive, because while a storm is comprised of many specs, clearly the relationship is not simply the sum of all the specs.
Then I agree with you, certain phenomena present characteristics that emerge only from the interactions of their parts.
I tried to express a similar concept when I wrote: “All this things are valuable but only together they make something qualitatively more important, which is often called human flourishing or Eudaimonia.
Similarly only if pain is combined with frustration, fear, desperation, panic, etc. it becomes something qualitatively worst such as agony.”
I would like to ask you a question (because I became curious about people’s opinion on the subject after I read these posts): do you think that humans are, or at least should be utility maximizer when pursuing their goals? (I think that we should be utility maximizer when pursuing the resources to reach our goals, but I wonder if people decision process is too incoherent to be expressed as a function)
At first I was tempted to answer yes, but then I reconsidered. It would be more accurate to say I believe humans should consider utility maximizing strategies when pursuing their goals; I don’t just say ‘be a utility maximizer’ because we have multiple goals, and we are notoriously terrible at considering multiple goals at once.
I am comfortable flatly asserting that people’s decision processes are too incoherent to be expressed as a function, at least with respect to utility. If you take a look at the Functional Decision Theory paper, you will see that the latest development in decisionmaking is to imagine a function for your decisions and then behave as if you were implementing it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05060
Thanks for the article.
To better express my argument I could use this analogy.
Pain can be seen as a poison: people would prefer to avoid it altogether. However it is really dangerous only when it reaches a certain concentration and causes long term damages that really impairs people ability to experience a worthy, or at least bearable, life (which is probably the first goal of most people).
I too have reached the conclusion that people goals are too numerous, mutable, and nebulous to be expressed by a function; and even if I am wrong, probably the resulting function will be too complex to be applied by humans, at least in their everyday choices.
On the other hand, utility functions surely are useful to maximize our resources and efficiency. So they can be used as tools to reach our goals.