4 ms·
I know what you think a "top goal" is and that somehow it is different from a "sub goal". What I'm saying is that there are only goals, they are all the same an
by redial 10y ago
I know what you think a "top goal" is and that somehow it is different from a "sub goal". What I'm saying is that there are only goals, they are all the same and you stop at some point only because you decided to.
Why can't I try to win a game just to win it? the answer is of course I can. So at that moment has the goal changed its nature? of course not.
This is the same argument as with "micro" and "macro" evolution. There are no two different evolutions, there is just evolution.
- icebraining 10y agoFine; the distinction is unimportant anyway. How do you empirically chose a moral goal? You can choose to win a game just to win it. What I don't see is how you can empirically choose to win a game just to win it.
- redial 10y agoYou do it the same way you decide between everything else, you ask a question, collect the data, and then make your decision. 'Should I win the game? every time I don't win I feel bad, but when I win I feel good. I choose to win the game. My objective is just to win the game.'
- icebraining 10y agoAh, but your monologue shows that your goal of winning the game is actually evaluated relatively to another goal, of feeling good. How did you empirically get to that goal?