5 ms·

Under rational thought it's generally considered that the operator of said rational thought should, all things equal, try to live forever. It does not say anyth

by Vecr 2y ago

Under rational thought it's generally considered that the operator of said rational thought should, all things equal, try to live forever. It does not say anything else about other people.

Vecr 2y ago
Can someone explain what I said incorrectly? Assuming you can either be killed by someone else, be killed in an accident, or commit suicide, the rationality of living forever appears correct. Avoiding being killed by someone else is generally rational, because they probably don't have your best interests in mind, demonstrated by them trying to kill you. Being killed in an accident won't help anyone. That leaves suicide, and I'm not sure who says suicide is generally rational. I can think that if you are going to be tortured to give up the secret to destroying the world it might be rational, but that's not "with all else equal" and is not a generally common situation. Otherwise, it comes down to the simple math of "the next number" or the "successor" function, where applying the function "wanting more to be alive tomorrow than dead tomorrow" to the current day, applying the successor function, then repeating, ends up with an outcome of "infinity".
wizzwizz4 2y ago
Rational thought of the 18th century, maybe. David Hume thoroughly refuted the notion that the study of "is" could lead to an "ought". Immanuel Kant recovered the idea that we should be good to each other, but only by assuming that we should want good for ourselves. No system of rationality can tell you what to want, in a vacuum. (Computers don't, in general, want anything, and _won't_ until we tell them to.) The only people who believe that self-interested behaviour is inherently rational are Randian Objectivists, but that philosophy's total nonsense (barely a "philosophy").
- Vecr 2y ago
  Have you read AI Drives by S. M. Omohundro? I think it's quite commonly known. The theories that came from it are called "instrumental convergence".
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Instrumental convergence only occurs if you want something. This has nothing to do with rational thought, and everything to do with being an actor with goals in an environment.
    - Vecr 2y ago
      How is it not to do with rational thought? Presumably you're an actor in an environment with goals, goals that would presumably benefit, at least to some microscopic degree, to having someone monitor them for all eternity. That means all else being equal, you should try to live forever.
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        Is "all else being equal" a rational assumption?
        Vecr 2y ago
        "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white -- Alfred Tarski I don't know, is it? If under some conditions it's rational to try to live forever, it would be a major mistake to get yourself killed without really, really verifying your situation.
        wizzwizz4 2y ago
        For an example of a rational actor exhibiting instrumental convergence without trying to live forever, see Mr. Meeseeks from the Rick and Morty series. (I hope this counterexample will suffice. I don't know how to explain where you're going wrong without saying "read all the books I've read" – but hopefully you can figure it out yourself. If not, reading David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature might help. (Disclaimer: I generally think David Hume is so wrong as to be not worth reading.))
        Vecr 2y ago

by Vecr 2y ago

Under rational thought it's generally considered that the operator of said rational thought should, all things equal, try to live forever. It does not say anything else about other people.

Vecr 2y ago

Can someone explain what I said incorrectly? Assuming you can either be killed by someone else, be killed in an accident, or commit suicide, the rationality of living forever appears correct. Avoiding being killed by someone else is generally rational, because they probably don't have your best interests in mind, demonstrated by them trying to kill you. Being killed in an accident won't help anyone. That leaves suicide, and I'm not sure who says suicide is generally rational. I can think that if you are going to be tortured to give up the secret to destroying the world it might be rational, but that's not "with all else equal" and is not a generally common situation. Otherwise, it comes down to the simple math of "the next number" or the "successor" function, where applying the function "wanting more to be alive tomorrow than dead tomorrow" to the current day, applying the successor function, then repeating, ends up with an outcome of "infinity".

wizzwizz4 2y ago

Rational thought of the 18th century, maybe. David Hume thoroughly refuted the notion that the study of "is" could lead to an "ought". Immanuel Kant recovered the idea that we should be good to each other, but only by assuming that we should want good for ourselves. No system of rationality can tell you what to want, in a vacuum. (Computers don't, in general, want anything, and _won't_ until we tell them to.) The only people who believe that self-interested behaviour is inherently rational are Randian Objectivists, but that philosophy's total nonsense (barely a "philosophy").

Vecr 2y ago
Have you read AI Drives by S. M. Omohundro? I think it's quite commonly known. The theories that came from it are called "instrumental convergence".
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Instrumental convergence only occurs if you want something. This has nothing to do with rational thought, and everything to do with being an actor with goals in an environment.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    How is it not to do with rational thought? Presumably you're an actor in an environment with goals, goals that would presumably benefit, at least to some microscopic degree, to having someone monitor them for all eternity. That means all else being equal, you should try to live forever.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      Is "all else being equal" a rational assumption?
      - Vecr 2y ago
        "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white -- Alfred Tarski I don't know, is it? If under some conditions it's rational to try to live forever, it would be a major mistake to get yourself killed without really, really verifying your situation.
        wizzwizz4 2y ago
        For an example of a rational actor exhibiting instrumental convergence without trying to live forever, see Mr. Meeseeks from the Rick and Morty series. (I hope this counterexample will suffice. I don't know how to explain where you're going wrong without saying "read all the books I've read" – but hopefully you can figure it out yourself. If not, reading David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature might help. (Disclaimer: I generally think David Hume is so wrong as to be not worth reading.))
        Vecr 2y ago