Re: Bounded utility (was Re: Pascal's Button)

From: Nick Tarleton (
Date: Tue Apr 08 2008 - 06:29:45 MDT

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Tim Freeman <> wrote:
> From: "Nick Tarleton" <>
> >If the Friendly utility function is bounded, that would very likely
> >solve the problem. This violently disagrees with my ethical intuition,
> >but I now take it much more seriously than I did before.
> The chunk of my brain that represents how good I think something is
> has a finite size, and I suspect the utility is represented in there
> more-or-less in unary. So a bounded utility function feels natural to
> me.
> Can you explain why it feels wrong to you?

Utility is not just how good something feels, it's how good I
rationally judge something to be; it seems like I currently rationally
judge 2*N deaths (say) to be twice as bad as N deaths for all N, and I
would choose to modify myself to actually *feel* that difference and
eliminate scope insensitivity ( ).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT