I am not familiar with this particular domain, although I know what utilons are, so uh… if this was meant for me, this was not immediately convincing? Or elucidating??
Play by play of my gut reactions: (this is for the sake of imagining what strangers might think, not meant to be taken as serious criticism)
“Negative utilitarians:” okay this is some kinda obscure philosophy thing, isn’t it. I’d probably skip it if this were interrupting my fun tiktok videos, but I want to know what an EA tiktok looks like. :\
“Graph that doesn’t illustrate anything I understand immediately” okay, this is about math, hopefully that’s all I need to get. :\
“1 unit of suffering , 1 unit of happiness” okay, simple, cool, lets figure things out! :D
1″ unit of suffering per 2 units of happiness” uh kinda weird, but okay. Where does this lead. :)
“elementary particles” ??? o_0
“elementary particles, happy brain, sad brain, elementary particles, therefore measure” NO. This is dumb and jargon obfuscation of nonsense. D<
Afterwards: (still stream-of-conscious reaction) Why does introducing “elementary particles” have anything to do with measuring the amount of happiness and suffering? That doesn’t solve anything! Why are we trying to use the same set of particles to create a happy brain and a sad brain? Are you saying that if it takes more particles to make a happy brain then its worth more sad brains? Isn’t it the arrangement that matters? What? What??? >:/
I assume there is a lot more to what you are getting at and that you have a very good theory here! But this part didn’t capture the vital bit I need to understand the basic concept and why it works. (Or clearly understand what you are driving at.) I would say it needs some rephrasing, maybe the context doesn’t matter as much to stating your concept? “Happiness is hard to measure” might be enough?
I am not familiar with this particular domain, although I know what utilons are, so uh… if this was meant for me, this was not immediately convincing? Or elucidating??
Play by play of my gut reactions: (this is for the sake of imagining what strangers might think, not meant to be taken as serious criticism)
“Negative utilitarians:” okay this is some kinda obscure philosophy thing, isn’t it. I’d probably skip it if this were interrupting my fun tiktok videos, but I want to know what an EA tiktok looks like.
:\
“Graph that doesn’t illustrate anything I understand immediately” okay, this is about math, hopefully that’s all I need to get.
:\
“1 unit of suffering , 1 unit of happiness” okay, simple, cool, lets figure things out!
:D
1″ unit of suffering per 2 units of happiness” uh kinda weird, but okay. Where does this lead.
:)
“elementary particles” ???
o_0
“elementary particles, happy brain, sad brain, elementary particles, therefore measure” NO. This is dumb and jargon obfuscation of nonsense.
D<
Afterwards: (still stream-of-conscious reaction) Why does introducing “elementary particles” have anything to do with measuring the amount of happiness and suffering? That doesn’t solve anything! Why are we trying to use the same set of particles to create a happy brain and a sad brain? Are you saying that if it takes more particles to make a happy brain then its worth more sad brains? Isn’t it the arrangement that matters? What? What???
>:/
I assume there is a lot more to what you are getting at and that you have a very good theory here! But this part didn’t capture the vital bit I need to understand the basic concept and why it works. (Or clearly understand what you are driving at.) I would say it needs some rephrasing, maybe the context doesn’t matter as much to stating your concept? “Happiness is hard to measure” might be enough?
Thanks! I appreciate the detailed feedback.