Poll: Is this one of your cruxes for cluelessness?
Thereās a cluster of responses to arguments for cluelessness Iāve encountered, which Iām not yet sure I understand but maybe is important. Hereās my attempted summary:[1]
Sure, maybe assigning each action a precise EV feelsarbitrary. But that feeling merely reflects the psychological difficulty of generating principled numbers, for non-ideal agents like us. Itās not a problem for the view that even non-ideal agents should, ultimately, evaluate actions as more or less rational based on precise EV.
If youāre skeptical of cluelessness, Iād find it super helpful if youād agree-vote if you agree with the above response or something very similar to it, and disagree-vote otherwise. ETA: added a poll widget below, please use that instead (thanks to Toby Tremlett for suggesting this). (Please donāt vote if you arenāt skeptical of cluelessness.) And feel free to comment with some different version of the above youād agree with, if that difference is important for you. Thanks!
Some examples of sentiments that, IIUC, this summary encapsulates (emphasis mine): * Greaves: āI think most of us feel like weāre really just making up arbitrary numbers, but thatās really uncomfortable because precisely which arbitrary numbers we make up seems to make a difference to what we ended up doing.ā See also Greavesā discussion of the ādecision discomfortā involved in complex cluelessness. * Soares: āNow, I agree that this scenario is ridiculous. And that it sucks. And I agree that picking a precise minute feels uncomfortable. And I agree that this is demanding way more precision than you are able to generate. But if you find yourself in the game, youād best pick the minute as well as you can. When the gun is pressed against your temple, you cash out your credences.ā
One of the only good scenarios that I can think of where this response to cluelessness makes sense, is if a person subscribes to moral realism. And even then, the arguments for moral uncertainty seem too compelling to me. Do you know of any person that is not skeptical of cluelessness?
My take is that, if you really try to look at it from first principles, most will arrive at the conclusion that it is not possible to calculate the EV of any action for us humans. The rest is just cope because one is not willing to give up on ones EA identity and all of the sacrifices you have done. Sunk-cost fallacy is just too big of an obstacle.
Yes, if there is a moral theory that is objectively correct, then one should in principle be able to translate that moral theory into a framework that helps us calculate EV. But since we are not omniscient, that just does seem impossible. But in combination with the principle that we canāt understand the downstream effect of our actions in the long-term, I donāt understand how somebody can be skeptical of cluelessness.
I know this comment does not directly address your initial prompt, but I thought Iād rather post it than not. Thank you for sharing!
But in combination with the principle that we canāt understand the downstream effect of our actions in the long-term, I donāt understand how somebody can be skeptical of cluelessness.
Poll: Is this one of your cruxes for cluelessness?
Thereās a cluster of responses to arguments for cluelessness Iāve encountered, which Iām not yet sure I understand but maybe is important. Hereās my attempted summary:[1]
If youāre skeptical of cluelessness, Iād find it super helpful if youād agree-vote if you agree with the above response or something very similar to it, and disagree-vote otherwise. ETA: added a poll widget below, please use that instead (thanks to Toby Tremlett for suggesting this). (Please donāt vote if you arenāt skeptical of cluelessness.) And feel free to comment with some different version of the above youād agree with, if that difference is important for you. Thanks!
Some examples of sentiments that, IIUC, this summary encapsulates (emphasis mine):
* Greaves: āI think most of us feel like weāre really just making up arbitrary numbers, but thatās really uncomfortable because precisely which arbitrary numbers we make up seems to make a difference to what we ended up doing.ā See also Greavesā discussion of the ādecision discomfortā involved in complex cluelessness.
* Soares: āNow, I agree that this scenario is ridiculous. And that it sucks. And I agree that picking a precise minute feels uncomfortable. And I agree that this is demanding way more precision than you are able to generate. But if you find yourself in the game, youād best pick the minute as well as you can. When the gun is pressed against your temple, you cash out your credences.ā
A non-trivial reason for this is that precise numbers expose ideological assumptions, and a whole of people do not like this.
Itās easy to lie with numbers, but itās even easier to lie without a number.
I understand my vote to be consistent with us never in fact reaching āprincipledā precise EV numbers though.
Is there a way to retract a vote? I accidentally voted (Iām not skeptical of cluelessness).
There should be a little x if you hover over your icon, clicking that should remove your vote.
One of the only good scenarios that I can think of where this response to cluelessness makes sense, is if a person subscribes to moral realism. And even then, the arguments for moral uncertainty seem too compelling to me. Do you know of any person that is not skeptical of cluelessness?
My take is that, if you really try to look at it from first principles, most will arrive at the conclusion that it is not possible to calculate the EV of any action for us humans. The rest is just cope because one is not willing to give up on ones EA identity and all of the sacrifices you have done. Sunk-cost fallacy is just too big of an obstacle.
Yes, if there is a moral theory that is objectively correct, then one should in principle be able to translate that moral theory into a framework that helps us calculate EV. But since we are not omniscient, that just does seem impossible. But in combination with the principle that we canāt understand the downstream effect of our actions in the long-term, I donāt understand how somebody can be skeptical of cluelessness.
I know this comment does not directly address your initial prompt, but I thought Iād rather post it than not. Thank you for sharing!
(You might find this discussion helpful.)