I still perhaps feel unsure what you mean by āunbridgeable disagreementā, and how weād know that disagreements we observe are indeed unbridgeable rather than things that might go away given more idealisation or reflection or the like. (Iām also not saying Iām confident the disagreements we observe will go away with further idealisation etc.) But maybe future posts will address that.
And in relation to your last sentence, a quick thought in that perhaps, given more idealisation or reflection or the like, people would switch to answering the same questions, paying attention to the same evaluation criteria, etc. (But again, maybe future posts will address that.)
And yes, I didnāt mean to imply you had made arguments directly about coherent extrapolated volition yetāI just highlighted that as one reason why the lack of maximally nuanced and versatile reasons to date seems potentially important.
Ok, that helps me see what you meant.
I still perhaps feel unsure what you mean by āunbridgeable disagreementā, and how weād know that disagreements we observe are indeed unbridgeable rather than things that might go away given more idealisation or reflection or the like. (Iām also not saying Iām confident the disagreements we observe will go away with further idealisation etc.) But maybe future posts will address that.
And in relation to your last sentence, a quick thought in that perhaps, given more idealisation or reflection or the like, people would switch to answering the same questions, paying attention to the same evaluation criteria, etc. (But again, maybe future posts will address that.)
And yes, I didnāt mean to imply you had made arguments directly about coherent extrapolated volition yetāI just highlighted that as one reason why the lack of maximally nuanced and versatile reasons to date seems potentially important.