> On 10/26/07, Stefan Pernar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My one sentence summary of CEV is: "What would a better me/humanity > want?" > > Is that in line with your understanding?
No... I'm not sure I fully grok Eliezer's intentions/ideas, but I will summarize here the current idea I have of CEV.. which is quite different than yours, and not as oversimplified. My understanding is that it's more like this (taking some liberties) X0 = me Y0 = what X0 thinks is good for the world X1 = what X0 wants to be Y1 = what X1 would think is good for the world X2 = what X1 would want to be Y2 = what X2 would think is good for the world. ... The only circularity here is in the sense of convergence-to-a-fixed-point, i.e. the series may tend gradually (or quickly) toward X = what X wants to be Y = what X thinks is good for the world In fact some people may already be exactly at this fixed point, i.e. they may be exactly what they want to be already... For them, we'd have X1=X0 and Y1=Y0 You can sensibly argue that CEV is poorly-defined, or that it's not likely to converge to anything given a normal human as an initial condition, or that it is likely to converge to totally different things for different sorts of people, giving no clear message... But I don't think you can argue it's circular... -- Ben G ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=57805178-422a7f
