Oh dear... such long posts that I would like to see them in hide tags... anyway:
What if Tim is a sadist and bob and sue both violence/torture haters? Then bob/sue being slapped would make Tim many times more happy than Bob and Sue together would be if tim was slapped. Hell, TIm being slapped might make everyone unhappy in this example, whereas if bob or sue is slapped: at least one person is happy now.
Now... i don't disagree with your point, all things being equal between tim, sue, and bob: it is correct. But when applied to such a small scale, it is really hard to be sure, as people are so variable.
Your next example
Is much better. As your scale increases, a mass of people usually become increasingly similar when compared to another mass of people. There are variances that can still happen, of course (ie: amazingly, you've picked the village idiot out of every town for one group and the other possesses the paragons of humanity), but these are not very likely.
If I held this attitude towards the selfish MoO AI on impossible difficulty, I would be dogpiled and annihilated every single game. So long as you are not as powerful as x-number of people combined: you have to care about what x-number of people think. If you don't, then you will likely find yourself no longer in a position where any of those people even care about what you think anymore.
Or rather, more deeply satisfy the same number of individuals.
Presuming a relatively similar group of people, yes. I'll consider this contention plenty understood by now, and see no reason to say it after this point ^_^
And not to mention that we can then apply this data to very good effect in almost every case.
That's an interesting idea... I suppose it is a specific type of happiness in that case.
So... is hell a destination one might actually arrive at when they 'die'?
It's the slow death that causes more unhappiness. Besides, the person who died of their olive allergy is a fucking moron for eating the olives. In this day and age, if you are capable of making a conscious decision to do something retarded, and you have nobody there to hold your hand... and you actually make that decision: you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Infact... it wasn't that the olives were introduced that caused the unhappiness (past that small portion of cause/responsibility we all have for everything)... it was the olive-eater's incomparable level of stupidity that caused any unhappiness in this system, so i'm going to go right out and call your 'scenario' and it's conclusion: false.
I have to pick my sister up (she's fat, that wont be easy ), post more when i return.
Void Wrote:Thirdly, It's rather easy to see that you can calculate happiness in simple scenarios (how easy this is in the real world is a different issue) example: Bob, Tim and Sue are in a room, Bob and Sue are good friends, they both hate Tim, in return Tim hates them both equally, one of these people are going to be slapped, If Bob was slapped him and Sue are going to be unhappy, Tim is going to be happy, If Sue is slapped her and bob will be unhappy and Tim will be happy, If Tim is slapped both Bob and Sue will be happy but Tim will be unhappy - Which scenario is going to cause the most happiness?
What if Tim is a sadist and bob and sue both violence/torture haters? Then bob/sue being slapped would make Tim many times more happy than Bob and Sue together would be if tim was slapped. Hell, TIm being slapped might make everyone unhappy in this example, whereas if bob or sue is slapped: at least one person is happy now.
Now... i don't disagree with your point, all things being equal between tim, sue, and bob: it is correct. But when applied to such a small scale, it is really hard to be sure, as people are so variable.
Your next example
void Wrote:<snip>80% like olives/hate yogurt and 20% like yogurt/hate olives<snip> You have two types of food you can give them, olives and yoghurt, you are only allowed to introduce 1 type of food into the room, which one will increase happiness for the most people? For this evaluation at which point did we consider these people to be a single entity?
Is much better. As your scale increases, a mass of people usually become increasingly similar when compared to another mass of people. There are variances that can still happen, of course (ie: amazingly, you've picked the village idiot out of every town for one group and the other possesses the paragons of humanity), but these are not very likely.
Doubtie Wrote:I maintain that since everyone has separate consciousnesses then it makes no sense to aggregate utility. Such a calculation is nonsensical and inaccurate.
If I held this attitude towards the selfish MoO AI on impossible difficulty, I would be dogpiled and annihilated every single game. So long as you are not as powerful as x-number of people combined: you have to care about what x-number of people think. If you don't, then you will likely find yourself no longer in a position where any of those people even care about what you think anymore.
Void Wrote:Agreed, and in a circumstance where each person experiences h1 towards P is not the same as some people experiencing h1 towards p while an equal amount of people experience h2 towards P, in that circumstance the people who experience h2 towards P experience more happiness as a group, you satisfy MORE individuals.
Or rather, more deeply satisfy the same number of individuals.
Void Wrote:Taking action P (pinprick) with x (severity) 1 towards a population of 10,000 causes more pain than taking P*X1 towards 5,000 people, not towards the individual, but in terms of the number of people experiencing P*X1.
If you had to inflict P*X1 towards either a group of 10,000 or 5,000 and wanted to know which choice would cause the least suffering (S) you can easily determine the answer. P*X1*10,000 = S10,000 vs P*X1*5,000 = S5,000, there are objectively more suffering experiences in the former.
Presuming a relatively similar group of people, yes. I'll consider this contention plenty understood by now, and see no reason to say it after this point ^_^
Void Wrote:It IS NOT a false analogy, Happiness is an emergent property of consciousness and so is like and dislike! If you think you can't determine which action makes the most people happy because they are emergent properties of consciousness then you should also believe that we cannot make the same claims about which food the most people like, it is EXACTLY the same kind of evaluation.
And not to mention that we can then apply this data to very good effect in almost every case.
Void Wrote:Pleasure IS happiness, if you can practically determine which action will cause the most pleasure you can ALSO determine which action causes the most happiness.
That's an interesting idea... I suppose it is a specific type of happiness in that case.
Dobtie Wrote:it is irrelevant to the matter of aggregating theri happinesses. Let's say if we introduce the olives it will make one person with an olive allergy die very quickly guaranteed. Then it doesn't matter if there were an infinite amount of people who mildly disliked the yoghurts,Actually, death is very nice. You surely know by now how stressful life can be... death is essentially no loss or gain in terms of that person's pleasure, as death introduces nothingness (not an infinite amount of either... it is measurably finite: zero either way). If hell wasn't only literary, you would then have a point.
So... is hell a destination one might actually arrive at when they 'die'?
It's the slow death that causes more unhappiness. Besides, the person who died of their olive allergy is a fucking moron for eating the olives. In this day and age, if you are capable of making a conscious decision to do something retarded, and you have nobody there to hold your hand... and you actually make that decision: you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Infact... it wasn't that the olives were introduced that caused the unhappiness (past that small portion of cause/responsibility we all have for everything)... it was the olive-eater's incomparable level of stupidity that caused any unhappiness in this system, so i'm going to go right out and call your 'scenario' and it's conclusion: false.
I have to pick my sister up (she's fat, that wont be easy ), post more when i return.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day