Jarrod Studies “Yes or No Philosophy” and “Critical Fallibilism Course Videos”

[Jarrod]

@ActiveMind

You look at how much of the ultimate value get from achieving your alternative goals and choose the ones which in the long run gives you most of the value.

Yeah, I see. You choose your subgoals by reference to some ultimate value (like long-term flourishing or happiness).

@ActiveMind

So what I want to get at here is that the sub-goals wouldn’t be mixing qualitatively different values, but they would be measured by the amount of the same ultimate value they produce.

Yeah, makes sense. I think in practice it’d be pretty hard to measure though.

How does one measure happiness points or Life Points? (Also there might be different flavors of happiness like peaceful/serene happiness versus ecstatic/manic happiness.)

I suppose one should just make the best decision given one’s current knowledge.

@ActiveMind

Elliot pointed out that the goal might not have to be maximized:

@Elliot

@ActiveMind

I realized now that if there is a single end goal then that implies we should maximize it. That’s if it’s a quantity

Not necessarily. Maybe just cross the last, best breakpoint.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. If one crosses the last, best breakpoint then there mightn’t be much point in trying to squeeze out the last few drops.

I assume this “last, best breakpoint” refers to a specific context (like one’s current daily life/routine) rather than life/the world/universe in general. If the latter, I wonder if that might contradict the idea that we’re always at the beginning of infinity.