> No.  First, I don't agree that the real question is what the utility 
> function is or should be.  The real question is whether the measure, M, is 
> conserved or whether it decreases.  It's just that a lot of people don't 
> understand what that means.

I agree that a lot of people don't understand what that means, and I 
certainly appreciate your effort to educate them. But it seems to me that 
once someone does understand that issue, it's not assured that they'll fall 
into the U=M*Q camp automatically.

> The next point is that while U=M*Q is perfectly well defined, U=Q is not, 
> and I don't know what you mean by it.
>
> OK, you might ask "huh?" when I say that.  What I mean is that M*Q is just 
> a caricature of a utility function but should obviously be generalized to 
> the case of multiple types of observations by using Sum_i M_i Q_i.

U=Q would be generalized to (Sum_i M_i Q_i) / (Sum_i M_i). This seems just 
as well defined as Sum_i M_i Q_i. You objected that "personal identity is 
not well-defined" but don't you need to define personal identity to compute 
Sum_i M_i Q_i as well, in order to determine which i to sum over?

BTW, I note that there seems to be a parallel between this debate, and the 
one between average and total utilitarianism.
 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to