Transformative Experience (2/2) – Is Parenthood Transformative? + Analysis

Abstract: This video continues my analysis of L.A. Paul’s account of Transformative Experience. In it I argue i) that Paul is correct in saying that Parenting is transformative, however does not explain why certain aspects of Parenting would be transformative, leaving certain edge cases unresolved, e.g. is conceiving a child but giving it away transformative? ii) that neither her authenticity solution nor her discovery solution/principle adequately solve the issues raised in the first video, i.e. that an Epistemic/Personally transformative experience cannot be resolved under normative decision theory, and finally I argue iii) that she does not sufficiently justify why an experience must be both Epistemically as well as Personally transformative to be Transformative overall.

I end by suggesting a further route of study on the idea of Transformative Experiences: Do Children undergo transformative experiences by coming into the world? If so, under what conditions are we justified in imposing transformative experiences on others? A similar question: if we were a vampire and had the option to make someone else a vampire without their consent (and we were physically unable to hear/not hear their consent for whatever reason), are we justified in converting them to vampirism? Does her authenticity solution work here, when a decision to undergo a Transformative Experience involves a third party?

First Video: Transformative Experiences (1/2)

Why I am skeptical about AI-risk research – FEB 22

I don’t have stable and precise views on the value of AI-risk research. I am doing EA’s AGI Safety Fundamentals Program to help me clarify some of my thoughts, and I will be trying to enter the program with an open mind. This late-evening blog post is me trying to understand what I am confused and hesitant about. I will write another blog post at the end of the course.

I have reservations in two different ways:

1. Whether we can predict AI risks.
   1. Failure of past predictions.
   2. Genuine uncertainty on the nature of the risk.

2. Whether our research will actually be useful.

Book Review: “Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy” by Bernard Williams

Note: This review focuses primarily on Chapter 8:”Knowledge, Science, and Convergence” – described in the commentary at the back as the “Heart of the Book”.

I first encountered Bernard Williams (1929 – 2003) in his interviews with the late Bryan Magee, in a rare kind of TV show – what would now be called a Podcast – featuring not bald and roided men debating COVID19 policies, nor scientific stories with bouncy sound effects and meditation adverts, but rather a pair of prestigious people talking plain philosophy sitting on a couch. It is a great format for a TV show that’s unfortunately never been copied – at least not with the grace and delicacy with which Magee has laid out his interviews, and certainly not with the same caliber of philosophers with which Magee had the luck to interview (From AJ Ayer, to Iris Murdoch, to John Searle to Quine, there is certainly a rich history here from the heyday of Analytic philosophy). Brain in a Vat might be the closest podcast at least in the range of philosophers, but in style there is no doubt that Bryan Magee’s interviews have more aura and charm.

The primary goal of Bernard William’s magnum opus Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (1985) is to locate an answer to “the Socratic question”: “How one ought to live”.

Bernard Williams takes us on a whirlwind tour of pretty much every major ethical and meta-ethical theory in his day, and shows how they all fail. He even disputes that the ethical can be properly distinguished from the meta-ethical, so you could say that he had a kind of meta-meta-ethical skepticism.

His arguments are technical and varied, such that every theory (e.g. Utilitarianism, Egoism, Kantianism, etc.) fails not for any singular reason, but rather every theory fails on its own accord.

In this review I will be focusing on chapter 8, what was described as “The Heart of the Book” by Adrian Moore in his commentary at the back of my copy of the text. I will first i) distinguish between thick and thin concepts, then ii) between morality and ethics, and lastly iii) outline William’s provoking core argument in Chapter 8 – that moral reflection causes us to lose knowledge.

Transformative Experience (1/2) – Durians and Authenticity

Abstract: This video explores L.A. Paul’s account of Transformative Experience and summarises both her position on what Transformative Experiences are, as well as how one should respond to them.

Transformative Experiences are, according to Paul, experiences which are both Epistemically Transformative and Personally Transformative. Having a child, choosing a new career, or opting for Cochlear Implants are examples of transformative experiences. Eating a durian for the first time, while epistemically transformative, is not personally transformative for Paul, so is not a transformative experience – although she would agree that it might be a transformative experience if it is the first fruit you have ever eaten.

When choosing to undergo Transformative Experiences, Paul rejects the notion of “Rational Choice” under ordinary “Normative Decision Theory” – i.e. using a basic Expected Utility Calculation weighing the Pros and Cons. Such a decision cannot be made rationally, says Paul, because the self before the choice and the self after the choice will be different – i.e. they will both have different epistemic understandings of the situation, as well as different values. This is what it means to undergo a Transformative Experience. For Paul, the decision must instead be made Authentically. What this means, is described in the video.

It is the first video in a two part series.

The Bottom of Ethics – How Wittgenstein taught me to stop worrying and love the bomb

I didn’t get much from Thomas Ligotti’s longwinded, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race apart from the idea that:

“Optimists will think life is worth starting no matter how bad things get, and Pessimists will think life is not worth starting no matter how good things get.“

This is my paraphrase of what he actually said, and I find a lot of depth in the above sentiment.

Optimists: “Even if I will live a life of suffering, it’s good that I was born!”.

Pessimists: “Even if I live a life of bliss, it’s bad that I was born!”

I think about the above idea a lot – If the world really is just full of Optimists and Pessimists, doesn’t that mean we will always talk past each other?

Optimists: Listen to this beautiful song. Surely, it must have been worth coming into the world?

Pessimists: I've heard that song already, and I'm still a Pessimist - But look at this video of a lion eating a deer, surely it is not worth coming into the world?

Optimist: I've seen this video before - and the joys of life still overcome the risks. I mean look at this photo of my children and my partner walking on the beach, how can you think life is not worth starting?

Pessimist: I also have a partner and kids, parenting can be very rewarding. Nevertheless I am still a Pessimist -  I went through Depression once and found the experience so miserable that I would not wish it upon anyone. How can you say that life is worth starting given this possibility?

Optimist: I feel for you Pessimist, as I too also went through depression and found it absolutely miserable. Nevertheless, you must admit that the grass is greener on the other side. I mean, look at the bigger - or rather the smaller - picture: the delicious tea, the beautiful birds, the majestic trees. There is beauty in all this.

Pessimist: Yes, these are beautiful and there are many worthwhile experiences in life, nevertheless when it comes to --

Ask yourself – What’s the difference between a disagreement that’s hard to resolve, and one that’s irresolvable?