From: Michael Roy Ames (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 10:09:59 MDT
> I'm not opposing a person's decisions with the
> decisions of an external observer. I'm opposing
> the person's present decisions with her own future
> ones. When you talk about accepting the person's
> own decisions you seem to ignore that those
> decisions involve a whole *range* of preferences
> -- a temporal range which projects into the
> future. If the decision the person takes in the
> present contradicts the decision the person will
> take in the future, you are not "accepting" the
> person's decision when you accept her present one.
> ***On the contrary, you are arbitrarily giving
> absolute importance to a single point in the
> segment that represents the temporal dimension of
> the person's interests (= goal system/etc.).***
In reference to my emphasis ***, yes! Absolute importance! This is the
crux of the matter.
You write: "If the decision the person takes in the present contradicts the
decision the person will take in the future, you are not "accepting" the
person's decision when you accept her present one." This is incoherent.
You are redefining what a decision is. A decision happens at a point in
time, it is not spread-out over a range of times. It would make sense if
you were inventing a new concept: Pablo-decision perhaps?
The decision a person would make if we could perfectly simulate that
person's mind and goal system and the entire universe affecting that person
for a given temporal range and reach the best possible decision according to
that person's goal system.
We are beings who exist over a time range. But at any given point in our
lives we only have access to the events that have happened up until that
point. A biological human's decision is an action that happens at a point
Michael Roy Ames
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT