Annoyance comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong

17 [deleted] 15 June 2009 07:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (198)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Annoyance 18 June 2009 02:01:50PM -1 points [-]

It is rational to weigh other people's opinions.

Logical fallacy: stating a contingent proposition as a universal principle.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 18 June 2009 02:26:12PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Annoyance 18 June 2009 02:48:22PM -1 points [-]

Sometimes the conversation shouldn't be permitted to continue.

Are we looking to facilitate social interaction, or use rational argument to discover truth? The two are often, even usually, incompatible.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 18 June 2009 02:50:55PM 0 points [-]

An interesting claim, please explain why you believe this to be true?

Comment author: Annoyance 18 June 2009 03:02:41PM 1 point [-]

The two are compatible only when the preferred social feedback standards match the standards of rational thought. All other social standards necessarily come into conflict. Thus, all else being equal, a randomly-chosen standard is quite unlikely to be compatible with rationality.

In actual groups, the standards aren't chosen randomly. But humans being what they are, they usually involve primate social dynamics and associational reasoning, neither of which lend themselves to the search for truth. Generally they involve social/political 'games' and power struggles.