PhilGoetz comments on Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It) - Less Wrong

32 Post author: ciphergoth 30 October 2010 09:31AM

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

Comments (432)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 November 2010 03:57:23PM -1 points [-]

No; you are invoking the theory of evolution to give that credibility. Even post-Darwin, most people don't believe this is true. (Remember the Star Trek episode where Spock deduced something about a chess-playing computer, because "the computer could not play chess better than its programmer"?)

The religious advocates of Design explicitly denied this possibility; thus, their design story can't invoke it.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 07 November 2010 03:58:41PM 0 points [-]

No; you are invoking the theory of evolution to give that credibility.

Incidentally, theory of evolution is true.

Comment author: Perplexed 07 November 2010 04:17:14PM -2 points [-]

I believe his point to be that an argument, to be effective, must be convincing to people who are not already convinced. Your argument offered the fact that evolution can design things more complicated than itself as an example with which to counter an anti-evolutionist argument. It therefore succeeds in convincing no one who was not already convinced.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 November 2010 04:35:45PM 0 points [-]

It therefore succeeds in convincing no one who was not already convinced.

It would, however, lead them to disagree for slightly different reasons.

Comment author: Perplexed 07 November 2010 04:52:26PM 0 points [-]

I don't understand your point.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 November 2010 02:13:27PM *  1 point [-]

It is not useless to demonstrate that you do not accept a premise rather than (as assumed) being unable see the obvious logical consequences of said premise. It would lead them to disagree for slightly different reasons. If any part of such conversation is about sharing understanding and seeking to communicate information then Vladmir's comment is, in fact, rather useful.

(No, it will not convince anyone who wasn't already convinced. But that is because people are just not convinced about religion by argument ever.)

Comment author: XiXiDu 13 November 2010 03:58:43PM *  1 point [-]

But that is because people are just not convinced about religion by argument ever.

"Believing this statement will make you happier."  -- Ryan Lortie

That's religion. A fairly good argument.

;-)