You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

timtyler comments on Stanovich, 'The Robot's Rebellion' (mini-review) - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: lukeprog 16 November 2011 05:07AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (38)
Tags: review

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: timtyler 16 November 2011 12:27:58PM *  5 points [-]

Here is Blackmore's review - which is a bit negative regarding the primary theme.

I am 180 degrees opposed to Stanovich's theme as well. Promote genes if you like, or memes - if you really think that they represent you - but: the Dawkins vehicle? Er, WTF? As an optimisation target that is totally unbiological and makes no sense at all. The desires of vehicles are the products of genes, memes, pathogens, the environment, chance, decay and manipulation by others. That's quite a messy object to identify with - and I am sceptical about whether it is a sensible thing to aspire to. Sorry, Keith!

See also: Times H.E. review: "Break the shackles of genes and memes and escape to utopia of rationality".

Comment author: jhuffman 16 November 2011 09:29:26PM 0 points [-]

Thank's for linking Susan's review, I think it was a very good analysis. She seems to be saying that vehicle's "desires" are as illusory as the soul. Its impossible to talk about what "the vehicle" wants.

Comment author: timtyler 16 November 2011 10:13:24PM *  0 points [-]

She seems to be saying that vehicle's "desires" are as illusory as the soul. Its impossible to talk about what "the vehicle" wants.

I'm not sure about that. Sue says:

And then there is us, the vehicle, the robot, that has its own agenda to survive and be happy and fulfilled.

...which seems like a list of what vehicles want. Vehicles "want" one thing, genes want something else, and memes want something else again. One of the main issues is: which wants are desirable - from the perspective of individuals, and from the perspective of society.

Stanovich's position seems to be that the individual wants what the vehicle wants - since the individual is the vehicle.

Sue goes on to say:

His conclusion seems to be that, without the false notion of self, there are only replicators and vehicles in the game. The robot’s rebellion means the latter using its powers of reason to rebel against the former. But why?

By contrast, Sue then claims there are many optimisation targets one might side with - the good of the ecosystem, for example.

Comment author: jhuffman 17 November 2011 02:29:22PM 0 points [-]

She's summarizing Stanovich's position there. She also says this:

I agree with the analysis of genes, memes and vehicles; I agree that there is no neutral standpoint from which to evaluate memes; I agree that the inner self or soul is a myth. But why then should I (whatever that is) side with the vehicle?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit