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.

Will_Newsome comments on Muehlhauser-Goertzel Dialogue, Part 1 - Less Wrong Discussion

28 Post author: lukeprog 16 March 2012 05:12PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (161)
Tags: rationality singularity

Comments (161)

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

Comment author: Will_Newsome 19 March 2012 04:31:35AM *  -1 points [-]

In the public mind Rousseau and Marx and their intellectual progeny are generally seen as cosmically connected/intelligent/progressive, right? Maybe overzealous, but their hearts were in the right place. If so that would support the intelligence=goodness claim. If the Enlightenment is good by the lights of the public, then the uFAI-Antichrist is good by the lights of the public. [Removed section supporting this claim.] And who are we to disagree with the dead, the sheep and the shepherds?

(ETA: Contrarian terminology aside, the claim looks absurd without its supporting arguments... ugh.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 March 2012 05:17:53AM 2 points [-]

In the public mind Rousseau and Marx and their intellectual progeny are generally seen as cosmically connected/intelligent/progressive, right?

Depends on which subset of the public we're talking about.

Maybe overzealous, but their hearts were in the right place. If so that would support the intelligence=goodness claim.

I'm confused, is this an appeal to popular opinion?

If the Enlightenment is good by the lights of the public, then the uFAI-Antichrist is good by the lights of the public.

Of course. "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast/dragon]" Revelations 13:8

And who are we to disagree with the dead, the sheep and the shepherds?

People in a position to witness the practical results of their philosophy.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 March 2012 05:31:39AM 1 point [-]

(ETA: Contrarian terminology aside, the claim looks absurd without its supporting arguments... ugh.)

Why exactly did you remove that section?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit