On the other hand, it is really hard for me to visualize the proposition that there is no kind of mind substantially stronger than a human one. I have trouble believing that the human brain, which just barely suffices to run a technological civilization that can build a computer, is also the theoretical upper limit of effective intelligence. I cannot argue effectively for that, because I do not believe it. Or if you prefer, I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it. If you want that idea argued, find someone who really believes it.
"I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it." -- how do you know until you honestly try? Have you done your absolute best effort trying to convince your supporters that they are wrong? What if your major donor said that they would withdraw support unless they judged you to have done your best to invalidate your own arguments, would you simply refuse the money and tell them "find someone who really believes it"?
"I have trouble believing that the human brain, which just barely suffices to run a technological civilization that can build a computer, is also the theoretical upper limit of effective intelligence" -- Scott Aaronson seems to have no trouble believing something very similar. Have you gone through his argument and verified that you did come up with it independently earlier and rejected as fallacious?
What about Holden Karnofsky's arguments, did you find nothing new there? If there was something you hadn't considered before, you have probably missed an important perspective (in this case of a person who compares causes to donate to).
"I do not believe it, because I cannot argue effectively for it." -- how do you know until you honestly try?
I think EY has better reasons than this, the most obvious being: Humans are all stupid in so many blatantly obvious ways, how could it not be possible to do better?
Today's post, Against Devil's Advocacy was originally published on 09 June 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Timeless Control, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.