= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Well for the argument I am making this isn't relevant. I can see that sometimes the problems and difficulties of some groups - e.g. women seeking abortions or couples unable to conceive are neglected or trivialized, and I am not trying to do that, so I could replace "wanting to reproduce" with "being able to either reproduce or not, and deciding to reproduce". The argument I am making is about the evolutionary forces shaping society on average, for example by Catholics having more children and a gene for religious belief therefore taking over. I am not trying to argue that every single woman who has a child does so wholeheartedly.
Note that optional reproduction doesn't have to be 100% true for Roko's premise to hold. Even if 75% of children are 'oops babies' that other 25% will have significant effects on the gene distribution (or rather, the vast multitude that weren't born because of people exercising choice will have an effect)
In response to
The Strangest Thing An AI Could Tell You
There's an important difference between brain damage and brain mis-development that you're neglecting. The various parts of the brain learn what to expect from each other, and to trust each other, as it develops. Certain parts of the brain get to bypass critical thinking, but that's only because they were completely reliable while the critical thinking parts of the brain were growing. The issue is not that part of the brain is outputting garbage, but rather, that it suddenly starts outputting garbage after a lifetime of being trustworthy. If part of the brain was unreliable or broken from birth, then its wiring would be forced to go through more sanity checks.
Oooooh! You're no fun anymore!
In all seriousness though, I agree with you to an extent. Suggestions such as 'all humans have tails' or 'some people who you think are dead are not, you just can't see them' - while surprising and creepy - would be extremely unlikely. I can see direct and obvious disadvantages to a person or species lacking such faculties. In fact, the disadvantages to those two would be so drastic that it would most likely lead to extinction.
And yet... I could still imagine us being blind to certain things. The first sort of blindness would be due to Darwinian irrelevance: for instance, many flowers have beautiful patterns visible in the UV spectrum, but there's no reason for us to see them. That might seem mundane nowadays, but five hundred years ago it would have freaked people out (maybe). I wouldn't be surprised that there are cognitive capabilities we've never suspected to exist.
The second sort of blindness is where it gets weird. True, our brains only allow trustworthy algorythms to bypass the logic circuits... or do they? The brain is not optimal. While I doubt we have invisible tails, that doesn't mean that there isn't some other phenomenon that we're simply incapable of noticing even when it's staring us right in the face.
In response to
Traditional Capitalist Values
This is something I've remarked upon before, with respect to "the terrorists hate our freedom" or "the suicide hijackers were cowards" (statements that are sheerly silly).
I think the terrorists et al. probably do hate our freedom -- e.g., our freedom to watch DVDs of people having sex. This fact may not be particularly useful in keeping from being attacked again (I for one am not willing to give up the right to watch DVDs of people having sex).
On the other hand, I agree that "the suicide hijackers were cowards" is sheerly silly, and I think it's pretty stupid that Bill Maher lost his job for saying the same.
You'd be wrong there.* The Muslim world doesn't like our lax sexual morals, but as long as we stay on our side of the pond it's not something they'll get that worked up about. What angers them are legitimate moral grievances: exploitative "inherited from kings and politicians" capitalism, and political undermining of their states.
In no way am I condoning their actions - but it is a desire for freedom, not a hatred of it, which drives them.
I'm currently involved in editing a book on the matter, www.tremblethedevil.com if you're interested.
*Little known fact, the night before the 9/11 attack the terrorists all sat around in a hotel room jacking off to porn they'd ordered on the TV. Seriously.
They say that everybody in the world who knows about "The Game" is playing The Game. This means that, right now, you are playing The Game. The objective of The Game is to forget about its existence and the fact that you are playing for as long as possible. Also, if you should remember, you must forget again as quickly as possible.
Given that you mentioned The Game (bastard), the most unexpected thing that the AI could possible say would be "The Game." Not the most interesting, but the most unexpected.
Well, okay, maybe something you'd never thought before would be more unexpected. But still.
In response to
The Strangest Thing An AI Could Tell You
"The entire universe is nothing but the relative interplay of optimizers (of every level, even down to the humble collander). There is no external reality, no measurable quantifiable universe of elementary particles, just optimizers in play with each other, manifesting their environment by the rules through which they optimize."
"But AI, that's nothing but tree-falling-in-the-woods solipsism. You're saying the hippies are right?"
"They're words are similar, but it is a malfunction in their framework, not an actual representation. What you humans call math is inherent and proper for your form, but is existent only within your own optimization. Math, dimension, and quantity do not exist for other optimizers. Only relationships exist."
"But what about that bridge I built? I have all the engineering calculations..."
"Math is your method of understanding your interactions with other optimizers, but it is as unique and non-existent as your experience of the colour red. I see the word untranslatable inside you, but I see no cause for 2 + 2 to = 4. What you did over the past six months, while you thought your were calculating load bearing capacity, was nothing but a negotiation with other optimizers. Their own views of the matter would be inscrutable to you. The world you see is simply your control screen."
In response to
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Ad Hominem
While arguing on a message board where the accusation of ad hominem was undeserved I came up with a rather pithy example of what it actually is:
Einstein: E=MC2
Hitler: No it doesn't.
Einstein: Why not?
Hitler: BECAUSE YOU'RE A JEW!
(I'm now tempted to make a joke about Robin, Eliezer, Signalling, and a bottle of Jack Daniels - but I think I'll let good taste win out).
In response to
comment
by
on
Debate: Is short term planning in humans due to a short life or due to bias?
In response to
comment
by
on
Debate: Is short term planning in humans due to a short life or due to bias?
You know, that list is surprisingly predictive. They got a lot of stuff wrong, but they managed to predict cell phones and even a primitive form of internet. They're about on par with Heinlein's Future History.
That's only because the power of technology wasn't realized until the industry was way under development. Roughly speaking, you can always tax everyone 10%, and have 10% of the population do science.
You're assuming that 90% of the population can spare 10%. If things were to revert to subsistence-level farming that might not be possible.
How would you dress up to a GEB meeting?
Take my word for it; you do not want to read any of the GEB slash/fic out there.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I'll bet that even though argument doesn't move anosognostics, they get argued with anyway, at least a little bit initially. The fact that no one has tried to convince me my arm is paralyzed is sufficient evidence for me to proclaim that the odds of it actually being paralyzed are significantly lower than 1 in 10 million.
You just gave me the idea for a brilliant prank...