Re: Rationality of Disagreement

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 07:04:54 MDT

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Rationality of Disagreement (Was: Status of Superrationality)"

    Robin Hanson wrote:
    > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
    >
    >> > Let me echo Rafal; you should find their reasoning as useful as your
    >> > own as long as they are as reliable as you. They need not be perfect.
    >>
    >> Yes, correct. Sorry. I was thinking of a perfect Bayesian trying to use
    >> the results of another Bayesian (who must therefore be perfect).
    >>
    >> I do think you require certainty of honesty, though (or am I mistaken?).
    >
    > The results are that you cannot knowingly disagree. If you do not think
    > they are honest, then you do not know their opinion, and so you can
    > disagree with what they say, since you do not think that is what they
    > believe.

    Right, of course. Good point. It's not even a matter of "discussion"; I
    should revise if I see evidence that an equally metarational Bayesian
    reasoner *thinks* X, whether or not that evidence is in the form of a
    verbal statement to that effect. Though there must be two-way knowledge
    before you actually get the "you cannot agree to disagree" effect.

    -- 
    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
    Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 07:15:52 MDT