From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 22:27:59 MDT
Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> But of course, as I believe Robert understands, my comments were not meant
> as `character assassination' or personal abuse. It's a general point, and
> sadly one that has to be repeated from time to time on this list of INTJs.
> I approve of Lee Corbin's dislike of censorship, but he doesn't seem to
> understand that what I (and some others, I think) were complaining about
> wasn't the *voicing* of that detestable genocidal notion, but it's *being
> considered as a rational option in the first place*. Lee will be appalled
> at my saying that, of course, as if I were proposing `thought policing' or
> `thought death'. But Lee and Robert don't seem to realize how pathological
> and unsustainable life would be (how Colombian, perhaps) if we routinely
> and `rationally' considered killing everyone we're frightened of or who
> gets in the way of what we, in our partial ignorance, estimate might be the
> optimal way forward for humankind.
Verbal thought is not the same as rational thought. Rather, it is a
particular kind of heavily abstract chain of deliberative statements,
often divorced from the intuitions that usually guide it. Abstract verbal
reasoning is only *more rational* if it *actually works better* - remember
that at the heart of all this is Bayes' Theorem, which makes no mention of
where the cognition is carried out. If you are going to discuss genocide
'rationally' rather than 'instinctively' - and that should always be in
quote marks - then you had better know the evolutionary psychology and
game theory and everything else that lies behind those instincts, the
reason why the instincts are there in the first place, why the ethical
instincts are if anything far too *weak* rather than the other way around.
If you don't understand the evolutionary psychology of genocide, the
game theory of cooperation, the ethics of deep uncertainty about the
future, the historical outcomes of similar proposals, then all you are
doing by reasoning 'rationally' (verbally) is taking the safety catch off
a deadly gun. I see no reason why someone who starts reasoning verbally,
and ignorantly, about genocide under the banner of 'rationality', should
be thought of any differently from someone who advocates genocide with
passionate hatred under the Romantic banner of 'honest feeling'. Yes, it
is possible to discuss genocide rationally, and whaddaya know, when you
discuss it rationally, in full knowledge of all the forces at play, it
turns out to be a more horrifying idea than mere emotional revulsion would
suggest. I don't see rationality at work here. I see an emotional
disconnect combined with historical, psychological, evolutionary,
game-theoretical, and decision-theoretical ethical ignorance. Yes, there
is a verbal explanation, and it is a critical thing to learn. But if you
don't know it, you'd better not try and switch off your emotions until you do.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 22:36:19 MDT