From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 19:57:38 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Does anyone really believe that Robin Hanson does not,
> in some tiny recess of his mind, enjoy tweaking
> conventional tastes by proposing something that is
> quite logical, but simultaneously outrageous to usual
> tastes? Does anyone here think that those of us very
> in love with the idea of cloning aren't also---just a
> wee bit---enjoying the avant garde feeling of endorsing
> an aspect of the provocative future?
It is in no wise true that Bayesians may not *enjoy* tweaking conventional
tastes; rather, Bayesians may tweak conventional tastes (and enjoy it)
only when the ordinary evidence is against the conventional tastes.
Or as I once told one of my little brother's friends: "There's no *need*
to break rules for the sake of breaking them. If you break rules only
when they're really awful and you have an overwhelmingly better way, you
will have more than enough trouble to last you the rest of your life."
> (P.S. to try to answer my own question, Yes, if we
> wish to be only Bayesian truth seekers, but no, if
> we wish to remain human and favor the side all our
> instincts and reason assure us is right.)
Stupidity is human; rationality, humane.
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 20:06:57 MDT