Samantha Atkins wrote:
> "J. R. Molloy" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> It is damn hard to convince the populace at large as to the
> benefits of accelerating technology and what you consider
> reason and objectivity if it truly does lead to such a least
> of "useless hypotheses" as you continually claim. Most people
> are not interested in finding that consciousnes, philosophy, mind,
> free wll, qualia, individual uniqueness, ego and human value are
> are useless and irrelevant. Nor are they very interested in
> anyone or any way of thought who says this.
> It would be a very good idea to take a different tack.
What happened to pursuing the trail of Truth wherever it leads, unpopular
though it may be? First you have to show that Molloy is wrong. Only then
is the unpopularity and technophobia-feeding quality of his statements
relevant. This is the same rule as held for Robert Bradbury; *first*
someone had to show that he was wrong, and only *then* could he be chided
for being impolitic.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:58 MDT