Nick Bostrom wrote:
> I have often rationally debated positions that I thought I knew were
> correct. [Snip] So I don't agree with you that if you or I
> knew the "objective morality" then it would be impossible for us to
> rationally debate about morality. Isn't that simply false?
The reason why it's called "RA1" rather than "LA1" is because it's a statement about human nature, and thus not provable except by reference to cognitive science. Perhaps you're right, but I prefer to play it safe.
> The way I use the word "know" you don't have to be exactly 100%
> certain about something in order to know it. But in any case, nothing
> in my argument changes if you use a probabilistic statement instead.
Except that your argument no longer contradicts my argument? I think we're basically in agreement here.
-- email@example.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you everything I think I know.