From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 21:02:18 MDT
> On 6/16/2003, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > ...
> >It's one thing to admit the philosophical possibility that there are
> >hypothetical scenarios where the "right" thing to do is
> believe falsely,
> >just as it is possible to construct thought experiments
> where the right
> >thing to do is commit suicide or overwrite your own goal
> >system. .... The rule "Just Be Rational" is more reliable than you
> >are. Sticking to the truth is a very simple procedure, and
> it is more
> >reliable than any amount of complex verbal philosophization
> that tries to
> >calculate the utility of truth in some specific instance.
> > ...
Robin Hanson wrote
> ...
> It would be nice if what you said were true, but alas I think it is
> not. We actually usually follow the rule "Just be Natural".
> Evolution has
> equipped us with vast and complex habits of thought, which
> people mostly
> just use without understanding them. This isn't a
> particularly dangerous
> strategy for the usual evolutionary reasons: your ancestors
> did pretty well
> following these habits, so you probably will to.
> ...
> You might tell your girlfriend that she is average among the
> girlfriends
> you have had, and that you think you are likely to stay with
> her for the
> average time. You might admit you are an average lover and
> driver, that
> the products you sell are average, and that your in-group is no more
> morally justified than any other group. You might rarely
> disagree, and
> accept that others are right as often as you. You might
> admit that you
> care almost nothing about poor people in Africa.
>
> When you do so, the likely consequences are that people will
> consider you
> less able, less caring, and less loyal, then they otherwise
> would. They
> may choose to associate with you less because of this. Now
> maybe they will
> also realize that you seem to be especially truth-oriented,
> and want to
> keep you around because you can provide instrumental benefits of
> truth. But they may not care about the truth near as much as
> they care
> about loyalty, and your ability to accomplish most of your
> other goals in
> life will be thereby diminished. That may be acceptable if
> you put a high
> enough value on truth, but otherwise it may not be.
Now we are getting into confused territory. There is a difference between
knowing the truth and being truthful. It may be a bad idea to tell your
girlfriend that she is average (LOL!) on your girlfriend-o-meter, but it's
probably better to know that you really feel that way yourself.
It seems to be perfectly rational, in a social context, to lie; in fact,
many people do it most of the time, rationally. As to whether it is rational
to actually believe a lie, I can't think of a single situation. Well, maybe
if there is a rational action that you need to take... say you need to cut
off your own arm to escape an accident, and you find that you need to pray
to a god to "find the strength" to do it, then it's probably rational to
adopt the false belief (assuming you find that possible).
A separate situation to consider is whether it is ever rational to not seek
the truth, knowing that you don't currently possess it. I'd say this is an
unqualified yes. It is always the case that we have incomplete information,
some of which must be incorrect. Yet to act, we must have made a judgement
that further truth seeking is not worth the cost. It is plausible that the
amount of truth to find may in fact be infinite, which is a proof in itself
that it is rational to not seek the whole truth.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 21:12:49 MDT