From: JDP (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 02:06:51 MDT
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky a écrit (29.7.2003/00:27) :
>
> 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.
What I don't understand is why you keep opposing various ways to get
at the truth, while valuations are just not about truth.
If someone suggests that he will eat my leg because he's hungry,
arguments are not needed, from any theory, not even ethical theory. I
value my leg, and I will react strongly if it is threatened. Someone
may study *WHY* I value my leg, and to do such a study, he may invoke
various theories. But it won't make me more rational to do so *myself*
before to defend my leg, not any more than eating when hungry is only
rational if you understand how nutriments are assimilated.
If for some reason you happen to value more than your own body, to
extend this valuation to many other people, then it is only normal for
you to react strongly when someone suggests they could be conveniently
killed in order to make room for some uncertain future.
Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 02:13:31 MDT