From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 23:38:03 MDT
Eliezer writes
> 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*...
I think that that's a good reminder. Rational thought ought to be
considered to take everything into account, even feelings. A sublime
whole is the goal.
> 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,
I think that this is putting too much of a qualification on it.
There are people of very sound thinking and good judgment that
can discuss the issues quite well without formal knowledge of
such things. I know quite a bit of game theory, for example,
but my instincts were right on long before I learned it. To
me, much of it was (and still is) common sense. Nature has
indeed equipped many people with good instincts about a lot
of things.
> 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.
For what purpose? For the purposes of surviving in the environments
for which nature prepared us? I dare say not. I think you wish that
your own moral preferences (and probably mine as well) were more
instinctual---but that is mixing up things (crossing, IMO, the is/ought
barrier).
> 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.
Assuming that one can "understand" in effect (by means of having good
judgment or experience), then I'll agree. This is a state of affairs
many describe as "hyperrationality". It often occurs, it seems to me,
in the so-called logical paradoxes. One whose general knowledge or
judgment was being unfortunately suspended might really think that
some actual sort of problem arises from consideration of the truth
of "if this sentence is true, then God exists".
> 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'.
You sound as though *all* genocidal actions can be, or ought
to be dismissed, out of hand. Have you read "Ender's Game"?
And if that scenario isn't adequate to convince you, I am
sure that you could think of one in sixty seconds or less
that would.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 23:46:05 MDT