From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 18:54:47 MDT
Anders writes a nice piece in reference to an article
that I haven't read, but which is attempting to get
the "rational" meme (which can tolerate "trade-offs")
out to the public.
This is correct, in my opinion. In some ways it's
close to "adult thinking" vs. "child thinking".
A symptom of child-thinking is that it does not want
to entertain unpleasant trade-offs. That's left to
the adults. Now that---as Anders explained---is not
the whole story.
But it's possible that we need to see deeper into the
problem in the following way. This also dovetails with
our recent discussions.
In my opinion, one aspect that we need to look at is
our *own* urge to break icons. I wrote an essay not
long ago called "What Happened to all the Iconoclasts?",
but did not post it.
Back in the 1950's the world seemed to be swimming
with iconoclasts. Probably few knew what the word
meant (I did not), but one could tell that whatever
they were, there were plenty of them.
The word, though not the urge, has gone out of fashion.
This list has lots of them, of course. I want to
speak about all of us who perhaps as good Bayesians
should want to correct for this urge that we have
to break icons.
Does anyone really believe that Robin Hanson does not,
in some tiny recess of his mind, enjoy tweaking
conventional tastes by proposing something that is
quite logical, but simultaneously outrageous to usual
tastes? Does anyone here think that those of us very
in love with the idea of cloning aren't also---just a
wee bit---enjoying the avant garde feeling of endorsing
an aspect of the provocative future?
This urge is certainly at least as old as the chariots.
In complete defiance of all the wizened, hardened older
experienced warriors, someone had to think that by
teaming up a pair of horses to a cart holding two riders
---one who drove and one who shot arrows from a semi-
stable platform as fast as he could---a fiendish new
weapon of war could be produced?
(Do I not at this very moment enjoy---just a wee bit---
presenting an example aggravating to the instincts of
any crypto-pacifists on this list?)
Yes, we *should* exult in the novel, along with all true
SF writers, part of whose theme in the trade is to
shock. We should indeed be held only in check---in
this medium---by logic and reason, and otherwise
truly enjoy wherever our imaginations take us.
But, as I asked earlier, do we not need to correct
for this impulse, and at least try to compensate for
our sheer enjoyment of the novelty of singularities,
uploading, terrorist futures, cryonics, and so on?
(P.S. to try to answer my own question, Yes, if we
wish to be only Bayesian truth seekers, but no, if
we wish to remain human and favor the side all our
instincts and reason assure us is right.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 19:04:52 MDT