From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 02:45:15 MDT
On Sunday 31 August 2003 17:32, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > On this other matter one thing we MUST learn in the process of IA is how
> > to talk with each other without dissovling into name-calling and such.
> > If we aren't in part about learning it here where we have some more
> > focused reasons to do so then where?
>
> I think there are two problems here; (a) there are very few people trained
> in the art of "logical debate" (making it difficult for logic to outweigh
> emotions) -- thus "name-calling and such"; and (b) we are "thin" with
> respect to the quantity of individuals who could seriously debate IA. If
> you had Anders and perhaps a few of his associates who attend neuroscience
> meetings and combined them with people like Aubrey, Brett and their
> associates who understand the technology and throw in people like Marvin
> Minsky or Eliezer who have a great depth of knowledge in AI -- *then* one
> might get a really interesting debate on IA.
I think two things got muddied together through some fault in my wording. I
was attempting to say that an important part of Intelligence Augmentation is
to learn to discuss even difficult and highly emotionally vested subjects
rationally and in a civilized manner. Else those parts of our intelligence
that are highly emotionally overlaid either will not be easy to augment or
perhaps will be unsafe to augment because we amplify the range of our
irrational emotions. A part of Intelligence Augmentation is increasing the
effectiveness and extent of our shared understanding and pooling of
knowledge, talents and insights. If we are unable to get beyond our
emotional baggage sufficiently that part of IA will be seriously limited.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 02:56:04 MDT