From: alexboko (alexboko@umich.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 11:13:22 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> This is an interesting issue. Being very much into non-coercion
> I don't consider either button acceptable at all; even changing
> the mind of one opponent this way would be wrong - while I agree
> that conserving memetic diversity is good, the right to one's mind
> is even more important (and in this case both are aligned). But at
> the same time I have no problems with the idea of debating and
> perhaps convincing a lot of opponents. So what makes these cases
> different? Is it just the "unnatural means" of the button?
Oh, I was just being lazy in constructing the hypothetical scenario. I
meant to say...
"If I could push a button that would unleash a swarm of high
toposophic-level PR/teaching/debate expert systems that would convince
100% of humans that rationality, non-coercion, and science are good
things, I would not do it. However, if their effectiveness could be
intentionally handicapped just a little bit, I would."
--
--Sincerely, Alex F. Bokov
------------------------------------------------------------
"I think the guy who believes death is a natural part of
life should get the seat with the broken seat-belt."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 12:54:42 MDT