From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 18:20:21 MST
Alex Ramonsky wrote:
>
> From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com>
> >
> > I've always considered the ethical constraint to be "the right conclusion
> > for the right reason". In other words, it's not enough to persuade people
> > of things that you believe to be true; it is only ethical if you persuade
> > people of things that you believe to be true, using arguments that you
> > believe to be valid.
>
> ...but it's okay to use a model, for example if the person you are speaking
> to has never heard of, say, atoms, it's okay to describe them in the
> 'billiard ball' sense if this model fits the criteria for your conversation.
> If a person already thinks in terms of a religious model, why not relate to
> them using that model?
Because you believe the model to be wrong. You are not simply using
analogies, which would be dangerously enough; you are attempting to make
them reason from beliefs that you believe to be false, and justifying it by
the belief that the conclusions are true.
> ...so is it not more rational for people to believe in a god based on
> nanotech than a god based on jesus, (or marklar)? At least the god they
> believe in will show real results; repeatable miracles and reliable
> cures...water into wine? No problem mate; hand me that replicator...
You have to solve all the constraints *simultaneously*.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:48 MST