[extropy-chat] Qualia Bet.

John K Clark jonkc at att.net
Thu Dec 1 20:35:11 UTC 2005


"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience at pobox.com>

> John, that's like saying that you know water exists because you drink it,
> but scientific investigation might not be able to find water because our
> instruments can't actually drink water, only scientists can. Nonetheless
> we understand water pretty well.  H20 as an object of accurate modeling
> and accurate prediction, and as an object of drinking, are two different
> ways to interact with the same molecule.  I do not think that an STM fails
> to understand anything about an H2O molecule because someone is standing
> next to the STM shrieking, "But water is for drinking!  Water is for
> DRINKING!"  Drinkableness is not an extra phenomenal aspect of water which
> no scientific instrument can detect, even though scientific instruments
> don't drink.

Eliezer I strongly disagree, or at least I think I strongly disagree but I'd
better make sure. Luckily I just got delivery by UPS of one of Acme
Corporation's new top of the line model 2186 Brain Analyzing Machines;
pardon me a second while I put this on my head and... well I'll be damned!
Eliezer I owe you an apology because according to the machine I actually
think I strongly AGREE with you! I never would have guessed that in a
million years but the machine is never wrong and the meter is clearly pegged
at "agree". Or at least I think it's pegged at "agree", but I better double
check. Oh no! I'm wrong again; the infallible machine says I really think
the meter is pegged at "disagree". Or at least I think the meter says I
disagree that the meter says I agree with you. But just to make sure I'd
better use the machine again and...

  John K Clark







More information about the extropy-chat mailing list