[extropy-chat] Re: Overconfidence and meta-rationality

[Russell Wallace]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:44:37 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> So did you "agree to disagree"?

Yep.

> Doesn't it bother you that a smart and knowledgeable person like Eliezer
> has come to a different view of the facts of the matter?

Not at all; why should it? It would bother me if the issue were
proven, if there was hard data staring us in the face so that one of
us would have to be mentally blind not to see it, but that isn't the
case here; the issue was one on which there is as yet no hard data.

> You're both
> born into the same world, products of the same evolutionary process;
> you're exposed to different information, and ultimately your estimations
> of probabilities are based on these causal factors.  Do you accept that
> if you had been exposed to the experiences Elizer had, you would have
> come up with his estimation of the probabilities, rather than yours?

No. Our beliefs on things that aren't matters of proven fact depend
not only on the domain-specific information we've received, but also
on our genes and general experiences that form our personalities.

> And isn't knowing that such persuasive information exists, even without
> direct access to the information itself, enough to make you doubt your
> position and consider it equally likely that Eliezer's view is correct?

I do doubt my position. I don't consider it _equally likely_, but in
the absence of mathematical proof or experimental evidence, I
certainly acknowledge the possibility that he's right and I'm wrong.

- Russell