[extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett

[Eliezer S. Yudkowsky]

Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 11/3/06, *Ensel Sharon* <user at dhp.com <mailto:user at dhp.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> "If Dennett is such a fucking genius, why doesn't he recognize the 
> problem of labeling things "thoughtcrime" ?  Further, how dare he
> suggest that I do anything with my time and kilowatts, or dispose of
> my own property in any way, other than exactly as i see fit ?  The
> notion that he would impose upon others some kind of minimum
> acceptable level of function and efficiency in their thoughts and
> actions is absurd.  If certain time, energy and kilowatts belong to
> me, I will dissipate them in any way I see fit, and as efficiently as
> I see fit."
> 
> Seconded. This sort of junk from people like Dennett is exactly 
> isomorphic to "it's a mortal sin to deny the existence of God" from 
> religious fundamentalists, only the labels have been switched around.

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge195.html#dd

No.  Isomorphism would be "You prayed to God so now I'm going to kill 
you / put you in jail / fine you, for your thoughtcrime."

As for Dennett suggesting that people are doing something wrong by 
praying instead of helping - that they are thereby committing a moral 
sin, in need of forgiveness - why, yes, you're right, that is somewhat 
like a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he 
conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin 
by denying the existence of God.  Of course, Dennett lives by a higher 
standard of rationality than a theologian - it would be going much too 
far to say that the theologian is simply committing an innocent mistake. 
  It is not innocent.  The theologian could and should know better, and 
others are harmed by the laxity.  Like my grandparents, who will die 
without being frozen.  As is shown easily enough by Dennett's example of 
the medical industry, you don't need to use violence to promote your 
beliefs, in order to harm people with wrong beliefs.  Yes, you *can* 
hurt other people by being lax with yourself, forgiving yourself your 
nonsense, holding yourself to too low a standard.  It is this 
understanding of strictness that makes modern medicine effective.

But that Dennett is allowed to peacefully argue that people *should not* 
pray, that they harm others by praying, that they harm themselves by 
praying, that it's a stupid idea and humanity should get the hell over 
it already - no, it's not so different from a theologian being allowed 
to peacefully argue to you that you are committing a mortal sin by 
denying God.  The support justifying the two beliefs are very different, 
and it so happens that the first is right and the second is wrong.  But 
how would we know that if people were not allowed to publicly debate 
their reasons?  It happens to be true that the Earth goes around the 
Sun, and false that the Sun goes around the Earth.  But the sin of 
Galileo's inquisitors was not that they happened to pick the wrong side 
of the factual dispute - everyone makes mistakes.  Their lesser and 
forgiveable sin was that they chose their side irrationally (rather than 
making the mistake because of e.g. experimental error).  Their greater 
and unforgiveable sin was that they enforced their beliefs with a sword.

To compare Dennett to a religious fundamentalist is silly; if you wish 
to insult him with some trace of plausibility, compare him to an 
academic theologian.  And to suggest that they are automatically on the 
same level, or committing the same mistake, because they dare to air 
their views and advise others on what to think - that is foolish.  (It 
is written:  "The fifth virtue is argument.")  The theologian has chosen 
his belief irrationally, and yes, others are harmed by that, and yes, he 
is responsible for the results, just as a doctor would be.  But that he 
and Dennett should both put forth their views openly, and argue about 
them, is only right and proper.  A doctor must, in the end, treat a 
patient based on whatever diagnosis seems most probable.  If he chooses 
wrongly and based on sloppy thinking, then he is at fault, and his sin 
is very grave.  But a doctor cannot do better in general by treating 
patients based on diagnoses that seem less probable, or by refusing to 
treat patients.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence