[extropy-chat] Rational thinking

[Eliezer S. Yudkowsky]

Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
> Okay, I presently consider "rationality" (scare quotes fully intended) to
> be an instrument which, like fire or the wheel, can be used for human
> well-being or against human well-being.  The Nazis, for example, were
> extremely rational in their decision making for a Final Solution to some
> nagging questions bothering them, given their values. However, *having*
> rationality or being able to deploy it gives us an opportunity to rise
> above the animal level and go on pure gut reaction alone.
> 
> Those Founders deployed their rationality to good effect; the Nazis
> obviously did not.  But that was not the question.

Um, no human being is "rational" which may be one reason why I declined 
to provide a definite answer to your question.  There's varying degrees 
of rationality on many different levels.  For example, the Final 
Solution originators (Godwin alert ding ding ding) seem to have been 
heavily into pagan mythology, if I recall correctly.  They had a number 
of beliefs about biological superiority that were, as a matter of simple 
fact, false.  Were there motives what they would have been if they had 
possessed an epistemologically veridical view of the word?

Of course the same question can be leveled at the Founders, many of whom 
undoubtedly believed that their personal moralities were endorsed by a 
sky fairy.  But I don't believe in a sky fairy, and I do believe in 
freedom of speech, so the question is still out on that one.

>>going by historical records of the debates that went on at the 
>>Constitutional Convention, and by their existence as literate, 
>>politically active aristocrats of that day and age.
> 
> Yes. But the question still remains, When they put their own lives
> at great risk, were they being rational, and how exactly is that
> fundamentally different from the case of the kamikazes?
> 
> (It's Obvious to Me  /  What the Answer should Be    :-)

Maybe I'm reading too much into your question - assuming that you were 
looking for a nonobvious answer.  I thought you acknowledged that human 
beings can have interests (components in their utility function) beyond 
their own self-preservation.  So there's no particular reason, it seems 
to me, that we should assume the Founders had lower-than-usual 
rationality for their day and age (which is a pretty low bar by our 
standards) and equally it would be anachronistic to assume them as 
skilled Bayescrafters.  So I really don't understand what you're getting 
at here, but maybe you're just fishing for the obvious answer, "They 
sacrificed themselves for different ends, and rationality is neutral 
about the question of self-sacrifice as such."

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