[ExI] The AGI and limiting it

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Fri Mar 7 03:11:55 UTC 2008


Richard writes

>> Sorry, but quite a number of us have found those arguments to be
>> very convincing, though, of course by no means the final word.
> 
> Arguments always look convincing when not subjected to skeptical 
> challenge.  Aristotle got a lot of mileage that way.

Oh, there has been a lot of give and take here on these subjects
and on the other list I peruse about this, namely SL4. So I would
say that arguments have been subject---and are continuing to be
subject---to criticism. Please understand that when some of us
here have found certain arguments to be convincing, it hardly
means that we failed to notice dissent.  My error was failing to
mention the existence of that dissent, and so I'm glad you reminded
us of it.

> Those with a scientific attitude should discuss these issues by looking 
> at the arguments involved in a dispassionate manner.

Obviously, though, being human, people cannot be expected,
nor can any scientist be expected, to be entirely dispassionate.
The important thing is to try to listen with an open mind, but
that's easier said than done.

> I have found that on the AGI and Singularity lists people often do 
> exactly that.  There is sometimes vigorous disagreement, but for the 
> most part this disagreement is about the issues themselves, not about 
> the personalities.
> 
> By contrast, I found that elsewhere, as in your comment above, the 
> common response is to say that *because* a majority of people on SL4 or 
> on the Extropian list take a dim view of these alternative ideas about 
> the friendliness problem, therefore this majority vote counts as some 
> kind of argument.

That in itself, you are right, is no argument at all. But, especially for people
with limited time, such facts must weigh their probabilities of which side
is correct. I myself hold a very unusual view regarding black holes, and
I have argued at length about it on sci.relativity. But then it turns out that
Michael Price also, later, argued my same points. And all along, I found,
there were a few well-established and respected physicists who agreed
with us. Nonetheless, often I do admit to people that my view is very much
the minority one (doubtless more of a minority than your position is, though).

>>> Some of those people who have thought about it for years and years and 
>>> years were invited to discuss these issues in greater depth, and examine 
>>> the disputed assumptions.  The result?  They mounted a vitriolic 
>>> campaign of personal abuse against those who wanted to suggest that 
>>> Eliezer might not be right, and banned them from the SL4 mailing list.
>> 
>> I.e., you got banned. How many other people were banned from that list
>> simply because they disagreed with the majority?
> 
> The phrasing of this question is a little insidious:  you clearly imply 
> that the banning was the result of simply disagreeing with the majority.

I have just your description of "a vitriolic campaign of personal abuse".
Doubtless there is another side to the story, there always is.

> Clever.  It changes the subject of discussion from "The destructive 
> consequences that ensued when someone tried to get an alternative point 
> of view about friendliness discussed on SL4"

What?  But now *you* are the one going back to the idea that the banning
resulted from disagreeing (with the majority).
 
>... to the highly personalized topic of why *I* in particular was banned from SL4.

So I made the jump that you're being banned resulted from someone
(i.e. you) trying to get an alternative view discussed.  Was that the reason
or wasn't it? 
 
And from your immediately following email:

> On reflection, Lee, perhaps I am being a little too testy on this 
> matter.  ;-)

Really, that's perfectly understandable. I may very well be taking
you to task over matters I don't know enough about. Moreover,
given, as you say

> I have been fighting against a particularly frustrating sequence of 
> discussions, on the other lists, where statements are being paraded as 
> facts when they are actually deeply implausible assertions.

Yeah, well I do appreciate your corrections of at least one
of the "facts" I presented, and I apologized, hopefully to 
your satisfaction.

> So perhaps I am seeing that everywhere right now.

Thanks for the constructive attitude, Richard.  Who is the active
email poster that does not overreact too much?  Certainly not I.

Lee




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list