Re: Donaldson, Tegmark and AGI

From: Michael Vassar (
Date: Sun Aug 13 2006 - 09:52:19 MDT

But biologists already KNOW that there are lots of people who don't believe
in evolution, and they don't NEED to be reminded of that everywhere. When
they set up their discussion-places, they can set the starting assumptions
as part of the ground rules, as was done here.
One shouldn't avoid hearing opposing views, but one SHOULD stop listening to
an opposing view after having examined it and discarded it conclusively.

>From: "Russell Wallace" <>
>Subject: Re: Donaldson, Tegmark and AGI
>Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:23:48 +0100
>On 8/13/06, Michael Vassar <> wrote:
>>Look Russell, we KNOW that there are superficial similarities between
>>hard-takeoff singularity and the Judeo-Christian world-view (though NOT, I
>>would add, that of many other religions). Sadly, your supposed negative
>>sympathetic magic (a-la Television would be like magic, thus Television is
>>impossible) doesn't actually work, so we have to keep believing in things
>>that our physical causual model tells us to. You don't have to, and are
>>free to leave. Really, if you dismiss hard take-off (which is, as stated
>>earlier, very close to the definition of SL4 belief a context which is
>>theoretically mandatory for posting here whether you accept it or not) as
>>"in the same ballpark as the belief that you can summon demons by chanting
>>phrases in Latin" you should leave, as it is grossly irrational of you to
>>try to debate with people who believe something in that ballpark.
>Just as well I wasn't under any illusions about how my views would be taken
>:) But if we only ever talked to people who already agreed with us, we'd
>never learn anything from it. Don't worry, I'm not going to make a weekly
>sermon of this, but it's something I think needed to be said once.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT