From: Stefan Pernar (stefan.pernar@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 23 2007 - 20:27:24 MST
On Nov 24, 2007 9:33 AM, Thomas McCabe <pphysics141@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here's the link again:
> > >
> > > http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/terminal-values.html
> > >
> >
> > Truly - I must follow my own advice and point out contradictions in
> > Elizier's writing to contribute to his work as I expect it from others
> > myself. And although I have done so on numerous occasions and his posts
> are
> > rather long at times, I seldom got a response from him how the
> > contradictions pointed out by me could be resolved from his point of
> view.
>
> It's "Eliezer", gosh darn it, "Eliezer".
>
Honest mistake - never was good at spelling stuf ;-)
> > "Outcomes don't lead to Outcomes, only Actions lead to Outcomes."
> >
> > Action: work -> Outcome: life
> >
> > According to the above statement life does not lead to work. This is a
> > contradiction.
>
> Where do you see a contradiction? A contradiction is not just a false
> statement, or a statement you disagree with; to show a contradiction,
> you must point out where Eliezer (or anyone else) said both A and ~A.
>
I can give you an argument but the benefit of understating it lies with
you...
>
> > "[...] in this formalism, actions lead directly to outcomes with no
> > intervening events."
> >
> > Action: define! action = solution -> execute action -> outcome: solution
> >
> > This is very convenient. Like catching all lions in a desert by building
> a
> > 3x3 meter cage and defining the outside as inside. You can do that - but
> > what is achieved by it? A laugh of a forgiving audience. But we are not
> here
> > to make fun of ourselves - at least not primarily.
> >
> > "Being ignorant of your own values may not always be fun, but at least
> it's
> > not boring"
> >
> > So ignorance is bliss? I personally do not agree that that is the case.
>
> Ignorance may not be a good thing, but that doesn't mean you can't
> have any fun with it. Particularly other people's ignorance. :)
>
My point exactly ;-)
>
>
> > The
> > way I see it, ignorance is the set of false implications based on chosen
> > axioms.
>
> Er, what? Ignorance is a high entropy probability distribution over
> possible states. Mathematical statements, formally derived from
> axioms, do not have a probability distribution: they're either true or
> false.
>
I acknowledge your freedom to choose this understanding.
>
> > Ignorance is caused either by uncertainty in regards to a cause or
> > an effect or rationalized contradictions. Ignorant people are unaware of
> the
> > consequences of their actions and the harm it causes themselves as well
> as
> > others.
>
> It's nonsensical to try and label some people as "ignorant" and others
> as "not ignorant". Human knowledge is so vast that any one person
> cannot internalize more than a tiny fraction of it. Ignorant of what?
> Transhumanism? FAI theory? Rationality? Russian pop culture?
>
I think we are getting somewhere.
>
> > The idiom 'ignorance is bliss' can thus be interpreted to mean that
> people
> > unaware of their actions causing self destruction will see no reason to
> > change what they are doing. Personally, I prefer knowing my values.
> >
> > Or are surprises fun? A surprise is something you you do not expect. You
> are
> > unexpectedly hit by a car. That's not fun...
>
> You're mangling the argument. "Surprises are fun" is not logically
> equivalent to "all surprises will always be fun all the time". That's
> not how the English language works.
>
I am consequently pointing out logical contradictions. Mangling the argument
is a bit harsh - no?
> > I think I demonstrated the willingness to review, interpret and
> understand
> > the work of others. Can I get the favor of pointing out contradictions
> in my
> > work returned now?
>
> (sigh) Please Google "contradiction" and find out what the word means.
> If I proclaim that the Moon is made of green cheese, this is not a
> contradiction, because I have not *also* asserted that the Moon is not
> made of green cheese. Yet people would be foolish if they believed me.
>
> > Here is the link again:
> >
> >
> http://www.rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=Rational_philosophy_of_morality_%28intuitive%29
> >
> > Please do not get me wrong - I think he is a brilliant writer and I have
> a
> > lot of respect for him and science in general. But I respect critical
> > rational discourse even more. Further I do not merely contradict by
> playing
> > advocatus diaboli. No. I developed my own model that provides a better
> > understanding. Please contradict it and I will work harder to improve it
> > further. Or understand it - recognize its value and move forward to find
> and
> > solve the next contradiction.
>
> - Tom
>
See what I mean? I put effort into pointing out contradictions and I am
being corrected on a spelling mistake. Gee. Tom, happy to continue this
exchange off list but my silence here will only be broken once you read my
writings and tell me where I am contradicting *myself* - contradicting
others is as easy as pointing out a spelling mistake. Surely you understand
;-)
-- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT