From: Eric Burton (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Oct 11 2009 - 22:10:13 MDT
>> I've been reading the recent marathon discussion of constraining robots to
>> be our friends. All I have to add is this: conversation can serve more
>> functions than the defense of two mega-points. The assumption of a
>> bilateral split between "what I'm saying" and "what you're saying" is
>> basically completely erroneous. In buddhism this error is known as getting
>> caught up in "I", which does not in reality exist. In logic, it borders on
>> ad-hominem reasoning, in a slightly varied form, essentially saying "if I
>> can get you on one point, I've got you on all of them." Our American
>> situation with the two parties and how any issue has to have a Party_A
>> response which must be different than the Party_B response has unfortunately
>> trained us all to habitually lump ALL of a person's points into "that
>> person's argument", and hence get caught in devoting too much time to
>> belaboring tiny points, just to have the satisfaction of putting a chink
>> somewhere, anywhere, in their armor.
>> Create good filtering processes, and the rest is gravy.
I read this and I'm still confused. Would you rather have a
three-party system like in Canada, or the UK?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT