# All of JohnD's Comments + Replies

What Is Signaling, Really?

On a slightly more constructive note, the game theoretic analysis of signals has also been used to analyse and suggest improvements to the use of forensic evidence in law. Roger Koppl's two articles "Epistemic Systems" and "Epistemics for Forensics" go into this in quite some detail, with the former laying out the mathematical framework and the later providing an experimental test of some of the hypotheses drawn from that framework.

I use this a little bit in my article on blinding and expert evidence, available here:

What Is Signaling, Really?

I'm curious, was the Art History comment a dig at Michael Lewis?

3Scott Alexander10y
I didn't even know about Michael Lewis until I just looked him up. I could have used "underwater basket weaving", but I wasn't sure everyone would get the reference.
0JohnD10y
On a slightly more constructive note, the game theoretic analysis of signals has also been used to analyse and suggest improvements to the use of forensic evidence in law. Roger Koppl's two articles "Epistemic Systems" and "Epistemics for Forensics" go into this in quite some detail, with the former laying out the mathematical framework and the later providing an experimental test of some of the hypotheses drawn from that framework. I use this a little bit in my article on blinding and expert evidence, available here: http://keele.academia.edu/JohnDanaher/Papers/1193589/_Blind_Expertise_and_the_Problem_of_Scientific_Evidence_ [http://keele.academia.edu/JohnDanaher/Papers/1193589/_Blind_Expertise_and_the_Problem_of_Scientific_Evidence_]
John Danaher on 'The Superintelligent Will'

I think that's an interesting point. I suppose I was thinking that nihilism, at least in the way its typically discussed, holds not that doing nothing is rational but, rather, that no goals are rational (a subtle difference, perhaps). This, in my opinion, might equate with all goals being equally possible. But, as you point out, if all goals are equally possible the agent might default to doing nothing.

One might put it like this: the agent would be landed in the equivalent of a Buridan's Ass dilemma. As far as I recall, the possibility that a CPU would be landed in such a dilemma was a genuine problem in the early days of computer science. I believe there was some protocol introduced to sidestep the problem.

John Danaher on 'The Superintelligent Will'

Well, I suppose I had in mind the fact that any cognitivist metaethics holds that moral propositions have truth values, i.e. are capable of being true or false. And if cognitivism is correct, then it would be possible for one's moral beliefs to be more or less accurate (i.e. to be more or less representative of the actual truth values of sets of moral propositions).

While moral cognitivism is most at home with moral realism - the view that moral facts are observer-indepedent - it is also compatible with some versions of anti-realism, such as the constructiv... (read more)

Journal of Consciousness Studies issue on the Singularity

I can't speak to this particular article, but oftentimes special editions of journals, like this one (i.e. effectively a symposium on the work of another), are not subjected to rigorous peer review. The responses are often solicited by the editors and there is minimal correction or critique of the content of the papers, certainly nothing like you'd normally get for an unsolicited article in a top philosophy journal.

But, to reiterate, I can't say whether or not the Journal of Consciousness Studies did that in this instance.

1[anonymous]10y
On the one hand, this is the cached defense that I have for the Sokal hoax, so now I have an internal conflict on my hands. If I believe that Tipler's paper shouldn't have been published, then it's unclear why Sokal's should have been. Oh dear, oh dear. How to resolve this conflict? Perhaps rum...
Another Real World Example of Cognitive Bias

I wrote something about the possibility of blind expertise (potentially used to overcome such biases) a while back.

You can find a preprint version here:

First of all, thanks for sharing from my blog posts. Second, and perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with Hauskeller's interpretation of Agar's argument as being "curiously techno-optimistic" because of its appeal to LEV. Agar isn't particularly optimistic about LEVs chances of success (as is shown by his comments in subsequent chapters of his book). He just thinks LEV is more likely than the combination of Strong AI and apparently successful mind-uploading.

Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory

How could you endorse the first part without endorsing the second part? Doesn't the first part already include the second part?

After all, it says "within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard". What could that mean if not "sufficient to generate the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations"?

2CharlesR11y
This is the part I endorse. "Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas." It does not require the presence of a listener. Nor need it be in a certain range of frequencies. (That would just be a sound you cannot hear.) What I am saying is, when Barry replies as he does, why don't we just say, "You are confused about what is and is not sound. Go ask the physicists, 'What is sound?' and then we can continue this conversation, or if you don't want to bother, you can take my word for it." When physicists have a consensus view of a phenomenon, we shouldn't argue over definitions. We should use their definitions, provisionally, of course. No one thinks it makes sense to argue over what is or is not an atom. I don't see why 'sound' should be in a different category.
BOOK DRAFT: 'Ethics and Superintelligence' (part 1)

There's not much to critically engage with yet, but...

I find it odd that you claim to have "laid [your] positions on the table" in the first half of this piece. As far as I can make out, the first half only describes a set of problems and possibilities arising from the "intelligence explosion". It doesn't say anything about your response or proposed solution to those problems.

Statistical Prediction Rules Out-Perform Expert Human Judgments

Hi Luke,

Great post. Will be writing something about the legal uses of SPRs in the near future.

Anyway, the link to the Grove and Meehl study doesn't seem to work for me. It says the file is damaged and cannot be repaired.

1lukeprog11y
Fixed, thanks.
3Douglas_Knight11y
The copy [https://web.archive.org/web/20100307030011/http://www.tc.umn.edu/~pemeehl/167GroveMeehlClinstix.pdf] on Meehl's posthumous website [https://archive.is/QXp7g] works for me. I found it with google scholar [https://scholar.google.com/].