I am passionately fond of the idea of creating an “Art of Rationality” sensibility/school as described in the [A Sense That More is Possible](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2c/a_sense_that_more_is_possible/) article. The obstacle I see as most formidable in such an undertaking is the fact that, no matter how much “rational software” our brains absorb, we...
What would our world be today if humans had started off with a purely rational intelligence? It seems as though a dominant aspect of rationality deals with risk management. For example, an irrational person might feel that the thrill of riding a zip line for a few seconds as being...
I am passionately fond of the idea of creating an “Art of Rationality” sensibility/school as described in the [A Sense That More is Possible](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2c/a_sense_that_more_is_possible/) article.
The obstacle I see as most formidable in such an undertaking is the fact that, no matter how much “rational software” our brains absorb, we cannot escape the fact that we exist within the construct of “irrational hardware”.
My physical body binds me to countless irrational motivations. Just to name a few: 1) Sex. In an overpopulated world, what is the benefit of yearning for sexual contact on a daily basis? How often does the desire for sex influence rational thought? Is “being rational” sexy? If not, it is
... (read 193 more words →)Aren't there lateral benefits to learning something as complex as a new language? The level of mental focus and commitment required must have cognitive rewards and I would think any level of cognitive improvement would be of great value.
In order to learn any language, it requires a certain level of immersion in cultural concepts/perspectives outside of your own. Broadening cultural awareness and gaining new perspectives certainly contributes to an individual's ability to see the world with increased clarity.
It seems to me that measuring the worth of learning anything in terms of how directly one might make use of it cannot measure its total value.
No, I"m sure it is just my lack of knowledge regarding philosophy and the associated methods of discussing it. I never actually believed that the author was trying to convince me that death was not bad, but (as I stated above) playing devil's advocate in order to explore ideas and challenge the reader. I simply wouldn't know enough about it to name it the "Socratic method". My bad.
"A purely rational person would be nigh omniscient"
Even at current human intelligence levels? I don't see how pure rationality without the ability to crunch massive amounts of data extremely fast would make someone omniscient, but I may be missing something.
"If a combustible engine does more good than bad (which it does)"
Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate with this post a bit, but I do have some uncertainty about.... well, your certainty about this :)
What if a purely rational mind decides that while there is a high probability that the combustible engine would bring about more "good" than "bad", the probable risks compels them to reject its production in favor... (read more)
Nice, I'm going to experiment with this. It is like a thought experiment that intentionally creates the opportunity for an "accidental discovery", which are usually the most useful.
What would our world be today if humans had started off with a purely rational intelligence?
It seems as though a dominant aspect of rationality deals with risk management. For example, an irrational person might feel that the thrill of riding a zip line for a few seconds as being well worth the risk of injuring themselves, contracting a flesh eating bug, and losing a leg along with both hands (sorry, but that story has been freaking me out the past few days, I in no way mean to trivialize the woman’s situation). A purely rational person would (I’m making an assumption here because I am certainly not a rational person) recognize the
... (read 226 more words →)Right..... :) Oops. Fixed.
But the same paragraph continues with: But that, of course, returns us to the earlier puzzle. How could death be bad for me when I don't exist?
It feels like the article is playing devil's advocate but I perceived that the bulk of it was playing to the tune that the sentiment of death being "bad" is rather irrational.
The last lines of the article:
So is death bad for you? I certainly think so, and I think the deprivation account is on the right track for telling us why. But I have to admit: Puzzles still remain.
Kagan does feel that death is "bad", but he only throws this in at the very end after spending the entirety of the article arguing the opposite.
One of his dominant questions is: Why do we feel bad about the loss of time after our death as opposed to feeling bad about the loss of time before our birth. I won't go into detail here about the article's content, but I do have... (read more)
I have never been good at math and a high percentage of content discussed here is over my head. However, I am hoping this does not exclude me from a sincere attempt to grasp the general concepts and discuss them as best I can. In other words, I'm hoping my enthusiasm makes up in some way for my total ignorance.
My take on this is that, within a mathematical equation, if a specific variable does not have a discernible impact on the resulting value, it is irrelevant to the equation. Such a variable may exist merely as a conceptual "comfort" to the human method of perceiving the universe, but that doesn't... (read more)
You caught me... I tend to make overly generalized statements. I am working on being more concise with my language, but my enthusiasm still gets the best of me too often.
You make a good point, but I don't necessarily see the requirement of massive infrastructures and political will as the primary barriers for achieving such goals. As I see it, any idea, no matter how grand/costly, is achievable so long as a kernel exists at the core of that idea that promises something "priceless", either spritually, intellectually, materially, etc. For example, a "planet cracking nuke" can only have one outcome, the absolute end to our world. There is... (read more)
I cannot fathom how this is any more than a distraction from the hardline reality that when human beings gain the ability to manufacture "agent AI", we WILL.
Any number of companies and/or individuals can ethically choose to focus on "tool AI" rather than "agent AI", but that will never erase the inevitable human need to create that which it believes and/or knows it can create.
In simple terms, SI's viewpoint (as I understand it) is that "agent AI's" are inevitable.... some group or individual somewhere at some point WILL produce the phenomenon, if for no other reason than because it is human nature to look behind the curtain no matter what the inherent... (read more)
But is being an effective human all that "rational".
When I look at humans who are hugely successful, I do not see rationality as their guiding principal.