This sounds an awful lot like the Hegelian dialectical method... ben g
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Martin, > > On 11/18/08, martin biehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't know what reverse reductio ad absurdum is, so it may not be a >> precise counterexample, but I think you get my point. > > > HERE is the crux of my argument, as other forms of logic fall short of > being adequate to run a world with. Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum is the > first logical tool with the promise to resolve most intractable disputes, > ranging from the abortion debate to the middle east problem. > > Some people get it easily, and some require long discussions, so I'll post > the "Cliff Notes" version here, and if you want it in smaller doses, just > send me an off-line email and we can talk on the phone. > > Reductio ad absurdum has worked unerringly for centuries to test bad > assumptions. This constitutes a proof by lack of counterexample that the > ONLY way to reach an absurd result is by a bad assumption, as otherwise, > reductio ad absurdum would sometimes fail. > > Hence, when two intelligent people reach conflicting conclusions, but > neither can see any errors in the other's logic, it would seem that they > absolutely MUST have at least one bad assumption. Starting from the > absurdity and searching for the assumption is where the reverse in reverse > reductio ad absurdum comes in. > > If their false assumptions were different, than one or both parties would > quickly discover them in discussion. However, when the argument stays on the > surface, the ONLY place remaining to hide an invalid assumption is that they > absolutely MUSH share the SAME invalid assumptions. > > Of course if our superintelligent AGI approaches them and points out their > shared invalid assumption, then they would probably BOTH attack the AGI, as > their invalid assumption may be their only point of connection. It appears > that breaking this deadlock absolutely must involve first teaching both > parties what reverse reductio ad absurdum is all about, as I am doing here. > > For example, take the abortion debate. It is obviously crazy to be making > and killing babies, and it is a proven social disaster to make this illegal > - an obvious reverse reductio ad absurdum situation. > > OK, so lets look at societies where abortion is no issue at all, e.g. > Muslim societies, where it is freely available, but no one gets them. There, > children are treated as assets, where in all respects we treat them as > liabilities. Mothers are stuck with unwanted children. Fathers must pay > child support, They can't be bought or sold. There is no expectation that > they will look after their parents in their old age, etc. > > In short, BOTH parties believe that children should be treated as > liabilities, but when you point this out, they dispute the claim. Why should > mothers be stuck with unwanted children? Why not allow sales to parties who > really want them? There are no answers to these and other similar questions > because the underlying assumption is clearly wrong. > > The middle east situation is more complex but constructed on similar > invalid assumptions. > > Are we on the same track now? > > Steve Richfield > ================================ > >> 2008/11/18 Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> To all, >>> >>> I am considering putting up a web site to "filter the crazies" as >>> follows, and would appreciate all comments, suggestions, etc. >>> >>> Everyone visiting the site would get different questions, in different >>> orders, etc. Many questions would have more than one correct answer, and in >>> many cases, some combinations of otherwise reasonable individual answers >>> would fail. There would be optional tutorials for people who are not >>> confident with the material. After successfully navigating the site, an >>> applicant would submit their picture and signature, and we would then >>> provide a license number. The applicant could then provide their name and >>> number to 3rd parties to verify that the applicant is at least capable of >>> rational thought. This information would look much like a driver's license, >>> and could be printed out as needed by anyone who possessed a correct name >>> and number. >>> >>> The site would ask a variety of logical questions, most especially >>> probing into: >>> 1. Their understanding of Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum methods of >>> resolving otherwise intractable disputes. >>> 2. Whether they belong to or believe in any religion that supports >>> various violent acts (with quotes from various religious texts). This would >>> exclude pretty much every religion, as nearly all religions condone useless >>> violence of various sorts, or the toleration or exposure of violence toward >>> others. Even Buddhists resist MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) while being >>> unable to propose any potentially workable alternative to nuclear war. Jesus >>> attacked the money changers with no hope of benefit for anyone. Mohammad >>> killed the Jewish men of Medina and sold their women and children into >>> slavery, etc., etc. >>> 3. A statement in their own words that they hereby disavow allegiance >>> to any non-human god or alien entity, and that they will NOT follow the >>> directives of any government led by people who would obviously fail this >>> test. This statement would be included on the license. >>> >>> This should force many people off of the fence, as they would have to >>> choose between sanity and Heaven (or Hell). >>> >>> Then, Ben, the CIA, diplomats, etc., could verify that they are dealing >>> with people who don't have any of the common forms of societal insanity. >>> Perhaps the site should be multi-lingual? >>> >>> Any and all thoughts are GREATLY appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Steve Richfield >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
