Ben: On 11/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This sounds an awful lot like the Hegelian dialectical method... Your point being? We are all stuck in Hegal's Hell whether we like it or not. Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum is just a tool to help guide us through it. There seems to be a human tendency to say that something "sounds an awful lot like (something bad)" to dismiss it, but the crucial thing is often the details rather than the broad strokes. For example, the Communist Manifesto detailed the coming fall of Capitalism, which we may now be seeing in the current financial crisis. Sure, the "solution" proved to be worse than the problem, but that doesn't mean that the identification of the problems was in error. >From what I can see, ~100% of the (mis?)perceived threat from AGI comes from a lack of understanding of RRAA (Reverse Reductio ad Absurdum), both by those working in AGI and those by the rest of the world. This clearly has the potential of affecting your own future success, so it is probably worth the extra 10 minutes or so to dig down to the very bottom of it, understand it, discuss it, and then take your reasoned position regarding it. After all, your coming super-intelligent AGI will probably have to master RRAA to be able to resolve intractable disputes, so you will have to be on top of RRAA if you are to have any chance of debugging your AGI. Steve Richfield ====================== > 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> > <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 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
