From: Olie L (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 27 2006 - 04:33:38 MST
>From: Philip Goetz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:21 -0500
>I think the philosophy discussions usually have a lower signal/noise ratio.
Granted, yes. I would note that posts on philosophical matters often reveal
a... deficiency of expertise in the area.
Moreover, it seems many people's "auto-censorship levels" are set lower for
many philosophical matters. This is a pity.
Sometimes I wonder if the source of this is that certain elements confuse
"philosophy" with "opinion".
>Do people think SL4 would improve if we banned philosophy?
Ummm... does that mean barring discussion of papers by Drs Nick Bostrom and
What about Kurt Godel? Douglas Hofstadter? Heck, I think it eliminates a
fair chunk of the SIAI reading list.
Admittedly, discussions about ontology tend to be pretty tedious. From what
I've seen (and I've read... ugh... a fair portion...ugh... of the backlog, I
mean, archive. Which is infuriating, because so many of the threads aren't
indexed properly), despite the number of clever people here, I don't think
this list has really added anything to the field.
>- How are we supposed to talk about what sort of goals and ethics we
>should develop an AI to have, so that it will be friendly, without
>delving into "mere philosophy"?
Given that Ethics is commonly considered a branch of philolosophy, this
seems like a tricky ask to me.
Similarly, meta-mathematics, logic, rationality, epistemology and semantics
are generally considered branches of philosophy.
Or should that be "merely philosophy"?
I think that the label implies something of the confusion listed above.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT