From: Richard Loosemore (rpwl@lightlink.com)
Date: Tue Aug 29 2006 - 12:03:42 MDT
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Richard Loosemore wrote:
>> Do you seriously suggest that I know less than Eliezer about cognitive
>> science?
>
> That would be incredibly hard to judge for anyone, since nobody
> appears to have created an artificial general intelligence yet.
No no no: Rik, it is really very, very *easy*. And I would welcome
your impartial help in carrying out the following test.
Do it like this. Take the end of the last main post I wrote on the
Conjunction Fallacy thread, where I laid out Eliezer's utterances about
"mental models" and the relationship between "mental models" researchers
and "heuristics and biasses" people ....... all that stuff, and put it
in front of a lecturer who teaches a basic course in cognitive
psychology using (say) the Eysenck and Keane text, and ask that lecturer
what they would think of a student who made the claims that Eliezer
made. Tell them to take a look at the rest of the correspondence, if
you like, but warn them not to waste too much time on on it because it
is just too depressing.
Specifically, ask if a person who claimed to be an expert in the
research on human reasoning could have the name "Phil Johnson-Laird" put
in front of them, and yet have to google his name to find out who he
was. Ask if that same expert could be as confused as Eliezer was about
what "Mental Models" signified, in the context of human reasoning.
And then find another nine lecturers and do the same thing.
Get a count of how many of them think that someone who writes about the
subject the way Eleiezer does, is sane.
Then come back to the list and publish the results.
Richard Loosemore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT