From: Pavitra (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Oct 11 2009 - 21:30:54 MDT
> I've been reading the recent marathon discussion of constraining robots to
> be our friends. All I have to add is this: conversation can serve more
> functions than the defense of two mega-points. The assumption of a
> bilateral split between "what I'm saying" and "what you're saying" is
> basically completely erroneous. In buddhism this error is known as getting
> caught up in "I", which does not in reality exist. In logic, it borders on
> ad-hominem reasoning, in a slightly varied form, essentially saying "if I
> can get you on one point, I've got you on all of them." Our American
> situation with the two parties and how any issue has to have a Party_A
> response which must be different than the Party_B response has unfortunately
> trained us all to habitually lump ALL of a person's points into "that
> person's argument", and hence get caught in devoting too much time to
> belaboring tiny points, just to have the satisfaction of putting a chink
> somewhere, anywhere, in their armor.
> Create good filtering processes, and the rest is gravy.
I don't understand what that last sentence means. At first I thought it
was a recommendation for how to design AI, and was preparing a Party_A
response, but on reflection that doesn't make sense.
Are you talking about some kind of cognitive filters that would yield a
higher quality of discussion?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT