Ben, On 11/18/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. >> >> > > Hmmm... don't I fail this test every time I follow the speed limit ? ;-) >
I don't think I stated this well, and perhaps you might be able to say it better. If your government wants you to go out and kill people, or help others to go out and kill people, and you don't see some glimmer of understanding from the leaders that this is really stupid, then perhaps you shouldn't contribute to such insanity. Then, just over this fence to help define the boundary... Look at the Star Wars anti-missile defense system. It can't possibly ever work well, as countermeasures are SO simple to implement. However, it was quite effective in bankrupting the Soviet Union, while people like me were going around and lecturing about horrible waste of public resources it was. In short, I think that re-evaluation is necessary at about the point where blood starts flowing. What are your thoughts? As another aside, it seems wrong to accuse Buddhists of condoning violence > because they don't like MAD (which involves stockpiling nukes) ... you could > accuse them of foolishness perhaps (though I don't necessarily agree) but > not of condoning violence > I have hours of discussion with Buddhists invested in this. I have no problem at all with them getting themselves killed, but I have a BIG problem with their asserting their beliefs to get OTHERS killed. If we had a Buddhist President who kept MAD from being implemented, there is a pretty good chance that we would not be here to have this discussion. As an aside, when you look CAREFULLY at the events that were unfolding as MAD was implemented, there really isn't anything at all against Buddhist beliefs in it - just a declaration that if you attack me, that I will attack in return, but without restraint against civilian targets. My feeling is that with such a group of intelligent and individualistic > folks as transhumanists and AI researchers are, any "litmus test for > cognitive sanity" you come up with is gonna be quickly revealed to be full > of loopholes that lead to endless philosophical discussions... so that in > the end, such a test could only be used as a general guide, with the > ultimate cognitive-sanity-test to be made on a qualitative basis > I guess that this is really what I was looking for - just what is that basis? For example, if someone can lie and answer questions in a logical manner just to get their license, then they have proven that they can be logical, whether or not they chose to be. I think that is about as good as is possible. In a small project like Novamente, we can evaluate each participant > individually to assess their thought process and background. In a larger > project like OpenCog, there is not much control over who gets involved, but > making people sign a form promising to be rational and cognitively sane > wouldn't seem to help much, as obviously there is nothing forcing people to > be honest... > ... other than their sure knowledge that they will go directly to Hell for even listening and considering such as we are discussing here. The Fiq is a body of work outside the Koran that is part of Islam, which includes stories of Mohamed's life, etc. Therein the boundary is precisely described. Islam demands that anyone who converts from Islam be killed. One poor fellow watched both of his parents refuse to renounce Islam, and then be killed by invaders. When it came to his turn, he quickly renounced to save his life. Now that he was being considered for execution, the ruling from Mohamed: "If they ask you again, then renounce again." and he was released. BTW, it would be really stupid of me to try to enforce a different standard than you and other potential users of such a site would embrace, so my goal here is not only to discuss potential construction of such a site, but also to discuss just what that standard is. Hence, take my words as open for editing. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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
