I wasn't trying to be pejorative, just pointing out an apparent correspondence...
I have nothing against Hegel; I think he was a great philosopher. His "Logic" is really fantastic reading. And, having grown up surrounded by Marxist wannabe-revolutionaries (most of whom backed away from strict Marxism in the mid-70s when the truth about the Soviet Union came out in America), I am also aware there is a lot of deep truth in Marx's thought, in spite of the evil that others wrought with it after his death... I just think that Hegel's dialectical philosophy is clearer than your "reverse reductio ad absurdum", and so I'm curious to know what you think your formulation *adds* to the classic Hegelian one... >From what I understand, your RRA heuristic says that, sometimes, when both X and ~X are appealing to rational people, there is some common assumption underlying the two, which when properly questioned and modified can yield a new Y that transcends and in some measure synthesizes aspects of X and ~X I suppose Hegel would have called Y the dialectical synthesis of X and ~X, right? BTW, we are certainly not seeing the fall of capitalism now. Marx's dialectics-based predictions made a lot of errors; for instance, both he and Hegel failed to see the emergence of the middle class as a sort of dialectical synthesis of the ruling class and the proletariat ;-) ... but, I digress!! So, how would you apply your species of dialectics to solve the problem of consciousness? This is a case where, clearly, rational intelligent and educated people hold wildly contradictory opinions, e.g. X1 = consciousness does not exist X2 = consciousness is a special extra-physical entity that correlates with certain physical systems at certain times X3 = consciousness is a kind of physical entity X4 = consciousness is a property immanent in everything, that gets focused/structured differently via interaction with different physical systems All these positions contradict each other. How do you suggest to dialectically synthesize them? ;-) ben g -- Ben On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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> > <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 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
