Sources of disagreement
How to handle disagreements
Not necessarily up to infinity, but for as long as Moore's Law would otherwise stay exponential in a biological civilization. But it's worth remembering that if there were any smaller modification of a chimpanzee that spontaneously gave rise to a technological civilization, we would be having this conversation at that lower level of intelligence instead. Ideally, all of the known information should be combined in some way, but one can reasonably disagree about the best way to do this. We haven't yet begun to see the shape of the era of intelligence. Some such arguments fail because they rely on the ambiguity of words and assumptions that are left unexplained. It's hard to see how Robin Hanson could have done any of this work for me. We rarely know if a person means exactly what he says, and we can never know if the other person understands the connotations of the words we are using. So if the above statement is false, then the statement must be true, because after all, the statement did confess it was false. Yesterday I exhausted myself mentally while out on my daily walk, asking myself the Question "What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it? We also tend to mangle the definitions of words to suit our own interests. The conclusion is that disagreement as to the true model maybe a more serious obstacle to successful policy coordination than is institutional failure to enforce Pareto-improving solutions.
And, to be symmetrical, I don't spend much time thinking about more than one box at a time - if I have more hardware, it means I have to figure out how to scale a bigger brain. In political disagreement, the underlying goal may be to have your own group look good e.
If all such possibilities are rejected on the basis of their being "unvetted" by experience, it doesn't leave me with much to talk about.
How to disagree respectfully
For instance, the distinction between bad information processing methods and illogical argumentation can blur. The scaling law for population is not the scaling law for time is not the scaling law for brain size is not the scaling law for mind design. Now, consider the abstractions used in my Moore's Researchers scenario, versus the abstractions used in Hanson's paper above, and ask yourself only the question of which looks more "vetted by experience" - given that both are models of a sort that haven't been used before, in domains not actually observed, and that both give results quite different from the world we see and that would probably cause the vast majority of actual economists to say "Naaaah. Or if, in fact, Robin finds my conclusions, and the sort of premises I use, to be objectionable for other reasons - which, so far as we know at this point, may well be valid objections - and so it appears to him that my abstractions bear a larger burden of proof than the sort of mathematical steps he takes in "Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence". Others place negative value on the death of conscious entities, and so oppose abortion at the point that a fetus can reasonably be said to be conscious. But something's wrong with using that as a justification for models where there are lots of little black boxes just like humans scurrying around, and we never pry open the black box and scale the brain bigger or redesign its software or even just speed up the damn thing. We rarely know if a person means exactly what he says, and we can never know if the other person understands the connotations of the words we are using.
This makes gun policy experts' estimates of the true effects of policies an important influence on gun policy debates and decisions.
One has spent years reading American news sources, another, Chinese ones.
The core of my argument has to do with what happens when you pry open the black boxes that are your economic agents, and start fiddling with their brain designs, and leave the tiny human dot in mind design space.
Note, however, that these nine categories of disagreement are not entirely independent from each other.
Some people place negative value on suffering, and believe that aborting a fetus is wrong if it causes the fetus to suffer, and that it is not wrong if there is no suffering. The core of my argument has to do with what happens when you pry open the black boxes that are your economic agents, and start fiddling with their brain designs, and leave the tiny human dot in mind design space. Of course, this leaves out the fact that child birth itself carries substantial risks to the mother. I get it. And furthermore, how does one explain what blue is, or red? Sometimes disagreement is simply about scoring points for our side, at the expense of the other side. It's hard to see how Robin Hanson could have done any of this work for me. When we encounter a complex and difficult to resolve disagreement, we can gain insight into why it is occurring and how it might be resolved by considering the roles of the nine and particularly, the first six fundamental reasons for disagreement: 1 facts, 2 definitions, 3 values, 4 signaling, 5 failures of logic, 6 group competition, 7 information processing methods, 8 default beliefs, and 9 self-interest. But the history of time could never have been set in motion, otherwise. Suppose that two intelligences people, aliens, A. And what a bizarre thing a human must be, a mind born entirely of evolution, a mind that was not created by another mind. The scaling law for population is not the scaling law for time is not the scaling law for brain size is not the scaling law for mind design.
based on 96 review