Eliezer, first (and I think this is an important distinction) I’m saying that human deliberation could be illusory. This is different than saying that it is illusory -as far as I can tell, we don’t know enough to know. I think it’s a distinction worth keeping as a possibility, to the degree that it can help us develop the best models of reality. Of course if human deliberation is 100% illusory, in all points of configuration space, it would seem to be useless knowledge for us, since even those moments of knowing (and then not knowing or forgetting) would be determined.
However, I can think of a scenario where it can be very useful for us to find out if most, but not all moments of human deliberation are determined. It can allow us to rationally put resources into those areas where deliberation can make a positive difference on our persistence odds.
I suppose rather than trying to get rid of the rainbow, I’m trying maximize our flexibility regarding all rainbow viewing traditions, to see if we can maximize the amount of our rainbow viewing time. How much deliberation should Eliezer do, and in what ways? Who else should be deliberating? Should we be assembly line cloning/breeding our best deliberators for this problems? I understand the benefit of well-crafted propaganda, including lines about telling the general population to choose rationality. But I think the best propaganda is an empirical/bayesian question, and can be fairly separate from the best models of reality, which seem to be important to maximizing our persistence odds.
My apologies that this hastily crafted response rambles a bit, but I hope it gives better insight into why I’m encouraging us to stay open to the possibility that large swaths, or all of human deliberation is “illusory”, even while I’m encouraging the best and most efficient possible deliberation into how to best maximize our persistence odds.
Eliezer, first (and I think this is an important distinction) I’m saying that human deliberation could be illusory. This is different than saying that it is illusory -as far as I can tell, we don’t know enough to know. I think it’s a distinction worth keeping as a possibility, to the degree that it can help us develop the best models of reality. Of course if human deliberation is 100% illusory, in all points of configuration space, it would seem to be useless knowledge for us, since even those moments of knowing (and then not knowing or forgetting) would be determined.
However, I can think of a scenario where it can be very useful for us to find out if most, but not all moments of human deliberation are determined. It can allow us to rationally put resources into those areas where deliberation can make a positive difference on our persistence odds.
I suppose rather than trying to get rid of the rainbow, I’m trying maximize our flexibility regarding all rainbow viewing traditions, to see if we can maximize the amount of our rainbow viewing time. How much deliberation should Eliezer do, and in what ways? Who else should be deliberating? Should we be assembly line cloning/breeding our best deliberators for this problems? I understand the benefit of well-crafted propaganda, including lines about telling the general population to choose rationality. But I think the best propaganda is an empirical/bayesian question, and can be fairly separate from the best models of reality, which seem to be important to maximizing our persistence odds.
My apologies that this hastily crafted response rambles a bit, but I hope it gives better insight into why I’m encouraging us to stay open to the possibility that large swaths, or all of human deliberation is “illusory”, even while I’m encouraging the best and most efficient possible deliberation into how to best maximize our persistence odds.