- Beliefs should have consequences
- Beliefs should constrain future experiences
- Empiricism is the process of asking what experiences our beliefs predict and, more importantly, which experiences they prohibit
- When arguing about beliefs, ask about what you would expect to observe as a result of those beliefs
- If you can’t find the difference, you’re arguing about what you should put on the label for a particular experience, not the experience itself
- Science fiction parable in which people have been driven from the Earth’s surface
- Have no idea what the sky looks like - only knowledge comes from books that describe the sky as “cerulean”
- Debate arises as to whether cerulean is a shade of blue or a shade of green
- This debate takes on political dimension and leads to violence
- As a result, the question of whether the sky is blue or green isn’t a simple question about color - it’s entangled with many other social and economic beliefs
- One day, there’s an earthquake and a path to the surface opens up
- What happens next depends on who travels that path
- Aditya (blue): sees the color of the sky as vindication for all that the blue faction has fought for - decides to end the truce between blue and green
- Barron (green): sees color of the sky as proof that the universe is evil
- Charles (moderate blue): sees knoweldge of the color of the sky as dangerous - vows to come back and seal up the path
- Daria, (green): forces herself to look at the sky and change her mind, even though it’s hard and painful
- Eddin, (green): struck by the pointlessness of so much conflict over such a simple question
- Ferris - just notices the color and proceeds to explore the rest of the surface world
- It’s often much easier to believe that one ought to believe something than it is to actually believe that thing
- People often claim to believe something even when they don’t anticipate the experiences that are entailed by that belief
- These people often make excuses to pre-emptively explain away experimental results that contradict the beliefs they profess to hold
- In many ways, people who genuinely believe something are easier to convince because you can debate them with evidence and find concrete points of disagreement
- Eliezer encounters someone who asserts that Artificial Intelligence is impossible because intelligence requires a soul and only God can create souls
- Eliezer replies that this means that if he can create an Artifical Intelligence, it means this person’s religion is false
- Person attempts to retreat by saying that they were referring to emotional experiences
- Eliezer replies by saying that if the AI appears to have emotional experiences, it proves the religion wrong
- Person says that they might have to agree to disagree
- Eliezer uses Aumann’s agreement theorem to assert that rationalists cannot agree to disagree
- Many people signal wisdom by refusing to pass judgement
- There is a real difference between suspending judgement and asserting that every point of view is equally valid
- There is a real difference between skepticisim and relativism
- Skepticism is doubting a particular answer, but acknowledging that there is an answer to be found
- Relativism is thinking that all answers are equally valid in some sense
- Neutrality is a judgement too; refusing to choose sides is a choice in itself
- There is a difference between passing neutral judgement and refusing to pass judgement
- Pretending that either of the above is a mark of deep wisdom that sets you ahove everyone else is folly