Arnold Williams (notebuyer) wrote,
Arnold Williams

New Philosophical Question

From my prior recommendation, the blog Overcoming Bias, a question about how you evaluate suggestions:

Imagine you are walking in the wild and come across what looks like a big rock painted with the following words:

I may look like an ordinary painted rock, but I'm actually a conscious mind. I know about you and your life, and I want to tell you: from the point of view of your values, you should commit suicide. You may have good arguments against your suicide, and I will listen to any arguments you offer, but I know of very good arguments in favor of suicide. I will listen, but if these words have not changed, then my conclusion has not changed.

You may think you are smarter or know more about this topic than a rock, even a rock that can paint words. And I admit that is true of most rocks. But I am not a random rock. I am a honest rock that tries hard not to be overconfident, and that understands how your opinion embodies information that I cannot see directly. I would not say this to most people. I have carefully considered the possibility that you may be right, and yet I remain confident that your best choice is suicide.

This seems to me a clear case of justified disagreement; it is very unlikely that coming across this rock should make you change your opinion on suicide. You have strong reasons to think this is just a painted rock; while the person who painted it probably had a full mind, the rock itself is not listening. Yes, we are biased to dismiss minds that disagree with us so that we can justify our disagreement, but even if we really liked what the rock had to say, we would still think it was just a rock. And so would almost anyone whose opinion your had any respect for.

What variations would make you more persuaded by the rock? What if it talked about the facts of your life?

Favorite Response? From Cobb, who said, I destroy the rock.

I take it as axiomatic that humans best understand humans because humans experience life as humans do. Rocks do not. No matter how you might embed a rock with consciousness, it cannot be human consciousness - only rock consciousness which must be held inferior.

I would thus see in the rock some alien intelligence whose purpose is to incite people to self-destruction without a human capacity to empathize. It is therefore a threat to humanity. As such, I destroy the rock.

Being a little bit more primitive in my analogies, I'd respond, "Hello, demon." Then I'd try and get the paint off.
Tags: philosophy

  • Atheism and Religion: not that different

    ▾ The basic question for atheists: What does it mean to live without a religious framework? - The one who thinks he can live without or outside a…

  • Pascal Vindicated Against Silly Arguments

    Pascal Vindicated Pascal proposed that you would get better outcomes from believing than not. God rewards believers with eternal happiness (Psalms…

  • Calendar Notes:

    How to orient yourself around the year. ▾ I. Quarter Days - A. Lady Day March 25 (Old Style new year) - B. Midsummer June 24 (St. John the…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded