[farrisbris]

Well its not an impossible argument to understand from a game theory perspective of civilization.

I don't agree with it. Much as i don't agree with the Dark Forest premise set forward in the Three Body Problem series, I thought it was very interesting nontheless and worth spending quite a bit of time musing over. As with Nick Bostroms thoughts.

Just because we disagree with a concept on ethical or practical or whatever reason doesn't mean we should be discussing it or that we can gain something from discussing it.

At least he can argue his side, unlike the politicians constantly pushing for a more and more draconian state.

[bordercases]

I used to believe this because I used to believe that toy models were exercises in the capability of our thoughts, and any such exercise is worthwhile. But we have a discipline for that -- theology. Towards the end of the 20th century philosophers that are widely considered to be a part of the modern canon (in particular William James and Peirce, Wittgenstein too) thought practice as being indispensable to theory, and that theory that is formed without practice just cannot have the experiential fodder necessary to ground theory in factual principle.

It sounds obvious when you say it, but here we are. Philosophers themselves have either (a) taken an "ethnographic turn" (c/o John Dewey) where they realize the limitations of there own expertise and figure the standard they should strive for is being stronger describers of reality, disentangling its confusions, or (b) acquired expertise in the thing they are philosophing about, which makes them a kind of theorotician or highly informed historian.

If Bostrom ain't writing code how do we know if he is grounded in anything?