It isn’t a definitive argument, but you could point out that various intelligent historical figures had different morals from modern intelligent people. Napoleon, for instance—his intelligence is apparent, but his morality is ambiguous. Newton, or Archimedes, or George Washington, or any of several others, would work similarly.
Thanks, that’s one of the approaches I was planning to use—but also use very pathological high-functioning individuals, and imagine their speed being boosted...
A problem with this argument is that it’s using that slippery word, “intelligence”; one could argue that Jesus was the most intelligent person ever because he exerted the most optimization pressure, and his values (or our modern conceptions of them) just so happen to line up really well with the professed values of modern intelligent people. Same with Rousseau. Also, Archimedes barely knew any calculus—clearly he wasn’t very intelligent.
I would like the argument to work, because at least it’s relatively empirical, but it seems too easy to poke holes in.
Sidestepping the particulars of early Christianity: in a case where agent A articulates a set of values and agent B subsequently implements state changes in the world that align it with those values, my judgment about who exerted what optimization pressure seems to depend a lot on what I think B would have done in the absence of A’s output.
If I think B would have done exactly the same thing in that case, then I conclude that A exerted no optimization pressure. If I think B would have done something utterly different, then I conclude A exerted a great deal of optimization pressure (and did so extremely efficiently). Etc.
It isn’t a definitive argument, but you could point out that various intelligent historical figures had different morals from modern intelligent people. Napoleon, for instance—his intelligence is apparent, but his morality is ambiguous. Newton, or Archimedes, or George Washington, or any of several others, would work similarly.
Thanks, that’s one of the approaches I was planning to use—but also use very pathological high-functioning individuals, and imagine their speed being boosted...
A problem with this argument is that it’s using that slippery word, “intelligence”; one could argue that Jesus was the most intelligent person ever because he exerted the most optimization pressure, and his values (or our modern conceptions of them) just so happen to line up really well with the professed values of modern intelligent people. Same with Rousseau. Also, Archimedes barely knew any calculus—clearly he wasn’t very intelligent.
I would like the argument to work, because at least it’s relatively empirical, but it seems too easy to poke holes in.
Eh, Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exert very much optimization pressure; Paul of Tarsus did most of the work.
Sidestepping the particulars of early Christianity: in a case where agent A articulates a set of values and agent B subsequently implements state changes in the world that align it with those values, my judgment about who exerted what optimization pressure seems to depend a lot on what I think B would have done in the absence of A’s output.
If I think B would have done exactly the same thing in that case, then I conclude that A exerted no optimization pressure. If I think B would have done something utterly different, then I conclude A exerted a great deal of optimization pressure (and did so extremely efficiently). Etc.
There are also the people who claim that the “Jesus” that Paul talked about never actually existed as a specific individual.
Yup; that is another one of the particulars of early Christianity I’m sidestepping here.