I feel that you have a separate issue beyond the existence of scope insensitivity as a phenomenon...
the existence of scope insensitivity is not in doubt. in my original post I quite specifically said: “the point I want to discuss is whether it is entirely fair to describe scope insensitivity, as defined in this way, as a “systematic human brain error”?
it isn’t obvious to me what I should or could have done to make that point any more clear.
and that is that Yudkowsky committed a value judgement when he labelled the phenomenon a production of systematic error.
I think what he did was to claim that he knew the one specific reason why people did not donate more money, and with no data whatsoever he attributed that reason to all persons in the study. this is knowledge he could not possibly possess. his claim is therefore false.
and not only that, but he wants to extend that to all cases of scope insensitivity so that he can say of all persons who are insensitive to scope that they have or display a “systematic human brain error.”
I think it is obvious that his claim cannot possibly be correct.
the existence of scope insensitivity is not in doubt. in my original post I quite specifically said: “the point I want to discuss is whether it is entirely fair to describe scope insensitivity, as defined in this way, as a “systematic human brain error”?
it isn’t obvious to me what I should or could have done to make that point any more clear.
I think what he did was to claim that he knew the one specific reason why people did not donate more money, and with no data whatsoever he attributed that reason to all persons in the study. this is knowledge he could not possibly possess. his claim is therefore false.
and not only that, but he wants to extend that to all cases of scope insensitivity so that he can say of all persons who are insensitive to scope that they have or display a “systematic human brain error.”
I think it is obvious that his claim cannot possibly be correct.
thank you