I just popped back to delete my comment, but since it has a reply now I will leave it and ask another question I've been wondering about your Bayesian remark:
Does that mean all Bayesian's are trying to be the same as each other? That Bayesianism considers human individuality silly?
Because if all Bayesians must agree given sufficient information, then the only things left to disagree on (potentially) are ideas which have no fixed grounding in reality, such as whether Wilkie Wilkinson's writings show colonial alienation - and maybe they would eventually agree if given enough information on each other's mental states and histories.
So, is it pushing towards the idea that there is only one possible rational superintelligent view?
Does that mean all Bayesian's are trying to be the same as each other? That Bayesianism considers human individuality silly?
Because if all Bayesians must agree given sufficient information, then the only things left to disagree on (potentially) are ideas which have no fixed grounding in reality, such as whether Wilkie Wilkinson's writings show colonial alienation - and maybe they would eventually agree if given enough information on each other's mental states and histories.
So, is it pushing towards the idea that there is only one possible rational superintelligent view?