From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 14:55:35 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> Well yes, of course it's relative and subjective; it's defined by
>> humans and
>> by consensus in our society. One person's civilization is another
>> person's
>> abomination. I asked you in a previous post to produce an argument
>> demonstrating that there is a single preferential civilized frame of
>> reference, as it were.
>
>
> But Extropians aren't seeking a relative or subjective consensus toward
> civilization. Why would anybody want that. We seek absolute or
> objective consensus toward civilization. We seek hard provable
> increases in extropy (system's intelligence, information, order,
> vitality, and capacity for improvement). Our basic goals of perpetual
> progress and intelligent technology need to be measurable and sure. Our
> basic goals for self-transformation, open society, and self-direction
> are for everybody, not just a chosen subset.
>
While I support all of these things I don't believe they are all
that is desirable or perhaps, I believe that real progress
includes a lot more than computational capacity and how
efficiently how much energy is used.
>
>>> If we do not think proactively rather than reactively
>>> about these questions and project what we wish to live in,
>>
>
> These kinds of statements contain no meaning. Everybody considers their
> own position to be correct, proactive, best-practices, etc. This line
False, they contain tons of very real meaning. How most people
think about their own position and whether they are actually
proactively envisioning and creating the type of world they
really want to live in instead of merely reacting, are very
different, quite factual things.
> of reasoning is providing no information about what you believe, why you
> believe it, and what evidence you have to convince others of your
> belief. You are merely asserting over and over that you are right, but
> you aren't even clearly stating what or why you believe.
>
I am not talking about my "belief" but about the very important
question of whether we are fully envisioning where we want to go
and using it to really guide ourselves. I don't believe just
saying we believe in unlimited progrees is enough. I don't
believe arguing factoids and their implications and a belief in
unlimited technological development is enough. I am asserting
something so obvious it is often forgotten.
>> One of my earlier points: whether it is ok or not within any given
>> society
>> is a function of what the members of that society agree upon, no
>> matter how
>> horrid other people may find it. As pointed out earlier, I believe in
>> absolute relativism, you don't.
>
>
> Again, do you have any evidence for these infanticide, racial or violent
> views, or is it just that you have a right to hold them? You won't win
> many converts without further evidence.
>
Evidence hardly seems like the relevant point. They question
is, what kind of society do we wish to build. Is it one that
includes the right to practice infanticide (for instance) or
not. It is not in the realm of evidence but of intent and practice.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:23 MST