From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 04:56:53 MDT
--> Harvey Newstrom
> On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 04:30 am, Reason wrote:
> > --> Samantha Atkins
> >> Reason wrote:
> >>> ---> Samantha Atkins
> >>>> Reason wrote:
> >>> [Civilized = something that Samantha agrees with or feels comfortable
> >>> with], apparently.
> >>>
> >> If you believe that, that it is all relative or subjective, then
> >> it is no wonder we are having a difficult time communicating.
> >
> > 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.
My thesis is, restated again, that you can't have an objectively correct
consensus. The items listed above are desirable for a bunch of people
(myself included), but cannot be *objectively* proven to be more or less
desirable than any other set of goals, because you have to measure by some
(one of many) subjective human standards of desire. Yes, you can (and
should) trot out firm scientific measurable goals, but that doesn't say
anything about what intelligent entities think about those goals or
methodologies.
You cannot demonstrate extropy (or any other goal-oriented philosophy for
that matter) to be "right," "correct," "good" or "desirable" in any
objective way. All of those things are bound up in human perception and
opinions. They don't exist separately from us humans, and us humans have
many billions of different views. Each view values your goals differently.
So the goals can't be for everyone unless you're planning active coercion --
because not everyone sees them as more desirable than other very dissimilar
goals.
Am I being unclear?
> > I think that memes of that sort are essential, but from a perspective of
> > extreme memetic diversity = good for the future of intelligent life,
> > arrived
> > at by scientific thinking. Since we can't (yet) in advance accurately
> > predict which memes lead intelligence to better survive all
> > eventualities,
> > any and all memes are welcome in the pool. Even ones we as individuals
> > may
> > feel have to defend ourselves against.
>
> This is an odd interpretation. Memetic diversity is good, but that does
> not mean that all idea are valid or true. The fact that we can
> accurately predict all eventualities does not imply that we shouldn't
> predict anything. Some memes can be pursued as more useful, and other
> memes can be discarded as less useful. If one really thinks we can't
> evaluate ideas at all, I'm not sure how we could pursue or advocate
> anything.
With regards to ideas being valid or true, see above. If we're not talking
about scientific, measurable, gravity-makes-you-fall-off-the-cliff type
stuff, then you have no objective measurement of whether an idea is valid or
true.
As to working to destroy or discard memes -- those actions or desires are
memes in and of themselves and belong in the pool.
> >>> With regards to your first paragraph there, equating infants to
> >>> animals
> >>> using some set of criteria is a factual discussion, or a conclusion
> >>> arrived
> >>> at by a society by consensus. Either you subscribe to this
> >>> fact/opinion and
> >>> its justifications or you don't.
>
> I think this is just plain wrong. We don't vote on facts by societal
> convention. We don't merely choose to equate infants with animals or
> not. Claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence. We have all seen these unfounded claims that
> infants = animals = OK to kill, but it is time for people to provide
> some evidence for this position or let it drop. Repeatedly asserting it
> or even considering it without evidence is wasting our time.
Please see my other e-mails in which I clarify that I'm talking about the
second of two sorts of things that are commonly (and shoddily) called facts.
The first is the scientific, measureable sort (acceleration due to gravity),
while the second is the societally-agreed sort (rocks have spirits and
should be treated as honorary humans).
What would be nice is if people would stop riffing on this infant-killing
thing and get back to the interesting point, which is that societies come to
consensus "facts" (second sort) that are pretty damn arbitrary taken in the
wider context. Such as the humanity of animals, objects and humans.
Whether you then want to talk about ethical platforms based on top of these
"facts" that say killing is ok is really up to you, but I have (and had) no
desire to participate in that discussion.
> >> The fact (an infant is an animal) does not let to the conclusion (it is
> >> alright to kill them if you wish and have ownership rights).
> >
> > Well, yes, that's what I was saying. All those other things are derived
> > by
> > societal consensus. But it's pretty arbitrary, based on historical
> > record,
> > as to which consensus is arrived at.
> >
> >> I draw my line well before the point of saying that killing
> >> infants is ok and trying to claim that they are not even human
> >> or claims they are relatively valueless.
> >
> > Which is all opinion, which is kind of my point.
>
> Again, these kinds of things are not just opinions or voted consensus.
> Extropians actually believe in things or hold certain principles. We
> are not relativists to the point that nothing is true and we can vote
> anything into reality. If anyone proposes infanticide, groupism, or
> violence, they need to argue their position with evidence. Claiming
> that everything is arbitrary anyway is not a defensive position.
Well now here we get to it. As I asked Samantha, can you provide a proof
demonstrating that relativism of ideas is not true -- i.e. that there is
some sort of external objective criteria by which human ethical and similar
meme structures can be valued, measured, or judged?
(From your earlier e-mails and above, I think you thought I was talking
about relativism of universal laws and reality -- which I am not. Just
relativism in the human, perceived value of ideas, concepts and "facts"
[second sort]).
> >>> Whether or not you find it pleasant to think about, many similar
> >>> things
> >>> (value of people, value of infants, value of races) have been settled
> >>> on in
> >>> a consensus manner in radically different ways in different times and
> >>> societies. Many "civilized" and complex societies have declared whole
> >>> segments of what is currently considered humanity to be objects of
> >>> little value.
>
> This is the human history we wish to transcend by being transhumans. We
> wish to avoid the atrocities of the past and become something better.
> The argument that we have always done it this way is not acceptable
> evidence that it should be so.
My in-context point at the time of writing that paragraph was "look at this
carnage, we can't just say 'ick, gross, we don't talk about that' and ignore
it." So, yes, what you said.
> > Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we
> > don't
> > look back in an attempt to understand, we're not going to do all that
> > well
> > when things get really complex.
>
> Then do so! We have been seeing a lot of talk of history supporting
> racism and bigotry or infanticide or violence. Somebody should present
> the evidence. Show that these things are useful or required for our
> future society. I have not see such evidence yet. The main problem
> with these recent discussions is that they seem to assume such things
> without evidence. The above counter argument implies that Samantha's
> position ignores history and that racial arguments consider history.
> Now present some evidence for this claim.
The in-context talk (on my part) was that historical socities have supported
a whole bunch of what we currently see as pretty obnoxious. *Not* that the
fact that this happened provides weight for these things being good -- but
that societal valuation of memes and memeplexes is relative and changes over
time. This is the response to people who reject things out of hand because
their current societal memeplex says that it's bad and who believe that
their current memeplex is the absolute and final response.
There is no right and wrong beyond that which we, as individuals, decide or
agree is right and wrong. And that changes.
> >>> This whole thing originally came about as a result of querying where
> >>> to draw
> >>> the line between human and non-human, and assigning a value to
> >>> potential
> >>> humans. This is an eminently valid discussion. If human societies
> >>> can't deal
>
> I don't see anyone saying not to draw the line. I only see people
> asking for evidence for drawing it along racial or age lines. The claim
> that infants aren't humans or races aren't equally human is pretty
> extraordinary.
Sadly, it used to be all too ordinary. See above.
> It has far reaching implications and must be
> demonstrated before potentially murderous action can be considered. You
> are arguing that you have a right to consider this and use evidence to
> come to a conclusion. Nobody disputes that. What we want to see is the
> evidence that infants aren't human or that races are not equally
> valuable humans.
The route I suggested was a Turing Test for evaluating what is human vrs
potential human/non-human. I'm arguing that by that definition, infants are
not human. (Members of species homo sapiens, sure, will be human eventually
if given support, sure, but I can't interact with them in the way I can with
a real human).
I seem to recall my involvement in this thread collection started with my
ideas on drawing the line, because I'm a reductionist. In my mind, ten years
from now, a skin cell, cat, big supercomputer, etc, will only be
differentiated from a 1 year-old child by the amount of work it would take
to turn it into a Turing Test passing human. Can we say that some of those
are human and some aren't? If so, why, what are the underlying
rationalizations? These are all interesting questions to me.
Now from there a bunch of other wild people headed off into the sunlight
with this baby killing thing. Which just makes me sad -- a bunch of smart
types look at a simple question like this and immediately head towards the
most extreme example and represent (nay, *assume* -- what lack of respect
you have for the humanity of your fellow humans) that this is what will
happen if we so much as look at this question. Congratulations: you all have
a career in politics ahead of you.
> >> No problem with that in some aspects. There is a problem in
> >> other aspects where you believe things below the line can/should
> >> be treated in any arbitrary manner you might see fit.
> >
> > Which is an ethical/moral question to be decided on by societal
> > consensus.
> > And the answer could be any old thing.
>
> This is definitely not acceptable under most societies or extropian
> prinicples. We can't "decide" to murder infants or certain races
> arbitrarily. The answer can't be "any old thing." If this is the
> evidence for infanticide or racism (or other violence), it does not meet
> any civilized society's standards for death sentences or mass genocide.
> It is not sufficient evidence.
I beg to differ -- the answer can and has been pretty much "any old thing."
Go back and look at historical examples, and find yourself wondering how in
the hell people came up with these social contracts.
"Decide" is a bad word, laziness on my part. See my other post on our
inability to model how societies come to conclusions by consensus.
Again, the original in-context remarks were not proposing historical
acceptance of Nasty Things as evidence for adoption of Nasty Things in the
future. They were attempting to illustrate relativism of ideas and values.
> > Well yes and no. Map is the territory. Perceived value is pretty much
> > the same as value.
>
> No rational philosophy believes this. The map is NOT the territory.
> Perception is NOT the same as objective reality. There is an objective
> reality. Our actions have real consequences in the real world.
See my other post on the distinction between "value"/"fact" assigned by
people, human opinion, societies (blue is far nicer than red), and the
value/fact that is scientific and measurable (tortoises aren't as fast as
rabbits). As I pointed out, the same terms (value, fact) are commonly used
in both cases. Need better terminology.
So yes, I'm not talking about making your own physical reality type of
thing. I'm talking about perceived value (we think blue is nicer than red,
therefore blue is nicer than red for us). Actions based on perceived value
have an effect on the real world too. Stock market comes to mind.
> >> 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
> 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.
Not mine -- Samantha said that. At least I hope I didn't say that.
The above paragraph of yours nicely points to one of my points -- that
everyone is doing that. It's all relative. Including my position on
relativism of ideas. Heh.
> > 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.
Firstly, see above to see that I'm not advocating killing people as a Good
Thing. I like not killing people. My life should be a veritable celebration
of not killing people. That's just my viewpoint of course, and one that
wouldn't have gone over too well in London in 1915.
Rights are relative too -- they don't exist separately from humans, and are
a product of human ideas and opinions. You imply above that there is an
absolute, external standard by which rights are determined for all
views/ideas/memeplexes. Please demonstrate that this is so.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST