From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sun Mar 07 1999 - 16:12:50 MST
Max More <max@maxmore.com> writes:
> I've put a draft of "What is Extropy" on a web page for comments. It will
> become a FAQ answer, after a bit of testing. You can find it here:
>
> http://www.maxmore.com/extropy.html
Some comments from Robert Ingdahl (my loyal henchman) and me. Overall,
it is a good answer, a better definition of extropy is needed since it
can be so misunderstood. If we tried to maximize negentropy, then we
better had to freeze the universe :-)
The problem is the "isms" section. The question contains a hidden
premise, and the answer in some sense accepts it. "Extropianism might
be an ism, but much less nasty than most others". Shouldn't you
explain the usefulness of having some kind of system in one's thinking
(rather than a random eclectic mess), rather than accept the
implication that all such systems are bad in some undefined way. Your
description of why a closed ism is a bad thing is a good start, now
you need to explain why an open, rational ism is a good thing and why
the question's assumption isn't valid - some isms are bad, some are
good, but you cannot avoid choosing.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:16 MST