From extropians-request@extropy.org Wed Dec 29 12:39:41 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA11013; Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:39:39 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA15061; Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:39:34 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by news.panix.com id AA15021 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Wed, 29 Dec 1993 15:28:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 15:28:11 -0500 Message-Id: <199312292028.AA15021@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: December 29, 373 P.N.O. [20:26:35 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 29 Dec 93 Volume 93 : Issue 362 Today's Topics: smartness measure (was: IQ tests & Mensa) [1 msgs] Alt.Extropians.Recovery being formed? [2 msgs] Extropially Correct Welfare [2 msgs] IQ TESTS & MENSA [3 msgs] IQ tests & abstract intelligence measurement [1 msgs] Le Khmer Vert [1 msgs] MORALS: Not Mere Aesthetics [2 msgs] PHIL/MORALS: absolutism, relativism, and all that [1 msgs] PPL: Punishment in a PPL [1 msgs] The Programmer Who Walks [1 msgs] Thinking about thinking [1 msgs] Why Have Children? [1 msgs] Why have children? [1 msgs] redundancy [1 msgs] yes, we're acquainted [2 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 59997 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 01:45:02 -0800 (PST) From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Alt.Extropians.Recovery being formed? A strange message from nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu: ... > >aliae", while Mara hasn't decided what to do about that. But she's > >definitely going to write--and, I gather, in full-flaming-Mara style. > >*sigh* I've been trying to squelch her. > > Oh, don't squelch Mara--I'm on a mailing list that needs her desperately-- > or at least I might be entertained if she were there. It's extropians-- > a libertarian and optimistic possibilities of technology mailing > list which is also a support group for the differently courtesied and > empathically challenged. They actually talk about it as safe space.... Weird. Does Nancy despise what we stand for this much? Is she then here just to flame, perhaps inviting her friend Mara in for support in flaming? Nice insult there: "which is also a support group for the differently courtesied and empathically challenged." And, yes, we actually do talk about it as a place we don't have to listen to simp-wimp Twelve-Steppers kvetching about incest, abust, randroidism, dead white males oppressing them, and the need for more antidiscrimination laws. (I'm not claiming Nancy has personally argued for these points, but Extropians is not ASAR or alt.recovery or talk.politics.men-are-mean-to-women.) And is Nancy trying to recruit this "full-flaming-Mara" person onto our List? > If she's interested I think it's at extropians-request@extropy.org. > > Seriously, she should only show up there if she's up for a fight, and > I doubt that the rest of you would want to read it. > >(I sort of hate to ask this, but: Do you still have, archived somewhere, > >the Roy-and-Lothie post that upset you? I can't help being curious, > >since Roy has been around ASAR lately. If you do, could you forward me a > >copy?) (Unfortunately, somebody else will probably have the wrong > >reactions to them. But I think I can handle it.) Even though several of our List members seem to treat this List as a kind of "Adult Children of Randroids" recovery group, with the virtual "hugs" and the "daily affirmations" that go with the Addicted to Addiction psychobabble groups, I suspect Nancy has confused our List with some other lists she's on. Say. maybe they have a copy of that book I've been trying to find, "Healing the Inner Extropian Child"? Hugs and warm fuzzy wuzzies to all! --Santa Klaus! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 04:56:17 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Extropially Correct Welfare a conscious being, John Oh wrote: > My basic idea is that you can set up a contract to fund the education of a > student for a number of years and then one could be repaid from the future > earnings of the student. It might be a good idea for a company to pay for > If you screen for very bright children, you should be able to ensure a high > probability that the students will gain the ability to easily generate large My only problem with this is their Psychological well being. That is to say, I know plenty of very bright people who are not capable of finishing things on deadline, following through on key details of a project, etc. What I am trying to say is just because someone is bright doesn't mean they have the mental strength to be a good employee. /hawk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 21:27:01 EST From: trader@cellar.org Subject: Thinking about thinking nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes: > Welcome to the list. > > You *might* find the Sufi stuff interesting--a lot of it seems to be > about expanding one's ability to be flexible about context. > > As for the rest, the most useful thing I've found has been General > Semantics--I learned what I use from Stuart Chase's _The Tyranny of > Words_. You may have already picked up the ideas from de Bono--I > can't remember if he overlaps GS much. The only De Bono book that > struck me as having much that I hadn't seen before is _I am Right, > You Are Wrong_.) I'll keep the Sufi stuff in mind, and will try to seek out _The Tyranny of Words_. deBono does spend some time discussing both the importance of the awareness of context, and the dangers of using language as a thinking system (as opposed to a communication system). > This is probably a good place to bring up a question from a > friend of mine--he's a pretty good programmer, but he'd like to > be a god-who-walks-the-earth programmer. Iho, the gwwte programmers > can imagine complex programs so fully that they enter them at > typing speed--and he has no idea of how to get from his state > to that one. Any ideas? Is being able to programas fast as > you can type an ability that all top programmers have? I've given a little thought to this one also. Though I will happily admit that I can program as fast as my fingers can type, this is more of a reflection on my typing speed. I think that one of the necessary skills is to be a genius in mathematics (to be able to intuitively understand almost any situation and be able to represent it mathematically). Another is the ability to mentally keep track of vastly more than the seven objects that is average for humans. A third prerequisite is to be able to build the code from the inside out (see yourself inside the system, and build the code around you). I've got the third one down pat, I'm working on the second one, but I don't know if I'll ever accomplish the first. Howard Roark | "On the wire, that is living..." trader@cellar.org | - Jerry Harrison Programmer | "The louder the music, the better the code" Cool Geek | - somebody in _The Cuckoo's Egg_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 21:40:44 EST From: trader@cellar.org Subject: redundancy peb@procase.com (Paul Baclace) writes: > I liked Consciousness Explained by Dennet enough to pick up his other > books (which I have yet to read). He is extremely thorough in explaining > his idea of consciousness which amounts to a dynamic or process oriented > model (which is why he gets away with such an audacious title...there is > no final answer--it constantly evolves). I think that I have one of his books laying around, but I don't believe that it's the one you mention. deBono- while often going into theory (as regarding his view of the brain as a self-organizing non-linear dynamic patterning system)- devotes the majority of his writing to putting that theory into usage. Would you characterize Dennet's book as such? I've been loath to state this, but what I'm trying to do here could best be described- colloquially- as brain hacking. The crucial difference here- obviously- is that the system is hacking itself. It just finds the process painstakingly slow without external input. No NIH syndrome here. > supposed to be at the 91 Artificial Life conference, but cancelled > due to random events. ^^^^^^ This is a joke, right? Howard Roark | "On the wire, that is living..." trader@cellar.org | - Jerry Harrison Programmer | "The louder the music, the better the code" Cool Geek | - somebody in _The Cuckoo's Egg_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 21:57:32 EST From: trader@cellar.org Subject: IQ TESTS & MENSA Sandy <72114.1712@compuserve.com> writes: > Before we sneer at the Mensans, it would be wise to ask ourselves > why we felt it necessary to take their tests in the first place. Well, not to rain on your party, but I didn't take their test. I submitted IQ test scores from school and they rolled out the red carpet. I joined Mensa because it was the largest of the organizations and thus- in theory- should have had the most diversity (as well as quantities of babes). I was wrong in at least one of those assumptions, probably both. More appropriate- in my case- is to question why I bothered to join. I joined because I was mired in an intellectual wasteland. I still am (outside of school (but I commute) and work). However, I subsequently discovered the net which- while overflowing with pompous asses- does have its little pockets of sanity. Howard Roark | "On the wire, that is living..." trader@cellar.org | - Jerry Harrison Programmer | "The louder the music, the better the code" Cool Geek | - somebody in _The Cuckoo's Egg_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 22:13:16 EST From: trader@cellar.org Subject: The Programmer Who Walks fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) writes: > For real programming, there are good tasks to try > that stretch and strengthen the conceptual framework > you think in. Also, healthy and unhealthy programming How about some elaboration, or pointers to references? > right parts and then write them. I always find that > part hard and I have a tendency to start out one way > and then change in mid stream, and back, or > compromise and then think better of it... I don't have difficulties in problem decomposition (though I feel that this IS the greatest challenge for new programmers) but I do suffer from the relentless changing which you mention. Howard Roark | "On the wire, that is living..." trader@cellar.org | - Jerry Harrison Programmer | "The louder the music, the better the code" Cool Geek | - somebody in _The Cuckoo's Egg_ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 21:30:49 EST From: trader@cellar.org Subject: IQ tests & abstract intelligence measurement tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: > Though I avoid Mensans, my impression from newsgroups, from casual > encounters at parties, and the like, is that their primary > fascinations are with Wicca, UFOs, astrology, and "Mensans of > Poundage" (fat people). teehee. I went to one Mensa meeting (in Phila, PA) a few years ago and found them too busy talking about themselves to discuss any of the above. My take- a support group for gifted underachievers. Howard Roark | "On the wire, that is living..." trader@cellar.org | - Jerry Harrison Programmer | "The louder the music, the better the code" Cool Geek | - somebody in _The Cuckoo's Egg_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 06:01:00 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: PPL: Punishment in a PPL Hi, I claim to know quite a bit about running PPL's since I have been doing so for sometime. Hopefully as others start we will all learn more. Some will find it is not as easy as it looks :) Here are somethings I have learned. - 1) Warnings and 2) Equality 1) Warnings. 1a) History When we first started the list, we thought we COULD only have a single kind of punishment, which was banishment from the list. If someone acted out, I would remove them. The list adjudicator at the time, over-ruled my decision and gave (it was Perry i think) two out of three warnings. We stopped using banishment as our only punishment but warnings continued. 1b) History part 2 Then we entered the phase of the list were we debated how many warnings could fit on the head of a pin. I would give someone two or three warnings and I would get hate mail telling me I was too harsh (yet I had only given a warning - e.g., no punishment, and if they did the same crime again the would get a real punishment like a days ban on posting - yet two "warnings" was viewed as "harsh.") 1c) Punishment should fit the crime. A key Extropian/PPL view is that the punishment should fit the crime. If you break something you should pay to replace it, plus legal fees, but no triple damages, or loss of your entire net worth, etc. 1d) Warnings don't fit the crime If someone has done something that requires punishment, they deserve a punishment that fits. Warnings don't do that. 1e) Of course I am still giving out warnings myself, but I caution the over use of warnings vs. posting delays, bans, or other measures which actually fit the crime. 2) All beings are not created equal. Under a rule of law, all parties have to be treated equal. However, not all are equal. Tim May is one of the best posters on the list, one of its strongest supporters but in terms of justice he is treated equally with the worst poster... 2a) Don't join a PPL with members who are not your equal. I strongly urge you not to join a PPL with those who you don't consider your equal. The same goes if you run one; don't let everyone in. If you allow everyone to join, you may have problems. e.g., if you had a PPL full of Tim May's you wouldn't have many problems, there would be no flames, little need for formal rules, probably no need for any arbitration, etc. e.g., If you had a list full of Bruce White's you would find the reverse, your rules would get more complex, you would be always have to give cautions and warnings (e.g., the cost of running your PPL would increase). WORSE of all, you would have to treat Tim May with the exact same (now more complex rules) that you put into place for Bruce White. (And trust me, people will complain if you don't enforce your rules with equality and consistantly over time.) In this case, Tim would be mistreated while Bruce would get away with quite a bit of stuff. This is of course exactly what happened on PPL1, and is most likely why Tim May started his own PPL. -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 06:38:40 -0500 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: Why have children? T > I believe you are forgetting the fact that at the age of eighteen, T >the government often seizes your "investment" (Children) and T >destroys said investment by making often poor investment decisions T >for you overseas.(War) Only for 40 out of the first 200 years of the Republic. In any case, conscription has been renered obsolete by modern technology, mail drops, etc. >From my speech at the London conf on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy: About 25 years ago, a friend of mine faced a problem. He had received a "job offer" from the United States government. They had invited him to visit scenic Vietnam and interact with the native cultures. In fact, they insisted on it. When John, a New Yorker, received his notice to report for a draft physical exam, he immediately moved to California. He then wrote his New York draft board saying that he had moved to California and had no funds to travel to New York for his physical. After a few months, his records were transferred to a California draft board, and he received another notice to report for a draft physical. He immediately moved to Texas and repeated the process. He finally got a letter from the Texas draft board which not only ordered him to report for induction but also ordered him to stay in Texas. He immediately moved to Tennessee and sent a letter of regret to the Texas draft board apologizing for having already left Texas. Repeat until end of war. ************ Next time around, we'll substitute mass mailings of address change and appeal requests that completely eliminate any concept of your legal address. DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 7:36:24 EST From: cards@top.cis.syr.edu Subject: smartness measure (was: IQ tests & Mensa) Jamie asks: > Would a "smartness" measure contribute to a more Extropian future? Good question. I dunno. I will however opine as to possible bases for such a measure. net worth in year m - net worth in year n ----------------------------------------- net worth in year n * ( m - n ) A good capitalist measure. Actually it is a little skewed because it treats growth as linear. Perhaps better would be ( $m / $n ) ^ ( 1 / ( m - n ) ) where $ ::= net worth in year since this considers the effect of compounding (although only on an annual basis). Still more mathematically correct measures can be given which assume more frequent (even continuous) compounding but still normalize to an annual growth rate. Since we are all ( ? ) free marketeers, I think that this measure should encompass everything we value (indirectly). Admittedly, Statist interference in the markets limits us, but it limits us all so the measure is still good as a relative index. Statist toadies can exceed our performance, though, since they leverage the State's force and fraud to their personal financial advantage, I'm not sure how to normalize for this. Any suggestions or alternative proposals? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart W. Card, Consultant, Card & Associates -- Research & Development Box 153 RR 1 Newport Rd Utica NY 13502 315-735-1717 / FAX -8469 swc@uc1.ucsu.edu or cards@top.cis.syr.edu "Who is John Galt?" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:30:23 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: yes, we're acquainted Excuse me, folks--I accidentally sent some personal correspondence to the list. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 8:00:03 EST From: cards@top.cis.syr.edu Subject: Extropially Correct Welfare How's this for an "outlier position" (expressed in terms of concepts in which we don't necessarily believe but which are here useful): an entity is not considered a sentient individual until it proves its sentience (and perhaps passes other tests as well), at which point we regard it as having rights (and not before). So kids are animals/property until they reach majority not by chronological age but by passing some kind of (not necessarily formal or written) test. Only after they reach majority do they have any business making contracts. Contracts made prior to their reaching majority which pertain to them are made by their 'owners' and can treat them just like any other property: a contract which I make to lease my house is "binding on the house" whether the house likes it or not. If my house passes the sentience/majority test, however, all bets are off because it is no longer insentient matter but a sentient individual with (with respects to recent posters on this subject, this is here a useful shorthand) 'rights'. Yuck! Although I think this can be made to hold together logically, I don't like it one bit (I am too young to have forgotten what being 'treated like a child' means). Perhaps there are 3 categories of entities for this purpose: 1) insentient matter; 2) sentient individuals; 3) POTENTIALLY sentient individuals. And perhaps these categories are fuzzy vs crisp. Lastly (;->) this doesn't fully solve the problem: what if XYZ Corp. pays a set of parents to provide their kids with health care and education, in return for the services of the kid for a few years after graduation? If the kid never reaches majority (by passing the test), XYZ can enforce the contract made with the parents, treating the kid as property. But if the kid 'matures', he is freed from the contract, as an involuntary party to it. And surely it is a kid who HAS matured who will be of greater value to XYZ as an employee... OK, mebbe this is a rant, but I regard the issue of children (here we go, flamers: both born and UNBORN) as the most difficult for libertarians, objectivists, anarchists, extropians and the like to address effectively without sacrificing doctrinal purity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart W. Card, Consultant, Card & Associates -- Research & Development Box 153 RR 1 Newport Rd Utica NY 13502 315-735-1717 / FAX -8469 swc@uc1.ucsu.edu or cards@top.cis.syr.edu "Who is John Galt?" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 13:03:16 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Why Have Children? John Oh writes: > >Romana mentions that the genes for good looks and intelligence are probably >not mutually exclusive... > >I can't imagine why those traits would be mutually exclusive. If anything, I >would guess that there is a positive correlation between most physical traits >that are valued and intelligence. I remember hearing that there is a >correlation between height and intelligence. Wouldn't this be expected? Do you remember how much of a correlation there's supposed to be? I've spent much of my time in science fiction fandom (a bright group), and never noticed any such thing. (Imho, the older generation of fans tend toward the physical extremes--tall, short, fat, skinny, when the incoming teenagers are more physically "normal". Writers also seem more physically average than fans.) Has anyone noticed any physcial correlates with intelligence? By the way, as I recall the Scientific American article about sex differences in intelligence, it said that males tend to be better at spacial relationships and women tend to be better with words. I don't remember if there was anything about how much overlap there was. Here's an alternate line of argument against doing research in culturally fraught areas--if what's described in _The Mismeasure of Man_ is accurate, then it may simply be too hard to do honest research, and your peers won't catch your errors, either. Why spend chunks of your career in areas where you'll probably make an ass of yourself? Nancy Lebovitz : ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 13:24:49 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: MORALS: Not Mere Aesthetics As I understand Nietzsche, when he went "beyond good and evil", it was to the concept of "good and bad". The difference is that g&e is a moral structure of external standards, whereas g&b is biologically based in what each individual directly perceives as good or bad for themself. The mnemonic I use for the distinction is that "bad" refers to something like rotten food--my distaste for it isn't a moral judgement. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 13:34:25 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: IQ TESTS & MENSA For what it's worth, I've heard that the two important things that IQ tests don't measure are the ability to ask new questions and the ability to complete big projects. Also, there's Howard Gardner's theory of seven types of intelligence-- verbal, mathematical, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal (understanding yourself), and kinesthetic. There's a sort of intelligence that I believe is needed for business (and also, I suppose, for many other complex projects)--the ability to juggle many different *sorts* of factors. And then there's what Sturgeon calls Synapse Beta-Sub Sixteen in "The [Widget], and [Wadget], and Boff"--the ability to look at what you're doing and see if it makes any sense. This may be the fundamental survival skill for members of an intelligent species. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 13:41:10 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Le Khmer Vert I've wondered whether hunters are selecting for sneaky deer with small horns. I've heard that there's already a sub-variety of possum that runs when startled (a survival trait on highways) instead of freezing. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 8:44:56 EST From: cards@top.cis.syr.edu Subject: MORALS: Not Mere Aesthetics I try to avoid confusion by using using 'good' and 'evil' when I argue morals, and 'desirable' and 'undesirable' when I argue pragmatics. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart W. Card, Consultant, Card & Associates -- Research & Development Box 153 RR 1 Newport Rd Utica NY 13502 315-735-1717 / FAX -8469 swc@uc1.ucsu.edu or cards@top.cis.syr.edu "Who is John Galt?" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 07:49:59 -0600 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: yes, we're acquainted Nancy Lebovitz writes: >Excuse me, folks--I accidentally sent some personal correspondence >to the list. Don't worry, we know it isn't your fault; you're just one of the differently courtesied or empathically challenged, and we can accept that sort of thing. Hugs and Kisses, Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 14:35:19 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Alt.Extropians.Recovery being formed? Tim May writes: > >A strange message from nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu: I'd accidentally sent some personal correspondence to the list-- my mailer automatically sends list mail back to the person who sent it, so that I have to enter the extropians address by hand and it has become somewhat habitual. I'm checking more carefully now. > >... >> >aliae", while Mara hasn't decided what to do about that. But she's >> >definitely going to write--and, I gather, in full-flaming-Mara style. >> >*sigh* I've been trying to squelch her. >> >> Oh, don't squelch Mara--I'm on a mailing list that needs her desperately-- >> or at least I might be entertained if she were there. It's extropians-- >> a libertarian and optimistic possibilities of technology mailing >> list which is also a support group for the differently courtesied and >> empathically challenged. They actually talk about it as safe space.... > >Weird. Does Nancy despise what we stand for this much? Is she then >here just to flame, perhaps inviting her friend Mara in for support in >flaming? Nice insult there: "which is also a support group for the >differently courtesied and empathically challenged." > I'm not here just to flame. I don't *like* flaming--if I did, my behavior on the list would have been much different than it has. On the other hand, I'm peeved enough that I wouldn't mind seeing a nasty and intelligent person who may agree with more of my views turn up here. It may not be very attractive, but trying to be polite and resenting it when it doesn't work is as much a part of my nature as the direct attack is part of yours. By the way, that crack about the support group was intended as an insult, but perhaps as less of one than you think since I believe that support groups are a legitimate activity. I do find the idea of a support group and safe space for people who hate everything associated with support groups fairly ironic. For what it's worth, framing what's gone on recently on this list that way did a lot to settle my nerves. (Ghu knows how *this* is going to work out, but I await the results with great curiosity.) As for whether I despise what the list stands for, it's a little complicated, since I see the list as standing for many things. I value the intellectual discussion I get here and agree with most of the basics, and am horrified at what I see as ill-thought-out nastiness being valued. I'm being a lot more direct than I've been because I'm still somewhat angry and because I'm curious about whether the list really values direct statements, or, as I've suspected, only likes them when they're attacks on various out-groups. >And, yes, we actually do talk about it as a place we don't have to >listen to simp-wimp Twelve-Steppers kvetching about incest, abust, >randroidism, dead white males oppressing them, and the need for more >antidiscrimination laws. (I'm not claiming Nancy has personally argued >for these points, but Extropians is not ASAR or alt.recovery or >talk.politics.men-are-mean-to-women.) I'm glad you'd noticed that I hadn't supported any of those things, though I suspect that I'm a simp-wimp symp, and have been considering forming a club. I *have* been beginning to wonder if rudeness is one of the undiscussable basics. >And is Nancy trying to recruit this "full-flaming-Mara" person onto >our List? Nancy has been considering it, but might back down if Mara actually showed signs of wanting to join. > >Even though several of our List members seem to treat this List as a >kind of "Adult Children of Randroids" recovery group, with the virtual >"hugs" and the "daily affirmations" that go with the Addicted to >Addiction psychobabble groups, I suspect Nancy has confused our List >with some other lists she's on. Well, /hawk wants this list as a place where people can say what they think. I think anyone who reacts the way you do to warm fuzzies, twelve step groups, etc. is simply too inflexible to handle an important and useful part of the range of human behavior--I may or may not choose to be polite about this particular infirmity. In your case, you've pushed me hard enough that I'm not bothering. > >Say. maybe they have a copy of that book I've been trying to find, >"Healing the Inner Extropian Child"? It might be interesting. By the way, what do you think of the question someone raised about transhumanity giving us a chance to run our emotional glitches thousands of times faster for millenia? > >Hugs and warm fuzzy wuzzies to all! > I wouldn't go that far myself, but I did notice that you tried to avoid the argument at the early shoes'n'tubs'n'gender roles stage, but I kept pushing. I consider it entirely possible that you had more sense than I did. In case Nietzsche is right about showing gratitude to one's enemies (are you my enemy? it's a good question), I'll point out that I did learn at least a couple of valuable things from all this--how compulsive I am about trying to "fix" people and the extent to which I try to make myself like everyone. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:15:04 WET From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: IQ TESTS & MENSA Timothy C. May writes: > --Klaus! (who worked of Int*l, but who uses Macs) > > (the Intel processors are fine, and are dominant today--as they always > have been. I use Macs because of the OS, not the processor instruction > set.) > Nooo! Ok, maybe the 386/486 processors are "OK" but the <386 was no comparison for 68020/68000. The Intel instruction set has a surpising lack of "general purpose registers" for a modern processor and a lot of baggage left over from the 8086. The 68k instruction set, on the other hand, has 7 address registers and 8 data registers (32 bit from the beginning) with no silly restrictions like "can't use this for the multiplication instruction" (there is an 8th address register, the stack pointer, but only hackers try to use it) 68k programming is very symmetric in terms of register and instruction usage and there's no segments to deal with. I think Intel succeeded for two reasons: 1) their chip was chosen as the base CPU for the PC 2) they get their processors out faster than Motorola The whole PC platform is nothing but a series of kludges in a quest to emulate a real 32-bit computer with a real bus architecture and real operating system. It works, but that's just about all it has going for it. (why am I ranting? I just got a 486 clone two days ago [borrowed] and it's been a nightmare. Conflict between windows and memory managers, between windows and my serial port setup, applications locking up, lack of preemptive multitasking, etc I have to keep different config.sys's for booting up differently for some applications. ) -Ray, who thinks Mac's are ok, except that they don't have a Unix-like shell builtin -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | politics is the implementation of faith. -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:52:20 -0500 From: hhuang@MIT.EDU Subject: PHIL/MORALS: absolutism, relativism, and all that I have found that 3 categories highly useful to discussions on metaphysics and ethics. Geoff Dale, Reilly Jones, and Romana Machado, and others are not so much arguing over eugenics as they are arguing over morality and its basis in reality. I cannot meet all possible objections without disbalancing my post. For brevity's sake, I must skip steps. This post is unfortunately long. If it gets tedious, skip to the last section. ====================================================================== To begin, Ayn Rand's phrase, ``Existence exists,'' is apt. We are not all talking about nothing. Some thing is experiencing something. >From here, I diverge from Rand. CATEGORY 1: Absolutism/Faith This states that is some absolute reality or an absolute morality or both. Faith is the belief in something regardless of how much evidence that is presented to the contrary. This category includes all systems that, aside from existence exists and whatever directly follows, assert statements that are true regardless of evidence. Every faith has had its absolute Morality. Good and Evil derive from this. It doesn't matter if some Morality doesn't use the terms Good and Evil, so long as some thoughts, actions, whatever are declared to be better than others in an absolute sense. Objectivism, as defined by Rand, falls into this category. (I have not read enough of David Kelley's work to know what he says.) She asserts that one absolute reality holds for all people, and that one Objectivist ethics follows logically from this reality. I may be misreading Rand and Leonard Peikoff (in his _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_), but I doubt it. The natural rights position, as I understand it, also falls under this category. In their absolutist formulations, I reject all of the above as being systems of faith, because one cannot even argue with them or present contrary evidence of any sort without being immediately dismissed out of hand as being absolutely wrong. As I understand Max More's articles in early issues of _Extropy_, and as I understand Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy (e.g., as expounded in _Beyond Good and Evil_; title says it all) which Max More gives credit to in his articles, this is why we reject faith and ``morality.'' The form of ``morality'' that we encounter most of the time is its absolutist formulation. It's the interpretation that society puts on the word, and it explains why many of us react so strongly against hearing echoes of it. CATEGORY 2: Relativism You can label this position solipsism if you like, in that you cannot escape your own first person perspective no matter how hard you try. However, I don't follow David Hume's extreme positions on morality. In fact I consider them Category 3. Initial aside: One makes the separation between ``logic'' and ``reality.'' Logic is a set of standards in a game that we accept. Logic deals with how one proves theorems from axioms, not of statements themselves possessing innate truth or falsehood. When one makes an assertion that some aspect of the ``reality'' of our experience corresponding to something in mathematics, then *that* is making a ``statement about reality.'' Self-consistent formal systems, since by definition they can never ``exit'' themselves, cannot possibly prove ``statements about reality.'' When I say that I am a relativist, I mean with respect to statements about reality, with respect to statements in the realm of our experience. For example, saying ``F=ma'' is not making a statement about reality. Saying that F is force, m is mass, and a is the rate of change of the rate of change of position with respect to time for all things in our experience -- *that* is making a statement about reality. It does not tell us anything about reality to say that mathematics is self-consistent; mathematics is a self-consistent system by definition. What *does* tell us something about reality is that the structure of calculus, F's, m's, and a's, also holds true in reality -- an amazing statement if you think about it. To begin: Rand starts off well with ``existence exists'' and with what immediately follows from that. The rest is in error. I give many paragraphs below because some people seem to have a hard time with this general argument: You cannot prove that anything absolutely exists outside of your own consciousness. You cannot escape your first person perspective. People have a tendency to want to believe in an absolute something. They will say, ``What if you could step outside of your own skin and reach the third person objective reality?'' But you cannot. However expanded you are, you still experience reality from your first person perspective. Now to best of our knowledge, as science has shown us, there is some physical reality in which all things that exist exist in. Fine, but what if someone could demonstrate, to use Perry Metzger's example, that this is all been a supersophisticated virtual reality setup? So suppose you say, as one list member did, ``Aha, but there's still an absolute reality in which this VR setup is running in.'' And you proceed to demonstrate this outside reality. Suppose I then demonstrate that actually this outside absolute reality is just another VR setup. So you say, ``Oh, but there's an absolute reality outside of that.'' And I say, ``Oh yeah, I can show that that's just another VR setup.'' Suppose that for each instance of this recursion, I can always point that it is yet another fancy VR setup. Infinite regress. Can you prove absolutely that this situation could never possibly exist? Never ever ever? You cannot. You can also not prove that are statements about a reality that will hold for all people. If you can't do it for yourself, you certainly can't do it for others. Finally, there's the idea of induction. Suppose, by induction (not the mathematical, but the philosophical, definition), you observe that something is true 10^1000000 times in a row. (As said above, statements on math or logic don't count.) But does this prove that this something is absolutely true? No, because if the 10^1000000 + 1-th instance turns out to contradict this, then this something is clearly not always true. This is the key point, ``Can you prove that anything must hold for all cases, given that a single counterexample disproves any assertion.'' You cannot. I did not say that my counterexamples were sensible, interesting, or likely to be possible. But so long as you cannot ever rule out the possibilty of counterexamples, the argument stands. There's one last thing to care of. We began by assuming that we are experiencing some form of reality. For example, if you are reading this email, you are experiencing in some fashion a reading of this email. The question then is: can you doubt this fact, or is this absolute? Some argue that that this experience exists is an absolute, an axiom (Rand's ``existence exists'' axiom). Others might say that even this is questionable. But whether one's experience is an absolute or not, the rest of my argument stands. Outside of the question of whether one or whether something exists, you cannot prove absolutely any ``statements about reality.'' >From here on, when I say that something isn't possible or doesn't exist, I mean that it is probabilistically very unlikely. What you do have for ``reality'' is: Percepts, statements, intuitions, ``mental things'' for which you have different degrees of belief. All is weights and probabilities and degrees of certainty. We notice that some percepts and patterns that we experience correspond with some kind of phenomena called ``physical reality.'' We observe empirically that the statements of science turn out to be for the most part true, and since life cannot be infinite (life can only be finitely, if potentially arbitrarily, long), we don't bother to wait around for the 10^100000 + 1-th refutation. We call some other things ``morality'' or ``moral judgments'' or ``values'' or ``social values'' and so forth by some type of agreement as to what these things are. *If* we want to live, and live well -- and there's no absolute morality saying that we must to choose to live or live well -- then Extropianism follows. Summary: This position can be summed up by the statement, call it NAPTAR: ``There's no absolutely provable truth about reality.'' And who cares whether there's absolute truth about reality, anyway, if we can't prove it to begin with? Likewise for statements on morality. The usual counterattack is, ``Do you know NAPTAR for sure?'' The proper reply is, ``NAPTAR is not a statement about reality. NAPTAR is a statement about statements about reality. NAPTAR doesn't say that *all* statements are unprovable. NAPTAR only says that `statements about reality' are not absolutely provable. Saying that NAPTAR is true is not self-contradictory.'' CATEGORY 3: ``Absolute Relativism'' ``Absolute relativism,'' my deliberately chosen oxymoron, is the ridiculous notion that since nobody can say anything for sure, therefore all ideas and statements are equal in value. Since absolute relativists seem to be unable to affirm anything *but* the above statement -- which they hold to be an absolute, of course, or certainly of higher value than other statements... -- this category actually belongs under Category 1 of Absolutism/Faith. However, it'll become obvious why I consider this a category unto itself. Much of contemporary leftism, literary deconstructionism, PC, and all that, basically falls under this category. This category is not internally consistent, and is in fact frequently hypocritical. What matters is that for all such sets of beliefs, somewhere in each set is that one belief stated above. ====================================================================== Briefly restated: Category 1: Absolutism/Faith There's an absolute truth and/or morality we must follow. Category 2: Relativism There's no absolute truth or morality you can prove about reality, so talking about it is pointless. However, this does not mean that one cannot make value judgments on what one ought to or ought not to do, or what reality is or isn't like. Category 3: ``Absolute Relativism'' You can't know or prove anything for sure, so all ideas and actions are equivalent in value. This statement is the one thing you can be absolutely sure of. Analysis: People often draw the dichotomy that you are either an ``absolutist'' or a ``relativist.'' Well, I think this is basically true. I think most people are of two kinds: one kind believes that they believe in things absolutely, and the other tends to believe that they hold everything at differing degrees of belief. But this isn't what many people have in mind. They are somehow led to think that either you are a Category 1 absolutist type, or else you are a Category 3 ``absolute relativist'' type. It hasn't occurred to them that there is effectively a middle ground -- Category 2 -- where one neither accepts anything on faith alone, nor believes or cares that there is such a thing as absolute truth or morality, but is still able to make judgments about morality and reality. Common types of errors: Conservatives in particular frequently say that if you deny God or any other type of transcendent (absolute) truth or morality, then you will necessarily live a depraved (absolute relativist) existence. Ayn Rand makes a similar statement, that if you do not hold to the Objectivist (absolute) ethics as a standard for government, then something awful (absolute relativist) will result. So to her, something like anarcho-capitalism is objectively (absolutely) wrong. On the other hand, many leftist types err in making the emotional judgment that if one believes in certain things strongly enough, then obviously one is an absolutist. (The hypocrisy lies in the fact that many PC types are the most absolutist and fascist of all.) So, for example, if I make the moral judgment that watching TV is predominantly a waste of time, then I am called ``judgmental'' (absolutist), and am asked, ``How can you say that watching TV is any better or worse than any other activity?'', because after all, one cannot make *any* value judgments whatsoever. So it seems that most people judge things on a psychological ``tolerant-intolerant'' axis: If you are hardline about your beliefs, you're considered to be some kind of ``absolutist.'' If you're a softee or more ``tolerant,'' then you're considered more likely to be a ``relativist.'' But it's possible for both a hardliner and a softee to be a Category 2 relativist, just as it's possible for a softee to be an absolutist (e.g., most Americans who kinda believe in God). In fact, most people who claim to be absolutists believe in things with less certainty and have opinions which are less strong than many non-absolutists I know. The point is that it is an error to judge philosophical differences upon psychological dynamics such as the ``tolerant-intolerant'' axis. For example, a common error made on the Extropians list is the remark that Extropianism is essentially an absolutist belief system because some of its members (many of whom I would not consider Category 1 or Category 3 absolutists) put forth their beliefs in a strongly stated, even rude manner. Recent examples include stating that Extropianism is essentially a religion, or is absolutist on political issues. ====================================================================== Finally, the relevance of all this to current discussions. Reilly Jones seems to be a Category 1 absolute moralist. He writes, >There is a moral absolute. "Good" is the concept of increasing >extropy, no Finality. "Evil" is the concept of the end of the >universe in an entropic heat-death or a gravitational "Big Crunch" to >a mythical singularity. It is our duty, as individuals, to pursue >good and confront evil. This is virtue, and excellence is a measure >of the effort that we expend at it. As would be expected (see above on my list of common errors), he rails against Category 3, >If there is no moral absolute, and no ultimate meaning to life then >the leftists say "let's party, have sex, take drugs, feel good for the >brief squalid moment we have, this brief lightning flash of existence >between two voids, dodge personal responsibility, give our lives up to >the state to take care of us." Now, Reilly, I do agree that Category 3 nihilism is foul stuff. On the other hand, as I've argued above, it's false that either one must either be absolute moralist, or a Category 3 nihilist. Few of us on this list, as far as I know, are absolute moralists. But does that make us moral nihilists as you describe? What do I mean by moral, or morality? I simply mean, as you say, values that I assign as a result of my experience. In accordance with standard use, I restrict this set to value judgments on ideas that most people consider to be traditionally in the ``moral'' spheres of how one ought to live one's life. Now some dislike the use of the word morality entirely, because it has too many Category 1 connotations. However, I don't shy away from the term. Why be afraid of it, I say? People like to ``get away from morality'' -- a set of values, by your and my usage -- and then they define a new set, and relabel the pluses and minuses by a different vocabulary (e.g., ``rational'' and ``irrational''). Now that we agree on what the word moral means, my point is: Lack of moral absolutes does not imply lack of moral guidelines. Refusal to accept absolute morality does not imply an inability to live a moral life. What one ought to do is choose (and update regularly!) a set of values and actions that advances one's extropy. *That* is what it means to live a moral life -- by the Category 2 view on morality -- not unquestioning slavery to moral absolutes. -Han Y. Huang hhuang@mit.edu ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #362 *********************************