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