From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 03:44:58 MDT
Reason wrote:
>
>>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.
>
The question is, what do *you* prefer. By your preference you
will be, if not judged, at least in part determining what kind
of future you can reasonably expect. That is a sobering
realization.
>
>>>Actually, it would seem that the major difference between you
>>>
>>and most of
>>
>>>the other posters is that you advocate or tend towards magical thinking
>>>while they advocate or tend towards the scientific method. This
>>>
>>may be an
>>
>>>ethical difference, or simply a difference in assumed metafacts, I'm not
>>>sure.
>>>
>>Magical thinking is a derogatory term for my position and using
>>
>
> Um, it is? I've certainly never used it as such. Is there a preferred term
> for it? I'm pretty sure there's one for the Christian theological arm of
> magical thinking, but I'm not sure about the rest.
>
>
>>it is unfair and inaccurate communication. The scientific
>>method is not sufficient for all things. The notion that it is
>>is not itself even scenitifically verifiable or testable. I
>>attempt to point out that we must project the values we want to
>>see in the future we attempt to create and not just fall into
>>sceintific mumbling while much of crucial importance to our real
>>lives and future is ignored as "un-scientific", "irrational", or
>>"magical".
>>
>
> 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.
>
You cannot get a reasonably complete set of memes for human
beings just by scientific thinking. If you believe you can,
then by all means go ahead and try. I never said memes weren't
welcome in the pool. I do say that by the memes we pick from
that pool we determine our future.
>>Equating infants (and indeed all humans) to animals using some
>>set of criteria is not the problem. Assuming that that equation
>>means it is quite alright to kill infants (at least if one
>>"owns" them) is quite something else again! 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).
>>The idea that ownership rights apply or apply to this degree is
>>another conclusion not inevitable from the facts.
>>
>
> 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.
>
Yes, but irrelevant. What do you personally decide is what you
wish to project? What do we decide to produce for the future we
will live in?
>
>>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. I feel nothing but
>>utter contempt for a view that women are of less value than men.
>>No future I remotely want to be a part of would "draw the line"
>>on the other side.
>>
>
> Which is all opinion, which is kind of my point.
>
Yes, but again, irrelevant. What kind of future will we build?
>
>>>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.
>>
>>We consider setting one race as of more value as the worse kind
>>of bigotry. We consider setting some people as more valuable
>>generally (rather than in some particular context or in relation
>>to certain capabilities) as very questionable. The question is
>>not whether different societies have decided certain questions
>>in different ways. The burning question is how we will decide
>>and whether we will decide in terms of the kind of world we wish
>>to build and inhabit or will use our much vaunted brains to
>>effectively dissect our own hearts and thoroughly miss the point.
>>
>
> 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.
>
I didn't say not to look back. But looking back is certainly
not enough by itself to project a viable course forward.
>
>>>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
>>
>>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.
>
How do you get this "societal consensus"? How do you choose?
Can we start with how each chooses and why?
>
>>>with this now (vis abortion debate, racial tensions, societal
>>>
>>values placed
>>
>>>on various people of types), what makes you think a transhuman
>>>
>>society --
>>
>>Racial tensions have zip to do with any real important
>>differences between the value of different races. Seeing people
>>as types instead of as persons is naturally fraught with danger.
>>
>
> Well yes and no. Map is the territory. Perceived value is pretty much the
> same as value.
>
No, it is not. The perception is either accurate or inaccurate.
>
>>>with an infinitely greater set of potential humans and types of
>>>
>>intelligent
>>
>>>entity -- is going to do better without some work? Burying your
>>>
>>head in the
>>
>>When entities are much more advanced than ourselves or even our
>>uploaded selves, would it be ok if they decided that we did not
>>have any meaningful rights, not even the right to exist? Why or
>>why not? If we do not think proactively rather than reactively
>>about these questions and project what we wish to live in, then
>>we cannot expect anything but the arbitrary cogitation of some
>>other sentient who either doesn't have or also ignores its own
>>"heart" and the projection of what kind of present and future it
>>is creating.
>>
>
> 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.
>
I do not agree of course. You are correct. I do not believe in
absolute relativism.
>
>>>sand and refusing to talk about the values societies have
>>>
>>placed, currently
>>
>>>place and could conceivably place on human and potentially
>>>
>>human life is not
>>
>>>constructive. Follow that route and you end up with a) smartcats as
>>>
>>I was not in the least burying my head in the sand. Quite far
>>from it! I was arguing for why this talk is much beside the
>>point and extremely unhelpful when it veils de-valuing of women
>>and infants, and for what I believe is missing in some of this
>>talk.
>>
>
> Hmm. Well I'm not in the devaluation boat (or any sort of valuation boat). I
> was trying to separately out the more interesting factual choices (where
> society draws the line) as opposed to the less interesting ethical choices
> (less interesting to me because most people can't discuss these things
> rationally, and the final answer seems like a roll of the dice).
>
The ethical choices are less interesting? Really? How on earth
can that be? Why is a simple tabulation of how societies have
chosen of greater interest than choosing and choosing as wisely
as we can ourselves? If your rationality cannot cover ethics
then obviously it is too weak a reed to use to chart our future.
>
>>>disregarded property, b) slave AIs that are destroyed when no
>>>
>>longer needed,
>>
>>>c) humans created for specific tasks and broken down for organs
>>>
>>when done.
>>
>>>If you see c) as being much more disturbing that a) or b) then I say you
>>>have some hard thinking to do.
>>>
>>>
>>I see all of them as things that we should strive to avoid
>>except that I do not believe our current notions of property
>>should apply in all realms or that they are problem-free.
>>
>
> So what's the alternative? I think that human history to date has pretty
> adequately demonstrated that absolute property rights and minimal social
> contract allows humans better lives and encourages them to take better care
> of their surroundings. It works with the instincts of the ape-mind, not
> against it.
>
Human history to date is only the bare beginning. More will
occur in the next 100 years than in the last 10,000. How will
you shape it? Without only those things that seemed to work the
best in yesteryear for certain types of things that do not fully
cover what we have now much less what we are soon to have?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:22 MST