From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 07:55:45 MDT
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 08:19 am, Reason wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> You never gave me a preferred term..."revealed truth," maybe?
Reason, you seem determined to label Samantha's viewpoints with a
pejorative label that implies they are unscientific or irrational. It
would be more useful to present your counterpoint rather than calling
her or her ideas bad names. I see no reason to label her position
against racism or infanticide or gender equality as mystical or
religious.
>>>> 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?
>
> Unfortunately, you don't choose. Unless you create your society out of
> whole
> cloth and new AIs, I guess. It's a big fight, shouting match, and mess.
Maybe this is why conversations with you are going nowhere. I don't
think most extropians are going to want to participate in this
methodology for future building. It seems so contrary to most of our
goals, principles and interests.
>>> 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.
>
> This comes back to your frames of reference and non-relativism again.
> Please
> demonstrate to me that there is one true frame of reference for
> valuation of
> any object, meaning that the perceived valuation of an object is
> different
> from some actual reference value. My opinion is that "value" in this
> context
> is a human concept, and therefore arbitrary, variable between groups and
> individuals, and completely relative. There is no absolute, therefore
> perceived value is the value for the perceiving group or individual.
Do you reject the scientific method that requires repeatable
experimental results to demonstrate scientific truth? You seem to think
that different people can perceive different realities and that there is
no objective real reality.
> But anyhow; I find the discussion of the way in which societies agree on
> "facts" more interesting than the way in which societies build ethics
> on top
> of those "facts."
At the risk of sounding dogmatic again, this society is the Extropians
List. We use the scientific method, logical rules and rational thinking
to determine "facts". We don't just argue or vote ourselves into a
consensus. We believe that claims require evidence, and extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence. We believe that theories should
predict observations. We believe that theories need to be testable or
falsifiable to determine their veracity. Merely voting, agreeing, or
deciding on what should be is not part of this society's normal
functioning.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:22 MST