From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 08:29:54 MDT
--> Harvey Newstrom
> On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 06:56 am, Reason wrote:
>
> >> But Extropians aren't seeking a relative or subjective consensus toward
> >> civilization. We seek hard provable increases in extropy
> >> Our basic goals of perpetual progress and intelligent technology
> >> need to be measurable and sure. Our basic goals for
> >> self-transformation,
> >> open society, and self-direction are for everybody, not just a chosen
> >> subset.
> >
> > My thesis is, restated again, that you can't have an objectively correct
> > consensus. The items listed above are desirable for a bunch of people
> > (myself included), but cannot be *objectively* proven to be more or less
> > desirable than any other set of goals,
> >
> > You cannot demonstrate extropy (or any other goal-oriented philosophy
> > for that matter) to be "right," "correct," "good" or "desirable" in any
> > objective way.
> >
> > Am I being unclear?
>
> You are perfectly clear, but inaccurate. The Extropian Principles are
> NOT an arbitrary list of desired goals reached by consensus. They are
> objective realities, repeatably observed, scientifically measurable, and
> statistically provable. demonstrably good. They can be objectively
> defended. They are NOT a consensus document of group opinion.
Well good, now we're getting somewhere. From the principals:
"These Principles are not presented as absolute truths or universal values.
The Principles codify and express those attitudes and approaches affirmed by
those who describe themselves as "Extropian"."
Which would seem to support my thesis. The principals are written in the
form of "this is what we want" or "this is what we desire." You can
rationalize the principals all you like, (and doing so is good, of course,
IMHO), but you cannot claim that they are objectively good. "Good" is a
subjective human opinion -- and as I'm saying, there is no external measure
for the validity of human opinion. If you think that the end results of the
principals is good, that is also human opinion.
Not that I'm picking on the principals here -- this is true of all similar
documents.
[Can't believe I'm still on this; the punchline to this whole thing is
pretty much, "ok, as you were" -- people accept that there is no external
measure and then get back to determining what it is that they think they
should be doing].
> - Perpetual Progress is an objective fact indicated by history.
> Specific trends really are progressing faster and faster toward the
> future.
Yes, yes, of course. The principal itself is written as a future-looking
statement; i.e. this is what we seek, this is what we see as good, this is
what we want to happen (or keep/continue happening).
> - Self-Transformation is an objective result of today's technology.
> Humans really are being changed and modified by technology.
Yes, I'm not debating the factual validity of these sorts of claims. Again,
the principal is a forward-looking statement of preference. Subjective.
> - Practical Optimism is a position that is statistical more likely to be
> correct than pessimism, given perpetual progress. If things are really
> getting better, than we really should be optimistic and understand that
> fact.
Should we? That's your human opinion. Note the word "seek" in the principal
again. Forward-looking, subjective.
> - Intelligent technology really exists and is really making a
> difference. This is not a subjective valuation of technology, but an
> objective measurable trend in technology.
"Extropians affirm the necessity and desirability of science and
technology."
Extropians defined as a segment of humanity that hold a particular opinion.
"We use practical methods to advance our goals of expanded intelligence,
superior physical abilities, psychological refinement, social advance, and
indefinite life spans."
Extropians defined as a segment of humanity that take particular courses in
life.
"We prefer science to mysticism, and technology to prayer. We regard science
and technology as indispensable means to the achievement of our most noble
values, ideals, and visions and to our further evolution."
Extropians defined as having another set of human opinions.
"We seek to foster these disciplined forms of intelligence, and to direct
them toward eradicating the barriers to our extropian objectives, radically
transforming both the internal and external conditions of existence. "
More seeking, forward-looking stuff.
Subjective, full of statements on opinions held by humans.
> - Open Society has been demonstrated by history to be the most effective
> political framework for growth. Most of the above advances have been
> developed in an open society. Competition theory, evolutionary theory,
> game theory and market economics all support this system of society for
> the free exchange of ideas as being the most efficient to date.
Yes, yes. So we think it's good. That's our subjective opinion. We think
it's good because these systems do better under certain scientific criteria
that we believe are better than other criteria -- that's our subjective
opinion too.
> - Self-Direction has been exemplified by great thinkers throughout
> history. Most advances have come from self-directed thinkers who
> exceeded their environments, rather than state-controlled thinkers who
> worked within the system. Like Open Society, this is a testable
> theorem, and results of analysis are positive.
Yup. Completely. Agree with you all the way. That's only my human subjective
opinion, of course. I hold the scientific method in the highest regard, but
of course there's no objective value system that allows me to say that I'm
damn good for doing so.
> - Rational Thinking has been the basis of the modern technological
> explosion. The scientific method produced repeatable results and can
> predict future observations. Mathematics and logic have allowed
> engineering design to explode exponentially. Methodical thought has
> lead to the systematic search for laws of physics, physical exploration
> of reality, and the development of technology. This method had beaten
> out other methods of non rational thought.
You know, I agree with your facts (first and second type) on all of these.
But you kinda missed my point.
> None of these concepts are guesses, wishes, or desired consensus goals.
Um, they are couched as desired consensus goals in the Principals (or
something like a Advocacy For The Continuation and Expansion of Existing
Good Stuff). The consensus is demonstrably at least you, myself and Max just
within this e-mail.
> None of them are subjective or change from culture to culture.
Well yes. No individual set of defined rules changes from culture to
culture. That's like asking a rock to change because different people are
standing on it.
> Extropy is not just an opinion or a position.
I would have said the Principals are a position, and Extropy is the opinion
that the position is a Good Thing. Or something like that.
> The Extropian Principles are
> objective trends that actually shape objective reality. These trends
> can be measured, analyzed, proven, and predicted. There is nothing
> subjective or unprovable about these trends.
No, I really have to disagree with you there. I'm not seeing plain old
descriptions of trends that just happen to exist; the Principals I'm reading
are a statement of desire and approval for particular trends. Meaning that
these trends are being measured against some subjective yardstick
collection.
So yeah, I'm prepared to jump in the boat with you on the last sentence
above, but the rest of it...hmm.
> The Extropian Principles literally exist and are objectively
> measurable. I do not see how anybody can argue that they are subjective
> or unsupportable.
I'm arguing that the Principals contain trends and the expressed desire for
these trends. It's that desire, approval, rating of Goodness, whatever else
you want to call it that is subjective. There is no external standard for
valuing human opinions of a particular entity/ethical ruleset/color/set of
trends.
Can we get some arbitration here from the guy that wrote the thing? :)
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
[Can't believe I'm still on this; the punchline to this whole thing is
pretty much, "ok, as you were" -- people accept that there is no external
measure and then get back to determining what it is that they think they
should be doing].
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST