From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Fri Mar 05 1999 - 01:41:41 MST
Okay, I'll give up some much-needed sleep to address at least some of the
misconceptions here:
At 01:12 PM 3/4/99 -0500, Virey wrote:
>
>Although not an anarchist myself, I completely agree with Anthony Garcia's
>"Philippic From the Old School", both for its spirit and its content. I also
>consider myself an "old school Extropian", considering the recent
rejection of
>libertarianism (i.e. minarchism in my case) a blatant illustration of the
>disintegration of the principles of the movement.
I find this both amusing and instructive. It's amusing because, if Anthony
Garcia had his way, *you*, Mr. Virey, would not count as an extropian. So
you cannot completely agree, unless you want to embrace a contradiction.
While I find this amusing, its also instructive. It should at least hint at
why in the maturation of my own thinking, I've broadened the scope of
extropianism, while retaining its distinctiveness. The essence of extropian
thinking is a set of general values and attitudes, not a set of required
beliefs about means. Libertarianism--whether the anarchist kind (with or
without copyright laws? with or without a possible monopoly PPL) or the
minarchist kind (actually there are several varations on minarchism --
which ones do you demand that we rule out?)--is a means towards the ends of
self-direction and open society, both clearly transhumanist principles.
So, you are simply wrong to say you agree completely with Anthony Garcia.
The only sense in which you agree is in pushing for a narrow, ideologically
dogmatic form of extropianism. The last thing in the world I want to do is
bring into the world yet another dogma. But I can't stop you going off and
creating one. Anthony can set up his own anarchist-extropian group. To
join, you have to agree that, according to his definition of a "State", you
do not and never will agree to it. (Is it okay to pay taxes now, under
duress, or to use the state-funded roads, or is that too statist?) And you
can set up your minimal statist extropianism, which requires people to
agree to exactly the role of government you see fit. (Where do you draw the
line in minarchism? Can the state provide police, or must this be
contracted out to private companies? Can the minimal functions be funded by
taxation, or do we have to hope that a lottery or voluntary contributions
will fund it?)
Since you seem to like logic (at least the idea of it, if not the careful
appliication of it), let me note again that "not requring X" does not equal
"rejecting X".
>But does extropianism really have *any* principles?
>
>The best way to answer this question is look at how "extropianism" is
defined,
>which requires combining the three definitions that open version 3.0 of the
>Principles.
Ah, I see, let's throw together three definitions of different terms, then
create a new definition of "extropy". Then let's attack that, rather than
the real definition. Ever heard of the term "straw man"?
>This gives us:
>
>"Extropianism is the evolving transhumanist philosophy of those who seek to
>increase the extent of a system's intelligence, information, order, vitality,
>and capacity for improvement."
The actual (current) definition is: "the extent of a system's intelligence,
information, order, vitality, and capacity for improvement." The definition
of "extropy" contains no reference to "whatever set of ideas is currently
held by..." any set of people. Don't conflate the defintion of "extropian"
with the definition of "extropy". The former is defined in terms of the
latter, not the other way around. Either you're not thinking carefully, or
you're deliberately obfuscating the issue.
>In other words, this philosophy is defined as whatever set of ideas is
>currently held"...>
If we currently happen to all like tomato soup, I suppose that makes
"liking tomato soup" part of what it is to be an extropian. What's gone
wrong? See the preceding paragraph.
>"Extropy" is just a name that "feels good" to science graduates who have
>learned to associate its alleged opposite, "entropy", with chaos and the
>"heat-death" of the universe.
>
>But how is it defined? By enumeration, which is an invalid form of
definition.
>I cannot define the concept "animal" by saying; "animals are horses, cats and
>fish", which is roughly the epistemological status of the definition of
>"extropy".
"Extropy" is not, and never has been presented as a technical definition of
a real quantity that can be completely objectively quantified. I have
always striven to make this clear in my writing and in all interviews.
Extropy is not intended to be identical with negentropy, whether in an
information theoretical or a thermodynamic sense. Extropianism is about a
set of attitudes that embody desires to improve in fundamental ways using
effective means.
Still, of all the points you make, this one at least has the merit of
hinting at a possible way of improving the definition and Principles. I've
been considering a more systematic and hierarchical derivation of the
current principles from fewer underlying ideas. However, I feel much
reluctance to heading in that direction, since it lends itself to monistic
and dogmatic system building.
>This is not logical nit-picking, as I know some members of this group
consider
>logic a tyrannical imposition on their minds (fine for you, I share Rand's
>contempt for those who would reject the tyranny of reality),
Here you make one of a number of unsupported sweeping generalizations. I
find it hard to think of a group that has greater respect for logic than
extropians. Go ahead and feel you misguided contempt. But, please, don't
present *contempt* as a requirement of your version of transhumanism.
>For instance: If I classify the books in my library by colour, I have
>increased the order of a system, which makes my act "good" by extropian
>standards.
No. Your act increases extropy only if the resulting order is useful to you
in ways that improve your life.
If I download all sorts of crap from the Internet and store it on
>my computer, I have increased my computer's information
Obviously your intention is to attack, not to be constructive. How does
downloading "all sorts of crap" increase the values set forth in the
Principles? A definition is a compression, not a complete explanation.
That's why you need to read the Principles. If you read them, you should
understand why your example makes no sense. Filling up your computer with
self-defined crap is the opposite of extropy: it costs you time and money,
it may make it harder to be productive and to find the useful stuff amidst
the crap you stupidly downloaded. This example is so silly, that I will say
no more.
>Moreover, the various "ingredients" of extropy contradict one another. Take
>order and capacity for improvement, for instance. Doesn't Stuart Kaufman
argue
>that evolution takes place in areas where a balance between order and chaos
>can be found, and that extremes of chaos and order prevent it? Well then, it
>is impossible to maximize both order and capacity for improvement.
Context, context, context. Anders has also responded constructively on this
point. Extropian thinking does not value just any kind of order in any
situation. That should be abundantly clear to anyone who has read any
version of the Principles or other essays on the topic of spontaneous
order. Extropians want to overcome limits to achievement, to intelligence,
to creation, etc. Chaos, in a certain context can help this (e.g. bump a
neural net out of a local error minimum). Some kinds of order (especially
coercive orders) can hinder it. The "order" in the definition has to be
taken in the context of the Principles.
>"Extropy" is therefore an invalid, self-contradictory concept.
No, but your argument is an invalid, self-contradictory, and confused
argument that attacks an imaginary position.
This is why the
>philosophy will soon dissolve in the kind of nonsense that has almost always
>been coalescing around it, and why there's no way we can save it from such
>trash.
More unsupported generalizations and assertions. What is all this "trash"
that has always been coalescing around it? An open, evolving system will
always have to fight off the encroachment of trash (while being careful not
to too quickly through out new things as trash). I would hazard a guess
that all this "trash" is anything that you don't agree with. Like Anthony
Garcia, apparently you can't stand it when a philosophy doesn't condemn and
exclude all ideas different from yours, even if those are ideas that
propose means to the same ends.
>Extropy is a philosophy that seeks "more" of a undefined "something".
This is
>all the irony of the principle of self-transformation (into what? a toad?)
and
>of Max More's own nickname (more of what? dumbness?).
Great strategy for a productive argument -- conclude with an insult. (And,
a point of fact, since you have a hard time getting things right, that's
not a "nickname", it's simply a name.
I have no doubt that, just as in the past, the definition of extropy, and
the Principles can be improved. (I already have notes for a version 4.0).
I'm sorry that your kind of "contribution" does not assist that process.
Good morning. (And, in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening,
and good night.)
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Max More, Ph.D.
<max@maxmore.com> or <more@extropy.org>
Implications of Advanced Technologies
President, Extropy Institute: http://www.extropy.org
EXTRO 4 Conference: Biotech Futures. See http://www.extropy.org/ex4/e4main.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:15 MST