From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 22:45:04 MDT
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Jef Allbright writes:
>> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>> Lee Corbin writes:
>>>
>>>> The psychological problem that most people have
>>>> against uploading, of course, is that of "being
>>>> inside a computer", or of knowing that one is really
>>>> just on a silicon chip.
>>>
>>> Perhaps its because I haven't read enough about it, but,
>>> the reservation, I have against uploading, and also
>>> cryonics is that I just not convinced that, appearances
>>> not withstanding, the me that goes in, will be the me
>>> that comes out.
>>
We've seen these topics arise repeatedly on this list, with very little or
no change of viewpoint resulting from extensive discussion. This seems to
indicates that the prior beliefs we're dealing with are at fundamental
levels which are rarely open to self examination, and thus very resistant to
change. It seems that these prior beliefs or biases come mainly from our
evolutionary programming, and are further reinforced by cultural
programming. The difficulty is perhaps not so much with learning more about
these subjects, but with the need to *unlearn* a lot of the previous
programming.
Many persons with scientific and philosophical backgrounds struggle with
concepts such as the nature of conciousness, personal identity, morality,
free will, all of which appear to be contingent on the evolutionarily based
sense of "self". This strong sense of "I am me, and everything outside is
not me" seems to prevent one from adopting the wider perspective by which
these apparently paradoxical topics become transparent (and then one can
discover and begin working on the next layer of the onion.)
Earlier today someone (Rafal?) mentioned the chinese "mu" as an appropriate
response when no correct answer is possible due to the question not being
meaninful in the given context. In such a case, widening the context
(greater scope of understanding) so the discussion illuminates both
viewpoints can lead to progress, but how can this be done effectively on a
list such as ours?
I've dreamed of having a set of web pages, generated by a database relating
arguments, counter-arguments, and prior beliefs, in a way that would
interactively guide someone from their current view point to (one hopes) a
more enlightened view point. Perhaps such a hypothetical system could
refine its data and methods by learning from each encounter. Unfortunately,
such a system is currently impractical to program due to the combinatorial
explosion that it would involve.
I thought that perhaps a group effort, collaborating on such a database
might make some progress toward this goal, but this now appears overly
idealistic given actual social dynamics.
Perhaps the great Google will eventually lead the way toward enlightment for
all...
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 22:56:24 MDT