From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 10:57:58 MDT
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Sigh. I assume you have found a way of objectively determining whether
> causes really are good? If you haven't, how are you going to defend
> yourself against a critic asking whether you are just *thinking* your
> views are good?
Oh, this raises a host of issues -- starting with how one defines "objective".
I can objectively assert that greatest complexity is good (extropic objectives)
or I can objectively assert that some great artistic expression is good
(to hell with the fact that there may be nobody to listen to or observe it).
But in answer -- I *am* just "thinking" that my views are good and that
in part raised the Western/Eartern thought differences questions
(and how one might resolve them)...
> Which is really what all the philosophical debating is all about. It
> takes a lot of time and effort to do right.
Agreed. So I will conceed the points on needing to find a better
approach than simple utilitarian perspectives to tackle these
problems. I will reserve the right however to point out when
the use of such methodologies may be unextropic.
On a side note, probably the main reason I responded to this
post and a comment on why some might be feeling the ExI list
has become stale or non-progressive.
Over time, it would appear to me that people get to know the
list participants sufficiently that a self-imposed behavioral
framework develops...
a) Never open a debate with Eliezer on topics related to AI;
b) Never open a debate with Anders on Ethics (and perhaps a
host of other topics);
c) Never open a debate with Robin on Economics or Physics;
d) Never open a debate with Mike on freedom or liberty;
e) Never open a debate with Spike on rocket science,
motorcycles or prime numbers,
f) Never open a philisophical debate with a whole host of people;
etc.
Such debates might be of interest (educational value) to the
average list member but the probability that your horse is
going to get tripped up before it even gets out of the gate
is so high (for the individual proposing the debate) that
makes it a relatively worthless effort to even bring it
to the track.
The result of this trend would appear to be to doom the list
to being nothing more than a news distribution list (e.g. not
too different from the transhumantech mailing list or Nanogirl
news) or a situation in which the only topics "discussed"
are those in which the people involved "think" that they
are right (and there aren't simple (logical) means to assert otherwise).
This ultimately tends to lead to flame wars.
I think this characteristic might explain some of the perspectives
that have been expressed on the list recently. Moreover it may
be a characteristic of mailing lists in general -- the WTA mailing
list(s) may not have the "flavor" of the ExI mailing list(s) at this
time but they might likely develop such a character if the list
membership remains stable over a long period of time.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 11:07:28 MDT