From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 02:57:26 MDT
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:31:17PM -0500, alexboko wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
> >solutions, alternative strategies and plenty of surprises. Hence there
> >is no reason to strive for monoculture but rather diverse cultures
> >with certain biases. And I fully accept that the situation is
> >symmetric with other people: there is room for overlaying our memetic
> >radiations.
>
> The 'certain biases' probably being something like rationality and
> non-coercion, am I right?
Yes.
> But you know, I don't even mind individuals that don't share these
> biases in our memepool... as long as they're a fringe rather than the
> dominant force. In practical terms, if I could push a button that would
> memetically-engineer all the religious fundamentalists, Nazis,
> eco-luddites, and Communists into good little Extropians, I wouldn't do
> it. 90% of them into Extropians? Then yes, I'd be tempted to push the
> button, that's true. But I do not wish outright memetic extinction on
> anybody, even those who are literally my worst memetic adversaries.
(diverging into another subject here)
This is an interesting issue. Being very much into non-coercion
I don't consider either button acceptable at all; even changing
the mind of one opponent this way would be wrong - while I agree
that conserving memetic diversity is good, the right to one's mind
is even more important (and in this case both are aligned). But at
the same time I have no problems with the idea of debating and
perhaps convincing a lot of opponents. So what makes these cases
different? Is it just the "unnatural means" of the button?
I think the key here is that we to a first approximation are the
rulers of our minds. We change our opinions based on the full
contents of our minds and not just the latest input, making it to a
large extent a voluntary action. If I refuse to accept a logical or
convincing argument (perhaps grasping at semantic or religious
straws or whatever) it is still my decision. Even when I am
convinced gradually, without any real conscious awareness, that
change is to a great extent based on the rest of my cognitive
structure. Hence it can be said to be *my* decision, even if the
conscious part of me was not highly involved.
The above argument needs a lot of refining (like many other
arguments in the age of cognitive neuroscience) to deal with a more
complex image of volition and integrity. But developing a better
theory of when something is merely persuasion (acceptable) and when
it is brainwashing (unacceptable) will be very helpful for much
future debates and social thinking.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 03:02:55 MDT