From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 02:36:56 MST
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Brett Paatsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Statistically, I understand, a majority of the worlds
>>>population is so much into belief and religion and the
>>> supernatural that many of them think they have another
>>> life coming after this one. That imo effects the way they
>>> make resourcing decisions and do their cost benefit
>>>analyses to the extent that they do them at all.
>>
>
> Hi Samantha :-)
>
>
>>Well, there are more than a few people around here
>>that believe in a sort of "life after this one" as they are
>>determined to support the creation of such possibilities
>>whether through cryogenics, uploading or such increase
>>of capability without formally dying that the result is no
>>longer what most would term "human".
>
>
> How many would be wedded to the use of the word
> "belief" in that sentence I wonder?R I.E. Would they be
> willing to freely drop it and substitute it with another if
> they were convinced the word belief carried too much
> negative baggage?R
I don't think there is a tremendous value in simply changing the
word employed. I was attempting to point out that
1) belief in an afterlife or something near magical (e.g.
Singularity) is not confined to the religious;
2) such belief does not necessarily imply irresponsibility in
"the real world" or at least the one we deal with now.
>
> Or would insist that this one (this life) cease before the
> next once starts, rather than that this one would morph
> with no loss of personal continuity in exchanging
> substrates?R.
>
Whatever. It is a side question.
>>The point of bringing this up is that belief in a life
>>beyond this one, even of the more conventionally
>>religious kind, is not automatically a sign of serious
>>psychological problems and limitations.
>
>
> Serious psychological problems by the standard of these
> times, no, I agree. Limitations, I'm not so sure.
>
I am not altogether sure of this myself. However, an opposing
argument could be made that people who do not have belief
pattern X have some limitations or will act sub-optimally for
the good of themselves or the group in some situations.
>
>>Even conventional religious folks often belief
>>in and practice good stewardship of resources in this life.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Now, it is true that many who do believe in an "afterlife"
>>and even some that believe in some types of techno-
>>transcendence, consider things of "this life" of not enough
>>importance to spend much time maximizing.
>
>
> Sorry, maximizing what?
>
>
"Things of this life" was what I had (loosely) in mind. If
someone believes that the Singularity is acheivable in say 5
years and that it will make problems taking longer than this to
unfold go away then it follows that they will not be so
interested in addressing these longer range problems. If a
person beliefs say that this world is a place for overcoming
their attachments to ego and phsycial earth life (as some
religions do) then they wouldn't have much interest in
maximizing those things logically or in improving many aspects
of the physical conditions of humanity. But most sets of
opinions/beliefs about what is and is not important and the
ranking of values will logically influence what one does and
does not consider important and how one evaluates most issues of
the day. The effect is not limited to those beliefs one happens
to despise or even to "believing" in the abstract.
>>>Belief makes for bad social policy.
>>>
>>
>>Personally I get a little tweaked by "social policy".
>
>
> You, tweaked? No. ;-)
>
>
>>It smacks of collectivism and of centralized power and
>>of some supposed limit on individual rights to come to
>>whatever conclusions or beliefs by whatever methods
>>they see fit.
>
>
> If you find it in that form, and you reckon you can do it
> safely, smack it back ;-)
>
> When I talk of "social policy" in this context I mean it quite
> simply as the way social groups (societies if you will) make
> decisions as to how to allocate resources amongst
> themselves, and what rights there should be that they will
> each undertake to accepts some personal responsibility
> for so that these rights are not just theoretical but are
> actually underwritten in practice by the free decisions of
> others in the social compact.
> Unfortunately when some of the social group bring belief
> of the supernatural into their considerations they can start
> to imagine that the nexus between rights granted and
> responsibilities assumed can be broken. That somehow,
> because the supernatural underwriter is going to step in
> if necessary societies can grant rights without its members
> needing to merely confine themselves to real resources
> and the real capacity of the society to underwrite those
> rights.
>
I don't believe that real rights are something granted by the
society or that they must be paid for by duties/responsibilities
to the society. I do of course agree that it is foolish not to
live in reality instead of fantasies. But human rights are a
mockery if they are merely what your tribe deigns to give you
and determines the payment for.
> Problem is when citizens try to rely on rights that are not
> underwritten by real responsibilities they find those rights
> cannot be relied on.
>
I disagree strongly with your entire model of rights here.
>
>>>I need to get to know someone before I give them
>>>the benefit of the doubt as to having done either
>>>qualitative or quantitative analysis of any sort *if*
>>>they say they have arrived at a position based on
>>>faith or belief. Actually if the used the words
>>>"arrived at a position" I'd probably raise my
>>>evaluation a bit. If they use another word instead
>>> of believe, like perceive, think, suspect etc.. I know
>>> there's a better chance of some sort of personal
>>>processing going on. That they are not just parroting
>>>what they've heard. I guess I apply a crude sort of
>>>Turing test to people. I suspect that some others that
>>>have a strong commitment to reason also make
>>>assessments on the basis of language. Assessments
>>>which are not facts, but are definitely not mere beliefs
>>>either.
>>>
>>
>>Why should anyone care whether you approve of the
>>word they use for their process or not though?
>
>
> Well I'm no one particularly special, so let's be clear about
> that. But to answer your question, perhaps one intelligent
> thoughtful person should care about what another intelligent
> thoughtful person thinks because their is a genuine
> opportunity to learn for both of them if one adopts that
> attitude.
>
You have your opinion but that is all the above is. Everyone
else, without being at all disrespectful or unreasonable, is
perfectly free to disagree and act on their disagreement.
> As it happens I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about
> the use of particular words in the context of political debates
> and do have some real world lobbying experience at quite
> a high level but I expect no way to take my insights or
> experience on faith. Rather I see it as my responsibility to
> make my case.
>
> I would counsel all who would listen not to accept things
> I say because I say them, (I don't want disciplines -like
> I'd come looking for them here : -) - I want more friends,
> more colleagues, an extended community and more people
> with whom I can work to make the world a better place as
> determined by us not just by me). I ask that people accept
> only what I say *after* consideration *if* it seems to be
> true and/or useful to them (and then only accept it provisionally
> until something better becomes available). But I'd also say
> please be generous with *your* insights, thoughts and
> criticisms with me.
>
Fair enough.
>
>>There is also the
>>matter of a more inductive approach to certain questions of life
>>and value. For that matter, the entire sphere of values is not
>>easily reduced to that which reason alone recommends.
>
>
> Certainly not easily. But as I hope has become a little more clear
> through the course of this reply I am looking a reasoning and
> believing very much in the context of what they mean for the social
> compact.
>
I don't think you can get much buy-in to a social compact that
attempts to remove "believing" as such.
> Also, perhaps some "values" in the "entire sphere" should not be
> valued. Perhaps belief should not be valued. I don't value it. I value
> people (even believers). I respect their right to have opinions and to
> use words like belief. But I don't currently respect belief as such, I
> think its anti-social at worst and a-social at best.
>
>
That you have made clear. But I am not convinced belief as such
and in all areas can be avoided.
>>>I certainly won't willingly contribute to the view that belief is as
>>>good and as valid a way of making decisions in the world as
>>>reason. It isn't. Indeed promoting such a misconception in a
>>>democracy increases the chances of my premature demise.
>>
>>When you have employed reason and cannot reach a conclusion
>> but you have to choose, what do you do?
>
>
> I make a provisional assessment, or if need be a final assessment
> as dictated by the need to reach a decision as best I can given the
> circumstances.
>
>
>> I expect you "make a value judgment" that at least seems unlikely
>> to be certainly wrong and seems to be mostly in the direction of
>>the rest of your values.
>
>
> I don't know about the value judgement bit, but a judgement yes,
> but I aim for more than "unlikely to be certainly wrong" this end of
> the ranging is usually despatchable quite quickly (it depends) but I
> also look to a judgement on what is "more likely to be right".
>
>
OK
>>>>>Please do consider ditching "belief", "human life" and "human
>>>>>beings" from your operating language when other terms are
>>>>>available.
>>>>
>>>I'm talking again as a political animal, not merely or mainly a
>>>philosophical one. I am pursuing change and very aware of how
>>>important it is to win the votes on issues in democracies.
>>
>>It is not important. The votes are a game generally to persuade
>>the people they actually are in control. The counter-evidence
>>is easily found.
>
>
> I don't understand this comment.
>
>
Voting is becoming a charade that really effects nearly nothing
imho. The government is generally out of control of the people.
Having the people vote even super-rationally will not imo likely
be sufficient to bring it under control.
>>>Sorry just in case that was missed, the pivot point on embryonic
>>>stem cell research around the world at present (politically)
>>>speaking is whether an embryo is a human being. Of course
>>>it is. It exists and its human. Its not a person though. So if we
>>>don't want to propagate and validate the confusion we'd better
>>>use the term person and people and personhood or some such
>>>equivalents when we mean them instead of the less precise terms
>>>or we are running the risk of helping believers giving us social
>>>policies whereby actually persons (sick people) cannot be given
>>>the fullest level of care, because we've traded off their rights as
>>>a class against the rights of some potential people (embryos) as
>>>a class.
>>
>>A good point.
>
>
> Thank you, I've worked on it and I continue to work on it.
>
>
>>However, it would be MUCH better to remove stem
>>cell research and development from that which is subject to a
>>"vote".
>
>
> If you can tell me how we can do that in practice Samantha I'd be
> very interested to here it.
>
Reimpose strict Constitutional limits on what the government has
any right to stick its nose in. Exactly how we would get there
from here is a very good question. It is also one I think we
better put some considerable effort into answering.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST