From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 10:27:33 MST
Samantha wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
I agree with point 1) as the superstitious also believe.
As for 2) I'm still trying to make the case that using the
word "belief" when genuine alternatives are available is a
poor strategic and political choice. I'm not calling anyone
irresponsible at this stage.
But would you be willing to *voluntarily* stop using the
word belief if you were convinced it carried too much
negative baggage?
>
> >>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.
That's interesting. How would such an argument run?
> >>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.
Ok.
> 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.
That makes sense.
> 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)
Really? Could you give an example?
> 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.
Sorry I didn't understand. I'm confused about why "logically".
Could you paraphrase?
> >>>Belief makes for bad social policy.
>>>
> >>Personally I get a little tweaked by "social policy".
> >>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.
> >
> > 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.
Ok.
> 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.
Fair enough. I am interested in why, but perhaps you'd
like to tell me your model of rights if you have one. I'm
certainly interested.
> >
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>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.
You may be right but I'll give it a shot a bit longer anyway :-)
Actually, I'm not trying to get all of *society* to voluntarily give up
using the word belief and to instead use more precise terms or
alternatives when they are available just those extropians who I can
persuade to do so of their own volition by reasoned argument.
>
> > 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.
But can you think of any instances where you yourself would feel you'd
*have to* use it to correctly convey your meaning?
> >>>>>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.
I still don't think I understand your viewpoint exactly.
Does the following capture your meaning correctly?
"Voting in elections in democracies effects nothing of particular
significance as those in government and hence government itself are
out of the effective control of even a majority of the people. Therefore
having more voters voting more rationally is unlikely to bring those
in government and thus the government 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.
>
Do you mean modify the Constitution to put addition constraints on
government? I think you'd need to state the goal a little more clearly
that "what the government has any right to stick its nose in" :-) even
before moving on the question of implementing the goal. Perhaps
you might actually get support and buy-in if you say what exactly
you'd like the new constitutional constraints to cover.
Not being in the US I'm a bit foggy on the details of the US
Constitution but I am a bit of a fan of it. Australia doesn't have any
sort of Bill of Rights for citizens at all, its all fuzzy conventions.
I would be interested in what constitutional amendments you'd
like to see effected. And I think that articulating them would be
a necessary first step towards getting them implemented.
Regards,
Brett
It would seem that before we could even start to move toward that goal,
it would be necessary to define
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST