From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 22:16:33 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Brett had written (Friday, Jan 10, 12:54 AM)
>
> > > > [A] "I believe (sic) that life (sic) begins at
> > > > conception. I believe that any other points we
> > > > might choose are essentially arbitrary and uncertain.
> > > > And I believe that this is a view founded not in
> > > > religion, not in faith, but on the logic of the matter. ....
> > >
> > > But wouldn't it have meant exactly the same thing if he
> > > had said, [B] "My working hypothesis is that human existence
> > > begins at conception, and I contend that this is a view
> > > founded not in religion, not in faith, but on logic."
> >
> > I don't think so at all.
> >
> > The proposition I am putting to you Lee is that there is a larger
> > issue here than the mere ontological point. If we call the guy who
> > made the original unmodified statement Tony-A and the one who
> > made the modified statement Tony-B would you really have no
> > preference over whether Tony-A or Tony-B was casting a vote
> > on stem cell policy that was likely to directly effect the rate at
> > which treatments for a variety of diseases might be found and
> > ultimately cures might be found?.
>
> Perhaps I would prefer to vote for [B] because his choice
> of words does, as has been pointed out, make it sound like
> he's less committed. Also, there is a chance that you are
> right about this individual, and what he means by "I believe"
> is not "I think", but "I BELIEVE".
>
> But I might vote for [A] instead because the ideological
> positions displayed are *exactly* the same, and [A] is more
> up-front about it.
It seems like your vote is "it depends".
But I don't see how the example can be made more elemental
than this. There is a difference between politics and philosophy
and I think we both know which process makes the laws.
I don't mean to be harsh, disrespectful or unkind, but sometimes
one just *has* to make a decision. In the political world when no
decision is made by a voter a decision is either deemed to have
been made or the voter is deemed to have not voted. That non-
voter becomes politically irrelevant but 'cops' the laws anyway.
You seem to me to be a pretty good philosopher. In the future
I might expect to have many of my errors and misperceptions
pointed out, to my real benefit, by you. But right now I'm
thinking "there are more things on heaven and earth...."
Perhaps if you reflect on your own goals and subgoals that you
produced in response to a conversation with Eliezer, you will
agree that you also need to be a politician to have the best chance
of realising *your* goals.
Increasing the chances of keeping us both alive (this may
*sound* phoney, but it is actually true) in the real world where
laws are made as a result of political processes has actually
been a driver for my interest in this thread. I really don't have
the time for, though I do enjoy, mere philosophy. I also find it
harder to "philosophize" over the net. I get slowed down and
I have to over-engineer my communication because I can't get
visual cues or tone of voice.
> It's just a little too bizarre that my approval would
> simply be a function of the particular words chosen.
Words mean things. Words are exchanged socially. They have
"baggage". It seems obvious to me. I don't think words are
particular simple. Consider the difficulties in producing natural
language translators.
>
> (There is a notable exception to this: ideological
> positions can be and often are intentionally betrayed
> by word choice, i.e., I would vote against someone
> who employed a lot of Marxist jargon but who was
> saying exactly the same thing as someone who said
> "Western manufacturing managers should become less
> addicted to assembly-line solutions.")
Perhaps a topic for another day.
>
> > > > They start from a position of faith or belief assume
> > > > that as an axiom and reason from there.
> > >
> > > But I .....start from the axiom "suffering is bad" (that's me!)
> >
> > I don't think the infant Lee Corbin came into the world
> > loaded with many "axioms" at all. I also think that by the
> > time you learnt what the word axiom meant your thinking
> > would have developed way past the point where you
> > would have thought suffering is bad in every case. I don't
> > think there is an *actual* as opposed to a theoretical or
> > philosophical state in which you do, or ever did, "*start*
> > from the axiom 'suffering is bad'".
>
> Your remarks about the infant Lee Corbin are pretty
> unnecessary. OF COURSE one does not *start* in the
> way you describe. Not even in geometry!! You could
> try to read what is written a little more charitably? ;-)
No offence was meant. I apologise if I was insensitive.
I adopted you as an example because you put yourself
forward. I also saw the comment as off the main point so I
didn't address it in depth. (Actually how infants learn I am
quite interested in).
In a way though, even now, you are making my point for
me. That is that we need to be careful of the words we
use in political discourse (like belief, "human life" and
"human being") and not rely too much on charitable
interpretations. In a political world where transhumanists are
the ones wanting to make big changes quickly the burden
remains on us to make our case. We can't expect charity,
or that either our opponents or "undecided" listeners (voters)
to any debates will go to a lot of trouble to find the meaning
in words we use if we use ambiguous ones.
> > In what respect are you *with me*? What do you take to be
> > my main contention in this thread (that you are with me on)?
>
> Well, I think that you were criticizing those who
> "start" from a position of faith or belief in
> justifying their conclusions, as you wrote above.
No. I'm cautioning extropians, transhumanists, free thinkers and
anyone who I think shares my goals (pretty much the ExI
Principles and wants to actually see them realized in the
political world), to be aware that whenever *we* use the
word 'belief' *we* are affirming the validity of that meme
which competes head to head with the meme of "reason" to
anyone who happens to be listening. Affirming that meme, by
using it, when *we* could quite easily find more precise
alternatives to convey *our* actual meaning is not in our interest.
Indeed *we* are propagating the very meme that our opponents
so often invoke to our detriment when they *do* abdicate reason.
Now this is possibly a subtle point. And it is possibly wrong.
But I happen to think it is right at the moment and if I am right
it is something that we can easily action. (Alternatively if I am
wrong the same "action" will be harmless). That is we can easily
choose to use, and propagate by example, better memes than
the meme of "belief". It will also be easier for us to point out
to observers (voters) where our opponents are using the word
belief in a completely unwholesome way if we haven't muddied
up the discourse by using it in a different (but perhaps not
noticeable different to the observer/voter) way ourselves.
I've proposed as a practical step that we replace the word
belief with alternatives of the same meaning in the ExI
Principles.
> But by your use of the word "axiom" I also inferred,
> perhaps incorrectly, that you also had a problem, like
> I do, with those who would try to rigorously deduce
> from some small set of principles everything they
> believe---sorry---everything that they endorse. It's
> not your "main contention", of course.
I'm not completely sure I am clear what you are saying
here and I don't want to speculate. Perhaps in another
thread.
> My confession of "suffering is bad" as being sort of
> axiomatic is only that this is a meme up against which
> my thoughts frequently bump. It's sort of a "hard
> principle". But I've always had better sense than
> to begin a Euclidean program on it!
I reckon a Lee Corbin clone would possibly give you
a hard time over the phrase "sort of axiomatic". But I
won't (well not much). I need to pick my battles as if
I don't actually have an infinite amount of time or
resources.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST