From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 00:07:41 MDT
Jef writes, saving me from immediately wrestling, with Eliezer :-)
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > Jef Allbright writes:
> >> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >>> Lee Corbin writes:
> >>>
> >>>> The psychological problem that most people have
> >>>> against uploading, of course, is that of "being
> >>>> inside a computer", or of knowing that one is really
> >>>> just on a silicon chip.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps its because I haven't read enough about it, but,
> >>> the reservation, I have against uploading, and also
> >>> cryonics is that I just not convinced that, appearances
> >>> not withstanding, the me that goes in, will be the me
> >>> that comes out.
> >>
>
> We've seen these topics arise repeatedly on this list, with
> very little or no change of viewpoint resulting from extensive
> discussion.
How could you know that there has not been a change of
view? It would seem that if cryonics and uploading are
sensible options and are explained to people with open
minds and an interest then the 'peanut gets pushed forward'.
> This seems [sic] to indicates that the prior beliefs we're
> dealing with are at fundamental levels which are rarely
> open to self examination, and thus very resistant to
> change. It seems [sic] that these prior beliefs or biases
> come mainly from our evolutionary programming, and
> are further reinforced by cultural programming.
Careful Jef this argument is in danger of coming apart at
the "seems". ;-)
> The difficulty is perhaps not so much with learning more
> about these subjects, but with the need to *unlearn* a
> lot of the previous programming.
This seems likely to be true to me too. Explorations of
"consciousness" and "personhood" and the "self" may well
leave us confounded as to whether any of these terms can be
pinned down.
>
> Many persons with scientific and philosophical
> backgrounds struggle with concepts such as the nature of
> conciousness, personal identity, morality, free will, all of
> which appear to be contingent on the evolutionarily based
> sense of "self".
Rings true.
> This strong sense of "I am me, and
> everything outside is not me" seems to prevent one from
> adopting the wider perspective by which these apparently
> paradoxical topics become transparent (and then one can
> discover and begin working on the next layer of the onion.)
But clearly *everyone* is not prevented from adopting the
wider perspective. If the wider perspective is more useful,
more valid. more true, then it would seem worth while to
try and mark the trails blazed by these daring lateral thinkers
whose eridition may be greater so that when policy is made
on the hand count of politicians more of the average folk
are in favour, savvy, or at least less opposed.
There is also the possibility that some brave lateral thinkers
have wandered off the main trail and gotten themselves
lost.
>
> Earlier today someone (Rafal?) mentioned the chinese
> "mu" as an appropriate response when no correct answer
> is possible due to the question not being meaningful in the
> given context. In such a case, widening the context
> (greater scope of understanding) so the discussion
> illuminates both viewpoints can lead to progress, but how
> can this be done effectively on a list such as ours?
Well it seems discussing the issues of cryonics and uploading
with an open minded sceptic is not going to hurt the
propagation of extropic memes. Maybe there are some folks
who don't have the sort of wit required to blaize the scientific
frontiers but do have the savvy, if first convinced themselves,
to increase the chances of cryonics facilities popping up like
McDonalds restaurants.
>
> I've dreamed of having a set of web pages, generated by
> a database relating arguments, counter-arguments, and
> prior beliefs, in a way that would interactively guide
> someone from their current view point to (one hopes) a
> more enlightened view point. Perhaps such a
> hypothetical system could refine its data and methods
> by learning from each encounter. Unfortunately, such
> a system is currently impractical to program due to the
> combinatorial explosion that it would involve.
Heck we don't even have a wiki or a faq.
>
> I thought that perhaps a group effort, collaborating on
> such a database might make some progress toward this
> goal, but this now appears overly idealistic given actual
> social dynamics.
Dunno.
> Perhaps the great Google will eventually lead the way
> toward enlightment for all...
As cunning plans go that one seems a little under detailed
and over-optimistic to me.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 00:16:04 MDT