From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:23:01 MDT
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 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.
<snip>
>> 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'.
Yes, this topic may be not as fruitless as it appears, since those who are
like-minded will tend to remain silent, and others may be silently refining
their understanding as they observe the discussion.
>
>> Many persons with scientific and philosophical
>> backgrounds struggle with concepts such as the nature of
>> consciousness, 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.
How to make progress on these topics?
On a list such as this, rational debate often tends to devolve into a
competition to prove who's right rather than cooperation to increase
bilateral understanding.
On a list such as this, the same topics arise repeatedly. Surprisingly to
some, this rehashing of common topics does not lead to much more effective
sharing of the acquired wisdom of the group. In fact just the opposite
occurs, with old-timers tired of the same old discussions, and newcomers
must discover the questions and hunt for the answers anew. (and "reading
the archives" is grossly inefficient as a learning aid.)
On many topics, we could have easy access to the following:
* Identification and classification of most common questions and objections,
with links to effective arguments and supporting information for each.
* A collection of thought experiments that can provide a more intuitive
understanding of difficult concepts.
* Definitions of pertinent concepts and neologisms.
* Links to related threads in the forum archives.
It would be wonderfully effective, in my opinion, while in a discussion on
the list, or during live chat, to be able to link to a reference in the
knowledge base to provide clarity and more depth for those who seek it,
while keeping list traffic at a higher signal to noise ratio.
There's a need for a repository of extropian and transhuman thinking to
complement the discussion list, and to be most effective I think it should
be designed as a collaborative system. It would require sponsorship. Is
this something the ExI board would agree is worthwhile, or would it have to
be done independently?
- Jef
www.jefallbright.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:34:51 MDT