From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 12:42:14 MDT
Harvey Newstrom writes:
> Randall Randall wrote,
> > Unfortunately, most debates about this get bogged down
> > in differences between definitions of "same" and similar
> > words and phrases, without the debaters seeming to be
> > aware of that. I was just trying to head off another iteration
> > of "extropians talking past each other". :)
>
> I have been saying this for a couple of years now. The
> whole upload/copy question is a matter of semantics.
If that was so some definitions could be agreed up front
or failing that there would at least be grounds for what I
think Eliezer sees as agreeing to disagree.
But it takes time to define the terms up front and its harder
to do on a list with multiple participants than it is with say
just two people.
> People don't disagree on the facts of the operation.
> They disagree on terms and labels. Do we call the two
> results the "same" or "different"? In many ways they are
> the same. In many ways they are different. It depends
> on the definition of same and different. People can't
> seem to understand this. They believe that only their
> definitions are right and that only their conclusions are
> right. What they don't see is that both sides are correct.
> Having a dictionary with multiple meanings for each word,
> we find that the results are different(1) from each other,
> while they are not different(2) from each other. There is
> no contradiction or compromise is this conclusion. People
> end up arguing for their definitions and labels. They do
> not end up talking about objective reality or even theoretical
> reality. As you say, they are talking past each other.
Don't underestimate plain old vanilla flavored ignorance here.
It could also be that some topics require a familiarity with
subject matter that is just not easily acquired without putting
in some background learning. I find I feel that I am up against
this in some areas relating to Baysian reasoning and quantum
mechanics just to name two. With Baysian reasoning I mostly
just haven't done the necessary reading. With quantum mechanics
the problem in a bit different in that quantum mechanics really is
according to the likes of Bohr genuinely difficult and counter
intuitive to the way we normally perceive the world. My point is
that in my case and I imagine in the case of quite a few others it
is not an inability to come to agree on terms or to be persuaded
to the truth of a superior argument or world view. The problem
is, I think, that it takes a substantial investment of time for those
who know to give those who don't the necessary background.
If one has to go and do the reading oneself the old old fashioned
way its often less fun.
I think a list referenceable wiki or a faq on frequently recurring
topics would enable those who know more than beginners to provide
a cross reference to extropian flavored primers. Then perhaps the
terms are more defined and clear when the discussion starts. Wheels
woundn't get reinvented so much as refined.
The point has been made the if extropians were to produce a
wiki or database of topics frequently revisited that we'd be
reproducing work already done elsewhere. That might be
true. But if extropians are to be a different brand of transhumanism
perhaps they do need to put down deeper roots at the cost
of some redundancy to be a distinctive brand.
Also some people on the list seem to be predominantly interested
in getting at the truth, whatever the truth happens to be, and this
is for them a personal quest. Others like me are less interested in
truth for its own sake but are rather concerned with those domains
of inquiry which they perceive will have the biggest impact on
realising particular extropic goals such as in my case life extension.
My bias probably gives me a fixation on wanting to get memes
propagated using extropes as vectors that are likely to influence
public policy and help create or at least avoid the implementation
of blocking legislation and prohibitive social policies. I don't really
care that democracy or the law are flawed, for me its enough to
know that these things will probably outlive me so I'd rather
work within the less than ideal systems to achieve what I see as
the main goals (life extension) first. This main goal is complicated
by a recognition that it may not be best achieved by a frontal
assault. Cryonics and uploading may be harder to sell than cancer
cures and stem cell research. Also it is very difficult to get
transhumanists to pull together on particular causes because their
various ages and expectations about the rate of development of
technologies differ so much from one to another.
If one holds as Virge Verner does, and I think Eliezer does that
the singularity is coming between 2005 and 2030 within their lifespan
and irrespective of whether they personally act to bring it on or not,
then one is likely to be less concerned with changing memesets
about stem cells and cryonics in 2003.
There is such a divergence of views and assumptions on the nature
of progress and the likelihood that individually we will be around
to see it in our lifetimes that it is very hard to get transhumanists to
agree on priorities towards pursuing change. Unlike the luddites
we don't easy rally because there is no obvious common battle line.
I hope not to need cryonics, but it occurs to me that it just could
be the case that the best place to make a proactive stand, to take
the battle up to the luddites is on the issue of cryonics. Cryonics
is likely the only chance for some extropes and likely the only
chance for some elderly members of the community. It could be
the place where the most transhumanist troops can be rallied. It
could switch transhumanists from defensive disorganised fighting
against fear to an offensive fighting for hope. But at present the
case for cryonics has not been particularly well made. Or perhaps
it just hasn't been made well enough for *me* to think that *I*
could sell it to the general community and use it even theoretically
as a rallying point. I note that it has not really been successfully sold
by others either.
- Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 12:49:15 MDT