RE: Transhumanism for Dummies

From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 07:42:54 MDT

  • Next message: Paul Grant: "RE: The End of Hypocrisy? (was: Why Does Self-Discovery Require a Journey?)"

    From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
    On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
    Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 7:28 AM
    Paul Grant writes:

    [Brett]
    > >It seems a great pity that amongst the first things intelligent
    > >people often seem to get good at is sarcasm
    >
    > It is a useful ability whether u admit it or not.

    You: I definately *do* admit that it is a useful ability. I think
    I am a perhaps a bit like Harvey in that I have an emotional
    predispisiton towards people playing nice.
    I see it as efficient as well as pleasant. But given that people don't
    always play nice I am certainly willing to fall back on
    the alternatives.

    Me: Agreed :) Thats generally how I play it ;P

    You: I'm a rationalist humanist. I like to cooperate. But I am
    also a reasonable bush lawyer and former state karate
    champion I don't need to learn that sometimes the
    opportunity to play nice is taken off the table by others. Then, if
    truth be told I probably find the honesty and
    directness of a real knock down take no prisoners fight preferable to
    the namby pamby half hearted exchanges
    of petty spites. I don't *like* the *ambiguity* of the middle ground of
    minor petttiness. I like it to be *clear* whether
    cooperation or competition is the optimal mode as then *I* can commit
    more fully to either and not waste my
    time.

    Me: Hahahahaha :) I doubt things are resolved to ur satisfaction on a
    regular basis,
    insofar as people who would feel the need to reach for the "ambiguity of
    the middle ground"
    are rarely capable (emotionally) to offer such a clear statement of
    intent.

    Or perhaps I'm coloring I'm simply painting it through the lense of my
    experiences.

    <shrugs>

    But in essence (at least theoretically), I agree. RL tends to be less
    direct.

    > >... and the great fear that stops a lesser mind from
    > becoming a greater mind is the fear of looking stupid.
    >
    > Oh I'd agree with that statement insofar as it is a
    > limiting factor for attempting new directions;

    You: Hell, more than that its a limiting factor in learning.
    Most of us live lives surrounded by sources of good
    information and people who will as happily help us
    and return one good turn for another as not. Once
    one builds up some credibility and a stock of skills
    contacts and a knowledge base to trade even the
    trade gets to be informal and people with win/win
    attitudes to mutual empowerment tend to seek
    each other out.

    Me: Thats also limited though by ur access to such people,
    and what they have to offer in trade (versus what
    you are offering and their needs). For instance,
    I have run {acting as one of those people who
    is very skilled in several areas within my
    extended family} into several roadblocks; the largest
    being the difference in experience levels between
    my own level, and that of several cousins and other
    associated ilk, despite being of similar chronological
    age. The reality of the situation is that without a
    bloodline (regardless of time in shared common experiences),
    I would probably not have bothered, since they have nothing
    notable of trade. Even the most sophisticated of them
    required (practically speaking), approx 3 years to even
    begin to develop an outlook that will eventually lead to
    a good set of offerrings.

    > >The fear of *looking* stupid might very well
    > > cost people their lives in coming decades.
    > > Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
    > > We all start ignorant.
    >
    > I'd like to think we all remain ignorant [given the
    > sheer volume of information and possibilities]; some
    > of us just manage to migrate to (slightly) lesser degrees
    > of ignorance.

    You: I see in this what I consider to be a socrates fallacy, ie,
    the notion that as nothing can really be known the
    person who thinks they know nothing is actually wisest.

    Me: Oh I wouldn't go so far; I am merely pointing
    out to pin down any particular statement as a fact,
    you generally have to limit the domain in which u are
    discussing; and that given true mastery of this
    environment {which is at least, my goal} cannot be
    had given the limitation just expressed, ergo we will
    never be able to completely remove from ourselves
    a state of ignorance {given the expansion of the domain}
    :)

    Or as David Bowie said in one of his songs,
    that @ a certain point in development {of say, a technology},
    I don't prefer knowledge, just certainty :)

    You:
    <snip>

    We are social to an extent, (it is not sensible or useful
    or healthy for us to personally doubt this), we are
    reasonable to an extent ( again let socrates or the
    neo-socratics take a shot at that as a fallacy). Once
    we know we are social and we are ration we know
    some things that are useful to us, to our happiness
    and our development. We learn that we have freedoms
    but that we remain free within bounds. We cannot
    violate the contingent nature of the universe.

    Me:
    Yes, but that leaves in a continual state of ignorance,
    does it not? There *is* no final point of enlightment
    where we mystically shed our ignorance and reach
    an enlightended state :) Ergo my previous statement
    of simply being able to reach lesser degrees of ignorance.

    You:
    My point, ignorance is a natural starting postion and
    it is not something to be *ashamed* of, but nor is it
    in itself a positive virtue. Socrates was wrong. The
    wisest man is not the man who knows he knows
    nothing. Imo :-) A wiser man knows that he is
    rational and social and that he will find health and satisfaction and
    good relations at least potentially with other men
    (or women) if he proceeds on the basis of these truths
    that present themselves to him on a level even
    more fundamental than scientific truths.

    Me: I wouldn't go so far as to agree with you
    regarding ur point on Socrates; I think we
    simply differ in our intrepratations :) You
    seem to imply that Socrates was saying ignorance
    is a blessed state; whereas I think that Socrates
    was stating a simple truth; that no matter how much
    knowledge you accumulate, there is still so much
    more to learn, and past that, too many probabilities
    to deal with. He wasn't explicitly giving a
    comparison function; merely observing that anyone
    with half a brain will also have hit a similar
    conclusion.... which of course, implies a test of sorts....
    Of course, the game can get deeper from there :)

    and BTW - just because you achieve a lesser state
    of ignorance does not mean u neccesarily are more
    competent that someone else in the grand scheme of
    things; I, for instance, though quite skilled in several
    areas, would not care to go head to head with a peasant
    in the area concerning growing things. In other words,
    knowledge is not an instant path to success :) The fitness
    of ur function depends heavily on the environment in which
    you are competing.

    omard-out

     

    things

     

    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 07:51:10 MDT