From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 12:28:32 MDT
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:13 AM
Paul Grant writes:
> [Brett]
> 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.
[Brett] You've got me pegged pretty right. But peoples
*actions* are often less ambiguous than their words.
In the absence of a clear statement of intent I can deem
one to have been made on their behalf.
Me: You can always infer, but are your correct in ur inference?
While I am at quite at home giving the boot (nothing is
worse than a scratch u can't itch), I don't like giving
people the boot erroneously. Practically speaking, that
means I give them the benefit of the doubt.
You: Eg. A drunk driver is no less dangerous for meaning
no harm and from me would probably get little mercy
despite quite a lot of understanding.
Me: in other words, u judge not only by intention, but
by effect :) I do the same thing, but for a while
{17-23} it was an outstanding question in my mind;
or put another way, how hard{line} a game do u play? :)
> <shrugs>
> But in essence (at least theoretically), I agree.
> RL tends to be less direct.
You:Sorry you lost me with RL?
Me: Real Life (sm).
> > >... 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).
You:As I've gotten older (I'm now 36) I've found that getting access to
what some
would regard as influential people is often surprisingly easy.
Me: Depends on what u mean by influential :) Besides, I'm not
interested in meeting (necessarily) influential people;
just brilliant (and focused) ones :) [who may be influential] :)
> 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.
You: Yep. I get what your saying. Sometimes perhaps for family
or perhaps because ones sees someone be generous to
others or perhaps just because the simple humanity of the
other is enough to build a bridge between you - you give
them trade credit. Latter maybe they repay you.
Me: ... or u may just be particularly bored :) Generally
I'm free with information/expertise, insofar as the request
for that information is made in such a manner as to evince:
a) some effort to solve the problem (independance)
b) some [stalled] effort to analyze why their solution didn't work.
Generally I don't like dealing with stupid [or lazy] people who
invariably
(despite their best efforts) suck up my time needlessly. Or put
another way, people who aren't going to be able a) comprehend
the answer (or subtlities contained therein) or b)perform the
solution. That cuts out alot of the traif :)
> 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
> offerings.
You: I think everyone has something to trade, the exchanges
are not always equal ones, and when the other tries to
bullshit you the trade should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
And sometimes you just have to say sorry can't help today or this time.
Me: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA :)
They wish I was that gentle :)
Generally I'm pretty much the last resort :) :)
I'll fix their problem, but they'll get a running lecture
the size of NY pointing out all the flaws in their current
mode of thinking :) The particularly intelligent ones shut
up and listen; the stupid ones invariably attempt to offer
<insert stupid excuse>, ergo in one ear, out the other.
Those I don't bother dealing with anymore.
As to everything having something to trade, well, yes :)
Thats why the invented the term cannon fodder :P
<ok, just kidding>. I can't say that for me personally,
everybody has something to trade.... But i suppose
thats more of a failure on my part to be interested
in everyday things that seems to consume a majority
of their lives.
> > >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: Seems I misunderstood you. Sorry. Am I right to infer
that you'd agree that even within even a complex
domain where certainty is not possible that you'd
still prefer and persue means to reduce the extent
of the uncertainty, to reduce your ignorance as much
as possible. I could be off on a tangent here.
Me: Certes :) You are correct; I would add only one qualification...
That I do not pursue all available portions of knowledge....
I follow a demand-based algorithm for acquisition of expertise.
> 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[al] 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 :)
You:
Ignorance about some things yes. But not ignorance
all things.
Me: if you're ignorant of something, and knowledgeable
about everything else, you're still ignorant :) You may
be more knowledgeable (in comparison) to someone
else, but ur still ignorant :) Its ok to be ignorant of
something; it is not ok to stay ignorant because you
love to be ignorant :) Ergo the Black People vs Niggas
speech by chris rock :)
> Ergo my previous statement
> of simply being able to reach lesser degrees of
> ignorance.
You: Wow. Perhaps we have come in a circle or were at
cross purposes because now I am agreeing with you.
Ignorance is a matter of degree. (But there are some certainties).
I wonder if you are agreeing with me that there are some
elemental truths (some certainties) more fundamental than
science and less social than proof of which we are not
ignorant. Indeed they form the foundation of what we
build on top of them. Or rather we build outward from
our subjective centre.
Me: I dunno, I have it cast in a different image;
I think there is an objective reality, and that knowledge
of it can be obtained; I also hold there is a notion of
subjective objectivity, insofar as they are truths contained
in my (or your) particular pecerptual filters, as well as
the effects (artifacts) of our perceptual distortions.
Generally I would say yes, at the beginning, u build out
from ur subjectively perceived notions of realities...
But I think u can fundamentally characterize both
truths as they relate to your subjective viewpoints,
and by removing those truths (or inversing the function),
achieve the objective reality that stimulates ur perceptions.
And thats not even considering the cases of intuition, and
abstract reasoning systems :) Which are seperate cases.
> 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;
You: That was not my intent. I think Socrates was trying
to disclose hypocrosy and false knowledge and his
method works well to a point. But it works in dialectic.
The monologue of the subjective and some truths
are untouchable by Socrates.
Me: Aaaah I see what u're getting at. You're saying
without a comparison to judge your ignorance against,
a mans natural inclination should (or would) be to attempt to
understand his own nature....
> 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 :)
You:
I am I think only partly getting your meaning now.
Let me try another take. 1 and 1 make 2. This is
a truth open to any inquiring rational mind. The
words may be changed but the referents don't.
A person may not be a mathematical genius but
still be sure that one and one make two. The rest
of the mathematical domain can be built on top
of that (not by all of us and not completely) so to
some extent all of remain ignorant of mathematics
if we make ignorance or non ignorance of all
mathematics the issue. If we have to answer truthfully
to ourselves do I understand all mathematics yes or
no or am I ignorant of the domain as an entirety (but
not elements of it) them yes, one can be ignorant.
Me: bing :) The only time you can consider urself
non-ignorant is by limiting the domain u are considering
and knowing everything about it :) You can also
do comparisons between states of ignorance within
the context of a particular evaluation function :)
You: But in practical terms we take on the subject matter
in complex domains in increments. We model reality
we don't perceive the whole shebang in one hit. One
can reduce ones ignorance of the whole shebang
by degrees. But not remove ignorance of all entirely.
Me: Reductionism may not necessarily give you the
entire picture, IMHO. Consider that the symbols
you are using to identify semantic notions are defined
by their very relationship to each other... In that sense
your vocabulary is defined holistically. Whether or
not ur semantics can be encapsulated by examining each
separate relationship between each of the concepts
is not gauranteed. The tapestry may be more complicated
than that (and probably is). I do agree that more insight
can (statistically speaking) usually be derived, but
fundamentally I think it will require a holistic viewpoint
to gel it all together.
> 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.
You: True. There are different domains of knowledge that each
or us can pursue. But importantly imo there are some
domains of knowledge that all of us MUST persue or
be in a state of bad faith with ourselves.
Me: Well :) That would depend entirely on the utility
you derive from lacking that PARTICULAR piece of
ignorance :) Now outside forces, can intrude upon
you and mess with ur utility functions, but only
insofar as you value the benefits they offer.
Thats the link between perception and expectation
btw :)
You: And this is that we must each perceive the world
from the centre of a subjective universe and that we start doing so
with
a propensity for sociability and a capacity for rationality
and these two together gives us language which enable
us to approach to varing degrees the subjective
universe of the other.
Me: Yes but what if you have no sense of self? You're left with a case
where there is no impetus :) a very real case for human beings :)
Just go ask all the lobotomized people :) or the schizophrenics and
the like... You're trying to extrapolate ur viewpoint out to encompass
all human beings; I'm saying that more important than all of that is
the utility derived from going from a state of ignorance to a state of
{less} ignorance... If there is no utility, then there is no difference.
This is btw, the main reason why I (practically-speaking), feel
completely at home ignoring entire bodies of work; there is no utility
:)
Just because the information is present doesn't mean there is some
inherent
burning need to go out and consume it :) You're arguing ur points of
the notion that the capacity for reason and the propensity for
socialability
are two givens; I would disagree, in that the capacity for reason may be
deficient (or absent), and the same for socialability....
> 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.
You: Agreed. A nuclear physicist that can't swim across out
of a river when his boat sinks has in a way wasted some
of his time learning excess knowledge in one domain and
not enough in another - swimming.
But I come back to my central point. All of have some
domains in common. We all start from the subjective
centre, we all are social, we all are rational, and
we all value our lives. Our lives are the first value to us.
Me: See, in this starting assumption (social, rational, value of life)
we differ :) Although a majority of people may ostensibly have
those qualities in some degree, not everyone does :) Now if you
would like to limit ur statements to the subset of people who do
have those qualities.... :)
You: And perhaps we can use these universals in domain
to good effect. Perhaps we can ground a more rational
ethics. But I digress as well as rant :-)
Me: I think u will be dissappointed; the utilities (short of forced
death)
are not there. But even death is not enough it seems
[given the vast amount of people that have come before us and died]....
And as u said earlier, the limiting factor is often a fear of appearing
stupid or foolish.
omard-out
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 12:39:25 MDT