Re: Transhumanism for Dummies

From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:04:32 MDT

  • Next message: Spike: "RE: The Meaning of Life (was Fermi "Paradox")"

    Paul Grant writes:
    >
    > 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?

    Not always. But I am always correct in being aware that
    I have no choice but to act on matters involving other
    people, their judgements and their motives, their views
    on the basis of incomplete information. This means I can
    act without forming something so sloppy as a "belief". I
    have a working hypothesis which I test to the extent that
    I need to OR to the extent that time and my other priorities
    permit.

    > 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.

    Me either. Practically speaking I give them the benefit of
    the doubt *usually* but not always. Sometimes things
    need to get done, if one is operating entrepreneurially
    or towards some important goal or object, and it doesn't
    matter who does them so much as it matters that they get
    done.

    >
    > 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? :)

    Depends on the circumstances. Eg. How high are the
    stakes to you in the particular social exchange? Further,
    are you engaged on a task that is vital and time critical, in
    which case their is little room for being soft and the hard
    line is necessary; or are you just hanging about, chewing
    the fat or talking or acting so as to be sociable, to satisfy
    a human yearning. In the latter case I cut a lot of slack but
    I pick my company beforehand.

    In the drunk driver scenario, where I imagine my life
    or the lives of some that I care about are imperilled by
    some homo-turkeyius a very hard line is taken because
    time does not permit me to adopt a universal perspective
    without losing something of very high local value - ie. me
    or other subjective individuals I value.
       
    > > > >... 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] :)

    That's pretty much what I meant by influential. They can
    assist me in influencing a desired outcome. They may or
    may not be regarded as influential by society generally.
    Often they are though, as often to move with leverage
    you need to tap into the networks of others who can
    themselves move with leverage and so on.

    To give one example. Back in Oz last year national
    stem cell legislation was being enacted. I wanted to see
    the most liberal possible legislation come into place.
    The people I leveraged with were stem cell CEO's,
    patient advocacy leaders, politicians (or more often
    their speech writers or advisers), journalists, and the
    heads of biotech and medical research industry
    associations.
     
    > > 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 [to] 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 :)

    I'm rarely bored. I spend a lot of time analysing. That is
    something I *have* to do on my own, but I can run it as
    a background job and sometimes I need to. When I'm
    running the background job I've sometimes got time and
    the inclination to run with stuff that interests other people.
    And in the end I'm social.

    > 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 subtleties
    > contained therein) or b)perform the solution. That cuts
    > out alot of the traif :)

    Perhaps you and I better both fill out a GKES description
    (other thread) or start to describe more clearly what we do
    lest we be in danger of wasting our time then ;-)

    > > 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.

    I see your point and there is no real disagreement here
    I suspect though I am wondering what you do as a day
    job. In ideas as in currency there is small and large
    change. People who want simple things from one (and
    are willing to trade) can usually be referred to others.
    The trades aren't all of equal value, nor do they need
    to be two party only.

    > > > >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 [S]ocrat[ic] fallacy,
    > > i.e., 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 [that] 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 pursue 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.

    But whence comes the demand? From you or from others?

    >
    > > 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 [one] 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 [of]
    > all things.
    >
    > Me: if you're ignorant of something, and knowledgeable
    > about everything else, you're still ignorant :)

    Yeah but ignorance is now being used multidimensionally.
    There would be little utility in describing Bertrand Russell
    as ignorant simply because he elected not to learn sanscrit.

    > 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 :)

    Agreed. Or at least such a choice carries consequences
    and one will be delt with as an object rather than a
    subject and fairly so.

    >
    > > 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;

    Then I think you are not and I've so far failed to
    communicate a potentially important point.

    > I think there is an objective reality, and that knowledge
    > of it can be obtained;

    One all-encompassing meta-domain? I agree but in
    paraphrasing I take pause. Ultimately I accept it as working
    hypothesis in which I have a lot of confidence. (Translation:
    I "believe" this for the time being but not unreservedly)

    Knowledge of *part* of it (objective reality) can be
    obtained. But *not* all of it. And scientists try to understand
    as large a part of it as they are able.

    > I also hold there is a notion of
    > subjective objectivity, - [that] the[re] are truths contained
    > in [ones] particular pecerptual filters, as well as
    > the effects (artifacts) of [ones] perceptual distortions.

    Agreed largely. But truth is not so much "contained" in
    perceptual filters but perceived in part by subjective
    filters. One has *no* objective filters. The eye does not
    produce vision it receives light in a certain range of
    wavelengths (so much is trivially objective) but seeing is
    not objective but subjective as the brain adds interpretation
    and context sometimes incorrectly.
    .

    > 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.

    "truths" is becoming a slippery word now.

    Can you paraphrase yourself as I am not following you?

    I doubt your conclusion if it is that you achieve objective
    reality in any non subjective sense. One exists as a brute
    objective fact, but thats hardly an achievement.

    <snip abstact reasoning etc as separate 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 hypocr[i]sy 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 [one's] ignorance against,
    > a mans natural inclination should (or would) be to attempt to
    > understand his own nature....

    Yes. But its would not should. And my intention is that that
    be a starting point to deeper insight not an insight in itself.

    >
    > > 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 [us] remain ignorant of mathematics
    > if we make ignorance or non ignorance of all
    > mathematics the issue. [if we express it as a binary]
    > 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)
    > then 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 :)

    To take such a tack is to perceive ignorance as an
    all or nothing phenomenon [as binary, there or not there]
    not as a matter of degree. This lacks utility and renders
    the concept of ignorance virtually useless when applied
    to the domain of all-knowledge as no-one can be anything
    but ignorant in the binary sense as no-one can know all.

    > You can also
    > do comparisons between states of ignorance within
    > the context of a particular evaluation function :)

    I think your saying what I'm saying now with different
    words.

    >
    > 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.

    It *cannot*. Goedel incompleteness theorum.

    > 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.

    There can be no "getting of it all together" in any social
    transmissable way. We can prove things to each other
    only if we accept the concept of proof. There are some
    things which are truth but which cannot be proven.

    >
    > > 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 pursue or
    > be in a state of bad faith [poor "health"] with ourselves.
    >
    > Me: Well :) That would depend entirely on the utility
    > you derive from lacking that PARTICULAR piece of
    > ignorance :)

    Is your contention *fully* preserved if I paraphase the
    above thus? "That would depend entirely on the utility of a
    particular piece of knowledge".

    Because I am arguing something further. I am arguing
    that there are some domains of knowledge that cannot
    not be of interest whilst one is alive and sentient.

    The distinction between one and you (the loose colloquial
    term) matters for my argument it may not for yours.

    > Now outside forces, can intrude upon
    > you and mess with ur utility functions, but only
    > insofar as you value the benefits they offer.

    Outside forces can kill one and totally fuck *all*
    ones utility functions permanently.

    But they cannot kill *you*. In the sense that
    "where death is *you* are not, where *you* are
    death is not".

    > Thats the link between perception and expectation
    > btw :)

    Lost me? I think were at different levels of abstraction.

    >
    > 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 :)

    This is nonsense:-) I cannot in any real way have no sense
    of self. So I cannot be in a place without impetus. I can of
    course use a different word for self or conceptualise my
    consciousness to myself in different ways. But whilst I live
    I will have impetus. That is brute fact for me. I presume
    it is for others too.

    I think that you are jumping in an out of your own frame
    of reference.

    > 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 am indeed.

    > 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.

    Depends on the standpoint. If you (Paul) think there is no
    difference because you (Paul) see no utility then there may
    be no difference for you. But for me an observer of you
    I will make comparisons of your states of ignorance in
    different dimensions using a standard of utility for me, not
    for you.

    For example, if I am trying to teach you something because
    I want an ally and to propagate some memes then I will
    care about whether your relative level of ignorance and
    to what extent it is changing within the domain I am trying
    to teach you. But if you don't give a shit about what I
    am trying to teach you, because you see no utility in it,
    you will not bother to learn. Now it could be that what I
    am trying to teach you is how to swim when we are on
    a sinking boat with insufficent lifeboats and you are
    unaware of it. In such a scenario when the boat sinks
    and you can't swim whatever yoy thought of the value
    of the swimming lessons will be mute. But you will
    not be ignorant anymore. You will not be you. You
    will be dead. You will be in Monty Python terms
    an ex-Parrot.

    Of course we are all wrestling to teach and learn things
    from each other and all backing our own judgement
    on what are the more and less worthwhile things to
    learn.

    > This is btw, the main reason why I (practically-
    > speaking), feel completely at home ignoring entire
    > bodies of work; there is no utility :)

    Your probably right. I do the same. But possibly
    both or one of us could be failing to learn to swim.

    > Just because the information is present doesn't
    > mean there is some inherent burning need to go
    > out and consume it :)

    True.

    > You're arguing .... that the capacity for reason and
    > the propensity for sociability are two givens; I would
    > disagree, in that the capacity for reason may be
    > deficient (or absent), and the same for sociability....

    Not completely, not in what *I* would regard as a
    subjective sentient other.

    >
    > > In other words, [particular]
    > > knowledge is not an instant path to success :) The
    > > fitness of ur function depends heavily on the
    > > environment in which you are
    > > competing.

    Yes.

    >
    > 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.... :)

    Hmmm. In practice I think I limit my deeming of personhood
    to those who do have those qualities. And those who are
    not persons I would regard as objects not subjects deserving
    of no rights in the social compact. They may be someones
    elses possession. Like someone elses pet or domestic
    animal. However even pets and domestic animals would
    normally score a rating on my assessment of sociability and
    rationality its just that they have not so far crossed the
    threshold to be deemed persons.

    >
    > 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.

    I may be disappointed in my attempts to formulate my
    notions into a consistent ethical system and to communicate
    them but I will not be disappointed in deriving for myself
    an ethical system that I at least will use and that will have
    utility for me in shaping my judgements.

    But I am pretty ambitious and I see ethical systems as
    important to engendering wide cooperation so I will
    probably persist from time to time with trying to ground
    one and to communicate it to others.

    Forced death is the given. Forced death is the current
    default human condition. What I am about is looking to
    change that for persons.

    > But even death is not enough it seems [given the vast
    > amount of people that have come before us and died]
    > .....

    For them it was too early. I can forgive almost anyone
    almost anything given they are dead and given they lived
    in a more primitive world and in the earlier circumstances
    that they did. But then I wasn't there then so my forgiveness
    is hardly magnanimous as I was hardly directly harmed.

    > And as u said earlier, the limiting factor is often a fear
    > of appearing stupid or foolish.

    Yup.

    Regards,
    Brett
    {gees there is some rough thinking as well as long
    windedness in this - sometimes its probably good
    things are not all kept for posterity)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:12:54 MDT