From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 12:44:03 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> On Saturday 02 August 2003 15:47, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
>>
>>> I will have to give it some thought as to whether the "complete
>>> openness" principle that I was speaking in favor of should be
>>> this inclusive. What do you think, (perhaps in a few years I
>>> need not ask!)
>>
>> ### Thought transparency - yes. Involuntary thought control, whether
>> surreptitious or open - no.
>>
>> Rafal
>
> I cannot believe what I am reading here. Does anyone remember that
> the vast majority of human beings on this planet do not think at all
> like we do and would consider many of our thoughts, much less acting
> on any of them, extremely and even pathologically dangerous? What
> exactly are we counting on to still have any room to effect extropian
> change at all when everyone and anyone can not only examine all our
> actions but all of our thoughts as well? Are we expecting the vast
> majority to somehow become enlightened and tolerant? If not, then
> exactly what kind of game are we playing? As I see it the ability
> to see everything, including thought would result in the worst kind
> of dystopia given the current nature of human beings and our
> institutions. If you see some good airtight reason this would not
> be so then please share it.
>
>
### I think I already had this discussion before on this list, with Eugen
Leitl and you, but maybe we talked only about action transparency, not about
thought transparency.
All the arguments I have in favor of action transparency are valid for
thought transparency. Basically, it's too good for economic efficiency to be
in the long run rejected. I believe that whether you/I/we want it or not,
sooner or later there will be a fully transparent society (assuming that
it's technologically possible), and it will out-think, out-produce and
out-fight all competition. This has little to do with extropy,
enlightenment, tolerance, and could be a total dystopia, but our opinion
about this possibility will not change much.
Most likely though it will not be so bad. Read "The Truth Machine" by James
Halperin.
One can accept it now, and think about improving one's chances of long-term
survival based on this assumption, or reject it. I choose the former
approach. Future will tell which one is correct.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 09:53:14 MDT