From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 10:47:07 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 August 2003 11:44, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I do not believe you can take your projected long run advantages for
> granted for the reasons stated. In the foreseeable run of events,
> given current human individual and organizational realities, it is
> far more likely that major oppression of all that is outside what is
> currently accepted or currently in power would ensue.
### Give me your arguments in favor of this possibility.
----------------------------------
This would
> lead to a radical lack of innovation and a stagnation of production
> values. To get around this I think you will need to come up with a
> lot more compelling arguments about how the innovative and new that
> disagrees with current ruling thought and practice has room to
> develop and come to sufficient fruition for the system to change and
> grow.
>
### Indeed, it is conceivable that an authoritarian system with full thought
transparency would suffer from technological stagnation, compared to a
pluralistic, volition-based system with the same thought-reading capacity.
This is substantially identical to the comparison of communist authoritarian
states and the semi-pluralistic ones during the last century - stagnation
occurred in the former because of, among other things, poorly informed
centralized decision makers excluding alternative solutions, while the
pluralists could tolerate internal disagreement, without suppression of
valuable alternatives.
Please note that the disagreements between competing players in pluralist
societies are open, transparent, and yet the systems as a whole can tolerate
them, is not harmed by present levels of openness, and its ability to
reconcile conflict would not be harmed by even more openness. The essence of
the issue is not the exact level of transparency, but the ability to deal
with internal conflict. Whoever does it better, wins.
With thought transparency, the authoritarian systems would also be overtaken
and in due course destroyed by pluralistic ones.
-----------------------------
> I don't see where this would lead to economic sufficiency any more
> than the group mindedness of various socialized economies led to
> greater efficiency. How would the lack of private thought and deed
> improve the picture precisely?
### Simple. No lies, no lying politicians, no thieves, no cheating in
school, workplace, store, restaurant. No money spent on unnecessary car
repairs. Drastic reductions in violent crime, fraud. Cheaper everything. No
Bush lying about WMD. 200 000 000 000 $ saved right there.
-----------------------------------
> Is your decision then arbitrary? Because you don't seem to be fully
> presenting your reasons for it. Nor do you seem interested in
> showing how it will not lead to dystopia. How is this responsible?
>
### I am not attempting to prove that thought transparency will not lead to
dystopia (except as a side argument), merely express a belief that thought
transparency, if technically possible, will be implemented (or one might
say, will implement itself) because of competitive pressures, independently
of our wishes.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 07:58:17 MDT