RE: To thine ownself be true? (part 1a)

From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 22:50:24 MDT

  • Next message: Robbie Lindauer: "Re: FWD [forteana] Health Care: USA, Iraq & Canada"

    SORRY, ctrl-enter apparently sends off the letter,
    and I just hit it by accident :) so I'll just skip down
    to the last point I addressed in the previous message :)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
    On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
    Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:35 PM
    To: extropians@extropy.org
    Subject: Re: To thine ownself be true?

    > Brett writes:
    > <brett>
    > Whether it would in fact yeild the best outcome for
    > you is not the point as the facts of the outcome are
    > not knowable to you at the time you decide.
    >
    > <me> I would say that they are; I would say that the
    > only reason to willing self-delude yourself via fantasy
    > or whatever is specifically because you have examined
    > the outcomes and decided that reality sucked and you could do better.

    <snip>I see. You are interchanging fantasy and self-delusion. I
    tend to think of fantasy as suspension of disbelief. One
    knows one is doing it and one is doing it for fun.</snip>

    === ... and here we continue ====

    > I would say that you would end up having to constantly
    > (subconsciously)
    > moniter reality to decide when you would come out of ur protective
    > insanity.
    >
    > <brett> Now thats the moral code. The reason for the moral code is
    > that usually judgements will be required in real life which one cannot

    > anticipate and the better, the more sophisticated your moral code the
    > better, (the more enlightened) your judgement of your own best
    > interests will be.
    >
    > <me> again I balk at the requirement for a sophisticated moral code;
    > you can have an incredibly simple moral code; but apply it through the

    > use of a sophisticated world view (ergo ur judgement).

    <brett> A person who is reasoning at level 1 on Kohlburgs scale (the
    simplest) may not do something that is good for society in general but
    for far more basic reasons, than a person who is reasoning at level 5.

    <brett> But the higher up in the levels one goes the more levels or
    abstraction and nuance are likely to influence your code. I would think
    that a person would have a hard time having a complex moral code without
    having the ability to use language for instance.

    <me> "But the higher up in the levels one goes the more levels or
    abstraction and nuance are likely to influence your code"...
    Exactly my point :) this is what I would term a sophisticated
    world-view. You understand why things are, and how they're
    stated affects the outcomes...

    <brett> Our leaders must make judgements that will have impacts on lives
    other than their own.
    The more of us that are reasoners and critical thinkers and the fewer of
    us that are mere
    believers the better (the healthier) we will be as a society in my
    opinion.

    <me> depends :) there are uses for followers (believers); for instance,
    I would not necessarily
    want to run a committee of reasonerss and critical thinkers :) but I
    would love to chair one
    where there was one or two other reasons, and the rest were followers :)
    I think btw, that
    nature establishes the proportion of leaders to followers...

    > and I do dispute ur choosing
    > to hallucinate;
    > ever hear
    > of self-hypnosis?

    <brett> No. I am an open minded sceptic when it comes to
    conventional hypnosis. I have never experienced it
    and those that I have seen ostensibly hypnotised on
    stage seemed to me to be substantially "hamming"
    or playing it up for the attention. I think some of
    us sometimes like not having to be analytical all
    the time and to have others tell us what to do
    and just follow alone can be pleasant.

    <me> trust me, hypnosis is real, and very VERY effective :)

    > If you can get urself into a deep enough trance, you
    > can suggest
    > post-hypnotic suggestions that trigger when you wake... including the
    > post hypnotic suggestion to renew itself until you are rescued. And
    > you can cause hallucinations
    > in a deep enough trance btw. And thats not even calling upon the
    > experience
    > of mystics, or people who have sufficiently advanced manipulation
    > techniques...

    <brett> I don't know if I can get into a trance as you put it. I guess I
    can its just not something I am very familiar with.

    <me> you should check it out :) their are some qualitative tests to see
    whether or not you are hypnotizeable to any
    such degree. It may also be a comfort issue with you :) There are
    (technically) ways to get around your mental
    blocks... read some material on hypnotic inductions for patients who are
    subconsciously resisting hypnosis :)

    <brett> I suppose when it comes to my mind I am a bit of a control
    freak, I don't like it when the captain is not on the bridge.

    <me> depends on what the crew's going to do when ur away :)

    > > <brett> I find this conclusion (Bertrand Russell's) powerful,
    > > dangerous and deeply unsatisfying so I am keen to have at it.
    > >
    > > <me> I was just telling my little sister yesterday about one of the
    > > classical issues in my life (at one point during my younger years);
    > > at
    >
    > > what point does being too intelligent start to harm you (the classic

    > > form being, if you could trade intelligence for gauranteed
    > > happiness, would you do it)... most intelligent people say no; I
    > > think the really
    >
    > > intelligent people though, when they consider it, say yes.
    >
    > <brett> I think this is pure speculation. Would a less intelligent you

    > be you?
    >
    > <me> does it make a difference if you are gauranteed to be happy?
    >
    > <brett> If you think so there may be possibilites for you
    > to chart a life for yourself that involves more happiness
    > and less intellect. But personally I don't think so. How do you aim at

    > happiness without identifying something that will make you happy.
    > Happiness is not itself a thing that can be persued.
    >
    > <me> ergo my point :) if you can't gaurantee happiness by method of
    > intelligence, and some mythical blue genie (whom to the best of your
    > abilities to discern is capable of granting) is willing to gaurantee
    > ur happiness at the cost of your intelligence than any sane, rational
    > person of sufficient intellect would not think twice. This assumes
    > that everyone wants to be happy[maiximized utility table]... which I
    > don't think is an unreasonable...

    <brett>I must be failing to follow what you mean by maximizing your
    utility table of something because it still seems to me that happiness
    cannot really be a target that one aims at it is a consequence that
    arise as a desired and hoped for side effect of something else one aims
    at.

    <me> theoretically [NOT physically] everyone has an internal weight to
    stimuli; maximizing ur utility table means successfully selecting an
    action
    from all available actions that maximizes ur utility for that set of
    actions... ergo happiness :) ergo all ur actions are incidental as they
    are all
    targeted towards maximizing ur utility table :)

    <brett>There is a saying "man is the only animal that laughs
    and weeps, because he is the only animal that sees
    what is, and what might have been".

    <me> ... "or do you want to be the winner who goes home and fucks the
    prom queen?"
    I don't believe in regret as an emotion :)

    > > This is of
    > > course, assumes that people intuitively seek to maximize their
    > > utilities, and said maximization of utility defines a state of
    > > happiness [which is, I think, reasonable]...
    >
    > <brett> I don't I think its premature at best and problematic at
    > worst. One cannot be happy without a cause. Happiness per se is not
    > persuable. Pleasure is. Lesser levels of sentience are. But I doubt
    > these are what appeal to you as an alternative.
    >
    > <me> take a look at a little kid sometime :)

    <brett> Hey I grew up in a catholic family - I've seen the old
    kid of two :-)

    <brett> I reckon they are very active little hypothesis testers
    and experimenters. Just because we may look in from
    the outside an think they are "playing" doesn't change
    that they are playing at something. If they are happy
    playing they probably declared they were going out
    to play (something specific) rather than going out to
    be happy.

    <me> if laughter/smiling is a consistent symptom of happiness,
    little kids (who are loved) generally have it in spades...

    > <brett> Ah I think you missed my point. The potential to persuade
    > using the sociability aspect *is* far stronger when individuals are
    > powerless and my point is that the all those who are mortal are now
    > becoming > *aware* that they possess a poor form of wealth and power
    if it can't extend
    > their life and health.
    >
    > <me> ... and these are the only people you're interested in
    > approaching?

    <brett> Yeah only all those who are *mortal* and have a self-interest
    ;-)

    <me> I was referring to the wealth and power aspect :)

    > <brett> There is an opportunity there to get them to revisit the
    > social compact. But these cagey old survivers will not fall for bs.
    > When arguments are put to them
    > that are not in their interest they will not buy into them.
    >
    > <me> its been my experience that people who are very wealthy
    > generally don't give a shit about social compact. They got (and
    > preserve) their wealth at the cost of other individuals... I would
    > agree that you need to put it in terms that involve greed.

    <brett> Well self interest will do.

    <me> in most cases, it will; in some cases (where the agents lack
    vision), it doesn't :)

    > <brett> So in my view a moral argument cannot be put to a rich or
    > powerful individual unless it is couched in terms of offering
    > *something* for them. We live in an
    > historic period. In this period it might be possible to promote a
    > policy of more
    > life for all or more life for none.
    >
    > <me> good luck getting the rich to give a shit about the poor (past
    > the ones making off with their valuables)....

    <brett> No I'd aim to get the rich to care more effectively for the rich
    by recognizing their relationship with the poor. My emphasis is not be
    charitable to the poor my emphasis is on how would you life be better if
    the poor were not so poor? If they had more to loose. If they were able
    to cooperate with you to make both you and them wealthier in absolute
    terms rather than relative terms.

    <me> if they acknowledge a relationship with the poor...

    <brett> Would you rather be healthy and active at 130 or have a
    very expensive funeral and a prestigiously looking burinal
    plot at 80?

    <me> the former :) I (personally) am not arguing with ur goal :)
    I just think rich people won't see it ur way (as a win-win solution).

    > <brett> The alternative may be cabals of the powerful working to
    > 'immortalise' themselves. Such a scenario may restart "history" whose
    > demise was greatly exaggerated.
    >
    > <me> probably :) I hope to be part of a successful cabal :) but only
    > if quality of life is high...

    <brett> Beware the dark side Luke :-)

    <me> more like Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine :) <GRIN> ;)

    <me> on a serious note though, I would not be part of a cabal
    that sought to hold back life-extending technologies... I think
    all medical advances should be shared equally, without regard
    to effort involved (or contributed) by individual parties.

    > > <brett> Further those
    > > who do not know endeavour to understand themselves,
    > > what manner of creature they are, are not going to be
    > > in a position to know what the most optimal compromises
    > > for them are when compromises need to be made.
    > >
    > > <me> I've met several people who are extremely intuitively, but
    > > unable
    >
    > > to verbalize (form coherent sentences) expressing their
    > > viewpoints...they just know what is right for them, and what is
    > > not...
    >
    > > how does your system encompass them?
    >
    > <brett> They learn to reason and they learn to use language to
    > persuade.
    >
    > They learn to understand what they want. This gives them the best
    > chance to make their way and improve their situation as they go. It
    > does not guarantee them success.
    >
    > <omd> and if the overall performance of this new system ends up being
    > worse than their intuitive model? what then?

    <brett> I have no magic. If my moral code is adopted by others it will
    because they see merit in it. If they see merit in it and I see merit in
    it I'm prepared to work on the assumption that their is merit in it. -
    That a bit simplistic but this thread is very long.

    <me> in other words, you are willing to accept a less than perfect moral
    system :) for the sake of efficiency...

    <me> my only concern, really, is to point out that you may be
    arbitrarily limiting yourself :) and wouldn't it suck
    if it took an intuitive person to find the solution amidst all the
    noise...

    > <brett> The universe in which hard work gurantees success is not this

    > one in my view.
    >
    > <omd> work smarter, not harder has always been my motto...

    <brett> Makes sense. But leveraging your efforts with others can be a
    particularly effective way of working smart.

    <me> I would agree with that :) can be effective :)

    > <brett> I would have been happy to point out to the unibomber that he
    > was born social, so much so that he couldn't raise his head to feed.
    >
    > <me> granted :) but that doesn't really nullify the fact that he did
    > become extremely antisocial afterwards...

    <brett> Granted. But there is value in knowing why and how. The value is
    in the power to identify route causes that can be changed. Lets go for
    the disease not the symptom.

    <me> assuming that it is a disease, and that it is a root cause to be
    attacked...

    > <brett> Then I'd ask him where his sociability ended. It could be an
    > insightful conversation.
    >
    > <me> probably when he realized it was a losing game for his utility
    > tables...

    <brett> Or he may discover that he's been shortchanging his own self
    interest with a suboptimal utility table.

    <me> ... if he was shortchaning his own self-interest :) we can keep
    going in circles if you like :)

    > > > Some are quite capable
    > > > of going it alone while others would die if seperated from the
    > > > herd.
    >
    > <brett> None are capable of going it alone yet. But here is the point
    > in the future we may re-engineer ourselves to such an extent that some

    > may indeed feel capable of going it alone. And these indivduals will
    > not necessarily be able to be reasoned with with the same starting
    > premises. These individuals may become meglomanical persuing as the
    > culmination of their individuality dominance over all else. Because,
    > if you have no empathy - why the hell not?
    >
    > <me> why not indeed?

    <brett> And therein lies the danger of the future. Rugged immortal
    individualists fighting for supreme godhood in the universe.

    <me> at least it would be entertaining :)

    <brett> By why not? Seriously. I dunno but I figure god would be bored
    (and lonely) well perhaps not lonely.

    <me> I don't particularly believe in God :)

    > <brett> Everyone is social to a degree. Am I really saying that
    > everyone
    >
    > is reachable through their residual sociability. I doubt it. I think
    > nature throws up dysfunctional types of all forms and some genuine
    > sociopaths can probably only be dealt with as amoral threats.
    >
    > <me> watch some interviews with a sociopath :) they're really quite
    > fascinating... anyways, there's no reason to render a sociopath a
    > threat; in fact, I'ld say they can be harnassed to detect flaws in
    > current modes.

    <brett> Perhaps I'm saying sociopath when I mean pyschopath.

    <me> they're both used interchangeably :) the explicit difference
    is between antisocial and socio/psychopathic... The best guy (in
    my opinion was Clark)... Brilliant on this topic :)

    <brett> Bail at any time or edit with more extreme prejudice. The offer
    was there in the last post.

    <brett> Quite seriously, long rambly dialogs are probably
    better offlist. I think it was worth having the discussion
    but maybe not on list.

    <brett> Any illuson I had that others might read much of this
    have long past. But the upside is that the dialectic
    process does help sort out thoughts. In this thread
    somewhere are a few gems. They may be distilled
    at a later date maybe.

    <me> offlist, onlist, makes no difference to me :) I don't
    think the cost of email (for the listserv) necessitates taking
    it offlist unless somebody specifically requests it :) besides
    onlist, its archived, and somebody might throw in a comment
    on a specific section :)

    omard-out

    Regards,
    Brett



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 22:59:03 MDT