From: Durant Schoon (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 16:29:02 MDT
> From: James Higgins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >That's a step further than what I was thinking. I was merely proposing
> >that a list of similarities (to public beliefs) be created, so that if
> Oh, I'm certain Big Brother would love this. A database of which beliefs
> people agree and disagree with. Let the witch hunts begin!
I tried to cover myself by specifying "public" beliefs.
> No one will ever get me to subscribe to such a system. I personally like
> the fact that people have to ask me what my beliefs are. Besides the fact
> that I retain control of that information it also spurs discussion and
> encourages social contact.
What if the list of similarities were private to you and the other person
so that you retain control. But I don't think that matters since I was
speaking about public beliefs anyway. If we want to carry this scenario
farther, we might also define access lists and permissions on an individual
basis, so that only certain ideas are visible to certain people.
I wouldn't suggest this be mandatory, but the cost to anyone who opts out,
would be slower communication. One might have to compromise if seeking
a conversation w/someone else who only accepts "fast" communication
Regarding the slipperiness of information, Eli is right:
"Information, once disseminated, can never be recalled.:
...unless...we propose a posthuman culture in which everyone agrees to
protect privacy to the extent that we trust a Sysop or SomeOtherEntity to
erase memories which violate privacy...but that's getting really weird :)
Besides that being weird, I don't think it's very likely.
With the Non-Fragile Open Society idea for transhumans, we would encounter
very strange circumstances in which we could dial up or dial down our
tolerance of other beliefs and situations.
-- Durant Schoon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT