From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 17:48:12 MDT
At 06:16 PM 16/08/04 +1200, you wrote:
> --- Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com> wrote:
> > At 08:18 PM 15/08/04 +1200, Marc Geddes wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >"But the framework is in my opinion tightly
> > >interconnected, forming a dazzling self-consistent
> > >whole. I do not believe that parts of it can be
> > >chopped and changed arbitrarily without serious
> > >contradictions. For instance I do not think that
> > >Transhumanism can be separated from Libertarianism
> > or
> > >visa versa. Both provide the natural logical
> > support
> > >for the other."
> >
> > snip
> >
> > My sympathies are with you, but I don't think you
> > can make a logical
> > connection between Transhumanism and Libertarianism.
>
>Well, I disagree. I think that at root the
>fundamental 'explanatory' principles of reality form a
>unified whole which encompasses metaphysics,
>epistemology, ethics and politics. Popper's
>epistemology, when sufficiently extended into
>Pan-Critical Rationalism is a good approximation to
>the Bayesian ideal capable of dealing with ALL aspects
>of reality. I think reason truly is all encompassing.
> Reason can even *partially* (but not entirely) tell
>us what to value.
We already know what we value. But to understand *why* we value certain
things you have to view the world from a genes "viewpoint."
>I think many modern philosophers
>and scientists realize this, but they're too scared to
>say it. They're 'keeping their heads down' and
>staying out of ethics and politics for pragmatic
>reasons.
>
> >
> > Transhumanism is a view of a future with lots of
> > technologically derived
> > changes in it, up to and including fundamental
> > changes in humans. It is
> > rooted in reasonable extrapolations of technical
> > progress. I was at least
> > an observer as the aspects of the transhumanism view
> > of our future developed.
> >
> > Libertarianism is a political philosophy about
> > proper/ideal relation of
> > humans to each other. Heinlein was the biggest
> > political/philosophical
> > influence in my formative years so you have to rate
> > me as at least as a
> > lower case libertarian.
> >
> > Unfortunately, libertarianism, especially
> > "Libertarianism" is rooted in
> > air--as are all political philosophies. Infection
> > with the Libertarianism
> > meme set too often results in uncompromising people
> > with very poor
> > political skills. The only people worse off are the
> >
> > Objectivists/Randroids. I think I know why if you
> > are interested.
>
>Well, there are 'degrees' of Libertarianism. Of
>course any political philosophy has its crack-pots and
>extremist elements. It's more accurate to say that
>I'm a 'Semi-Libertarian'. I don't think individual
>rights are an absolute. I subscribe to the
>Utilitarian approach
And what is that based on?
>of people like Richard Epstein.
>And that's the sensible position that most moderates
>seem to come around to.
>
>Take out the anarchist extremists and crack-pots and
>moderate the movement somewhat and there's a good
>viable politics there.
If that is the case, then why are libertarian policies not the norm?
> > I remember years and years ago hearing an
> > Objectivist rant that if offered
> > such a choice, a person should choose to save their
> > life over that of the
> > rest of humanity. It felt really wrong but it was a
> > number of years before
> > I understood Hamilton's inclusive fitness and was
> > able to say *why* it felt
> > wrong.
>
>Be careful not to equate Libertarianism with
>Objectivism. Thankfully, most Libertarians are not
>Objectivists.
>
>I spent quite a few months visiting an NZ Objectivist
>web-site, trying to persuade Objectivists there to
>look into Transhumanism, Bayesian reasoning and
>altruism but it was hopeless.
Yep. You were trying to communicate with minds taken over by
Objectivist/Rand cult.
> They just spat bile at
>me. I've now totally given up on those guys. They're
>rather like religious fundamentalists actually. I'm
>gonna steer well clear of those idiots from now on.
It is very much worth while trying to generalize your experience. I have
not only the scientology cult as a sample, but the L5 Society (which
certainly had cult aspects to it).
>I did used to toy with egoism as a viable ethical
>theory but I've rejected it now. I think pure egoism
>is just as flawed as pure altruism. I finally settled
>on good old Utilitarianism with a mixture of altruism
>and egoism.
As long as you are not hung up on Utilitarianism with a capital U, you
might consider taking a look at evolutionary psychology as a foundation
upon which to base reasoning about human motivations, drives, psychological
traits, behavioral switches and the like. I suspect you will come to much
the same conclusions, but based on a logical extension up from evolutionary
biology. (Which is of course based at the root on chemistry, which is
based on physics.)
> > The most accepted transhumanist meme set includes
> > evolutionary
> > psychology. If someone wants a political philosophy
> > to go along with
> > transhumanism, they really should think about
> > basing it on EP at least up
> > to the point we abandon human mental configuration.
>
>Yup, I agree with you there. That's why in my
>'platform' I said:
>
>"So Good and Evil are not objective properties of
>reality in the same way that mathematical or physical
>facts are, since they are in part created by the
>choices that humans make. But the choices that people
>make will be heavily influenced by human nature
>itself. Minds require brains shaped by our biological
>heritage. Evolutionary psychology studies how human
>morals stem from the forces of biological evolution."
>
>"But morality is not wholly relative. As explained,
>the nature of a mind will be heavily influenced by its
>physical substrate. In humans that is our biological
>evolutionary heritage."
>
>"There should exist general characteristics that
>virtually all rational beings (like humans) have in
>common, emerging from their basic natures."
You might consider taking this seriously. I am far from the final word on
this subject, but you might want to look at the first link for sex drugs
cults for a start.
> > Memetics is really rooted in EP and transhumans tend
> > to be up on memetics
> > as well. You might be amused that the "meme about
> > memes" set off a major
> > allergic reaction among Libertarians back in the
> > 80s.
> >
> > If you want the story, it is in a dozen postings on
> > the memetics list. If
> > there is interest I could condense it and post it
> > here as a bit of
> > historical trivia.
>
>I haven't heard the story. Post a little about it
>here if you want.
It will take a bit of effort since it was spread over more than a dozen
posting on the memetics list.
> > From your next post down
> >
> > >The one thing that's likely to trip up Sing Inst
> > is
> > >their over emphasis on 'altruism'. Most of the
> > people
> > >who run around being 'altruistic' get a knife in
> > the
> > >back for their troubles. Altruism is gonna be
> > Eli's
> > >down-fall if he's not careful. Because the Sing
> > Int
> > >guys are so benign I think they tend to make the
> > >mistake of thinking that other people are more
> > benign
> > >than they actually are.
> >
> > I hope Eliezer has enough insight into both his own
> > motivations and those
> > of other people to keep him and the Institute out of
> > trouble. If you have
> > not read _Evolution of Cooperation_ by Robert
> > Axelrod, you should.
> >
> > Keith Henson
> >
> >
>
>Haven't read it fully, but may have skimmed it.
If you have, you should remember that tit for tat was found to the most
robust strategy.
Keith Henson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:43 MST