From: Edward Miller (email@example.com)
Date: Sat May 13 2006 - 01:17:47 MDT
The guy who posted this is the same guy that has been
posting at BetterHumans under the name Crippled_Sloth
He has posted this exact same thing here:
My guess is this guy is one of the from transtopia...
the site that just was exposed as being white
His comments on betterhumans have been very odd and
showed a lack of empathy for fellow humans and a very
similar tone as transtopia
--- micah glasser <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I believe that "traditional morality" is a part of
> memetic evolution. Groups
> of human beings who are in competition for resources
> organize their activity
> in a more or less efficient manner relative to their
> respective competitors.
> Naturally if an individual in one of these
> socio-cultural groups refuses to
> abide by the code of organization
> (morality/law/religiouspractice) then the
> group will find some way to enforce their will. As
> time progresses and
> cultures evolve through a sequence of cultural
> replication, extinction, and
> mutation, more and more efficient systems of human
> organization and activity
> are realized. So all artifice (including morality)
> is a part of memetic
> natural selection. As such morality must evolve
> along with man. Asking what
> is "moral" and what is ultimately "good" is the most
> radical of
> philosophical questions which may not be answerable.
> I act morally because it is in my nature to do so -
> I am a human being
> living in 21st century western civilization and I
> find myself naturally
> sharing the same memetic programming as most others
> in this civilization.
> Also, because of that memetic programing and the
> genetic gift of rationality
> I am able to identify myself with the human species
> and act toward the
> rational goal of preserving my species.
> In the end, however, the course of the evolution of
> the cosmos as been
> predetermined. You may be free to choose one action
> as better than another
> but you are not free to choose why you think the
> telos of that action is
> On 5/12/06, David Picon Alvarez
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Crockners Rules
> > Nice to know. Same apply to me.
> > > I've been lurking for a while, and the one thing
> that has really struck
> > me
> > is
> > > that whilst a (largely commendable) near worship
> of rationality exists
> > on
> > the
> > > SL4 list, this has a huge blindspot. Everyone
> cleaves nearly
> > unquestioningly
> > > to wider societies superstitious moralism.
> > I think you are mistaken. There's quite a variety
> of opinions on the
> > matter
> > of ethics and morality on the list, from those who
> believe there is an
> > objective morality, to those who, like you,
> believe that there's nothing
> > there.
> > > 1. Compassion, gene driven animal emotion -
> evolved to further
> > cooperation
> > > between people - thus increasing chances of
> > Check. Note though that increasing chances of
> survival is not teleological
> > as much as consequential. Id est, compassion and
> the like appear, to the
> > right extent and in the right forms, to have
> survival value. Perhaps you
> > should consider that for a bit.
> > > 2. Social conformity - again a gene driven
> animal instinct.
> > Partly gene-driven, probably. Social comformity
> might also derive from
> > culture or reasoned stances.
> > > 3. Societal brainwashing.
> > I'm not sure I see a disjunction between
> categories 2 and 3.
> > > Morality is completely artificial. Right and
> Wrong either do not exist,
> > or
> > > don't matter other than in the qualia that they
> cause the person who
> > believes
> > > he is acting wrongly/rightly - depending on your
> exact definition of
> > terms.
> > You're assuming qualia matter. That's an
> interesting yet controversial
> > point.
> > Also completely artificial is an improperly
> phrased criticism, even if I
> > think I know what you mean. Mathematics is, or
> might be anyway, completely
> > artificial. The sciences are completely
> artificial. Language is completely
> > artificial. I'd say these things matter.
> Artificial is not a signifier of
> > worth. More importantly, as you point out above,
> morality has pretty clear
> > genetic bases, which are not artificial (unless
> evolution is an
> > artificer).
> > > It could be argued that in some cases, acting
> morally benefits he/she
> > who
> > does
> > > so due to reciprocity - but this is only in some
> cases and this course
> > of
> > > action could be entirely derived from
> self-interest by moral nihilists.
> > How so? A moral nihilist does not believe that any
> action is preferrable
> > to
> > any other action in terms of moral content. Why
> would a moral nihilist
> > argue
> > for cooperative constructive behaviour that
> benefits individuals?
> > Self-interest is as artificial (far more) than
> evolved morality.
> > > Obviously, the first 2 points are a part of us -
> so suspending ones
> > disbelief
> > > concerning morality in everyday life may well
> lead to a happier more
> > > fulfilling human life. However, once radical
> transhuman technologies
> > arrive,
> > > this will no-longer be nescissarilly true.
> > It depends on what ways people choose to
> self-modify. I would argue that
> > some form of ethos is going to have to be kept,
> unless we want to have
> > serious trouble in the mid term. It would probably
> be a lot cleaner in
> > terms
> > of referential transparency and such than evolved
> morality, though.
> > > As such, when considering/planning posthumanity
> we should reject
> > traditional
> > > morality and embrace moral nihilism. This is as
> the potential gain of
> > > posthumanity (and acting entirely rationally
> when planning/considering
> > it - to
> > > ensure the best outcome) far outweighs the
> positive qualia felt by being
> > > compassionate when considering posthumanity.
> > This is the imo most misguided part of your post.
> You've just used a
> > should.
> > Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot?
> > Also, I don't clearly see why moral nihilism is a
> necessary condition for
> > post-humanity. (And playing the nihilist's
> advocate, why we should care
> > about the gains (gains? stop the value judgements
> right there!) of
> > post-humanity.)
> > --David.
> I swear upon the alter of God, eternal hostility to
> every form of tyranny
> over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT