Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hi Natasha, Thanks much for the feedback. BTW, I believe (but am not sure) the wife references to you were removed before that chapter was published, along with some other minor changes; the version you just read is not the final version. I think you actually complained about that when given some earlier draft to read before. That essay actually began as a profile of Sasha, and as you note, it shows its bias and origins. What the Frankfurter Allgemaine was paying me to do, when I wrote the first version, was to write profiles of cyberheroes, and Sasha was one of my choices... If you could recommend to me 3-5 online essays of yours or Max's or anyone else's, that you think it would be important for me to read in re-revising the chapter, then that would be great. Stephan and I plan to have the revised edition ready for the publisher by mid-May, so this is of current interest. Thanks for pointing out Burch's ExtroSattva post http://users.aol.com/gburch3/extrostv.html which I had somehow missed before, and which will definitely make it into the revision... ;-) I think most of your responses make sense and will be incorporated in the revision. Your critiques about my journalistic prose are pretty much fair, and are remnants of the chapter's origins as a newspaper article designed to sell newspapers ;-) However some of your comments seem a little disingenuous to me ;-) ... For instance, you say One of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL humanity improve, NOT a select few who can afford it. but this was really not an important aspect of the attitude or philosophy of the vast majority of extropians whom I have talked to, or whose works I have read. Reading http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm in the section on Perpetual Progress one finds the phrase removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization which does carry the implication that providing the possibility for self-actualization and self-realization for everyone (not just an elite few) is important to extropianism. However, in the elaboration of Perpetual Progress below that, this implication is not elaborated upon in a single sentence. So, you are right that the formal statement of extropianism encompasses the idea of a compassionate extension of transhuman benefits to all. However, in most practical discourse among extropians that I noticed, this aspect seems to be downplayed or downright contradicted, much more so than emphasized or elaborated. It does not seem a core aspect of the memeplex of extropianism as it evolved ... If I had time I could try to substantiate this claim via a statistical analysis of posts to the extropy list, but I don't but I'm pretty confident of the assertion... Also when you say You must remember that extropy is the core, original philosophy of transhumanism. I still can't fully agree with this The concept of transhumanism goes back way before extropianism, and I knew every idea of transhumanism very well from other sources well before I ever heard of extropy. It is clearly true that extropianism played a huge (and hugely admirable) role in formalizing, crystallizing and popularizing the transhumanism meme, but it really did not create it... Anyway, as I said, thx for your feedback and suggestions for further reading, I hope to improve the next version ... Also I think the intentions of the chapter are clearer in context of the whole book... thanks Ben On Jan 21, 2008 1:26 AM, Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:54 PM 1/20/2008, Ben wrote: I created a revised version of the essay, which may not address all your complaints, but hopefully addressed some of them. http://www.goertzel.org/Chapter12_aug16_05.pdf However I would be quite interested in further critiques of the 2005 version, because the book in which is was published is going to be reissued in 2008 and my coauthor and I are planning to rework the chapter anyway. I read the 2005 (above link) essay (Chapter 12) this evening. It is a fluid, well-written piece. Thank you Ben for allowing me to comment. I would like to first give my view as a meta observation and then focus on a few particulars. The essay summarizes extropians by focusing on one person, Sasha, as if he is a prototype for extropianism. Sasha, however brilliant and influential in many ways, was not a prototype for extropians or the philosophy of Extropy. Even less so is Hans Moravec, on whom the article also focuses. In fact, because of the principles of Extropy, no one person ought to be singled out as a prototype, as it would be incongruous. Second, the essay critiques extropians from a political perspective rather than from critiquing it as a philosophical and social movement. Since Extropy is a philosophy philosophical and social movement, it must be first and foremost recognized, observed and criticized
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
talking about sucidal - http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all Minsky links both. (What's with MIT's high suicide rate?). - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=88164415-431b43
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
At 07:15 AM 1/21/2008, Ben wrote: That essay actually began as a profile of Sasha, and as you note, it shows its bias and origins. What the Frankfurter Allgemaine was paying me to do, when I wrote the first version, was to write profiles of cyberheroes, and Sasha was one of my choices... Yes, of course. I understand completely. Thank you. :-) I'll answer your other comments this afternoon. But I want to address the term transhuman(ism) and its own evolution: transhumanar (Dante), transhumanized (Elliot), transhumanism (Huxley), transhumans (FM-2030, Broderick), and philosophy as transhumanism (More). I believe this is the correct order. If you could recommend to me 3-5 online essays of yours or Max's or anyone else's, that you think it would be important for me to read in re-revising the chapter, then that would be great. Stephan and I plan to have the revised edition ready for the publisher by mid-May, so this is of current interest. Yes, indeed. Best wishes, Natasha On Jan 21, 2008 1:26 AM, Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:54 PM 1/20/2008, Ben wrote: I created a revised version of the essay, which may not address all your complaints, but hopefully addressed some of them. http://www.goertzel.org/Chapter12_aug16_05.pdf However I would be quite interested in further critiques of the 2005 version, because the book in which is was published is going to be reissued in 2008 and my coauthor and I are planning to rework the chapter anyway. I read the 2005 (above link) essay (Chapter 12) this evening. It is a fluid, well-written piece. Thank you Ben for allowing me to comment. I would like to first give my view as a meta observation and then focus on a few particulars. The essay summarizes extropians by focusing on one person, Sasha, as if he is a prototype for extropianism. Sasha, however brilliant and influential in many ways, was not a prototype for extropians or the philosophy of Extropy. Even less so is Hans Moravec, on whom the article also focuses. In fact, because of the principles of Extropy, no one person ought to be singled out as a prototype, as it would be incongruous. Second, the essay critiques extropians from a political perspective rather than from critiquing it as a philosophical and social movement. Since Extropy is a philosophy philosophical and social movement, it must be first and foremost recognized, observed and criticized as a philosophy philosophical and social movement of transhumanism. Attempts to box it into a particular political party's or ideology will no doubt miss the core beliefs and finer points which politics, by its very nature, misses. A final note on the meta observation is that you missed any and all of my own writings on transhumanism which evidences concepts concerning a more humane transhumanism and ideas about compassion, human understanding, and social issues. I wrote about the importance of compassion in transhumanism from 1982 forward, and especially in the 1990s after I joined Extropy Institute. I am not asking you to give me any credit for this; I am asking that you not claim that it was missing from the philosophy of Extropy because it was indeed there. Not only did I write about it, Greg Burch [for instance, in his extrosattva posts] and many others did as well. At the Extro Conferences, especially Extro5, it was a main issue of several of the talks. A few of the particulars that caught my eye are: This group of computer geeks and general high-tech freaks ... This interpretation is journalistic and lacking in credibility. First, the founders of the institute are a philosopher and lawyer. The Board of Directors were authors, professors, business executives, etc. Along the way they want to get rid of governments, moral strictures, and eventually humanity itself,... This phrase lacks merit. I think a problem with this style of writing is that it wants to use alarming statements instead of simply telling the truth. The truth is usually far more exotic than exaggeration. What is true is that governments which are tyrannical and troublesome and of concern to extropians, who did not blink at saying so. Nevertheless, truer is the fact that many extropians, including myself, are thinking about the far future --and in the far future, governments will be outdated structures. In the far, far future humanity will have evolved into posthumanity. This does not mean that extropians what to get rid of humanity at all. You must remember that extropy is the core, original philosophy of transhumanism. As such, humanity is in a stage of transition. Transition means in the process of becoming something other. It does not mean getting rid of humanity. Using the term Social-Darwinism is inaccurate because it poisons the well of your readership by implying that it is a desire for those who are more fit than others to
