Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Quoting Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 26, 2008, at 11:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 03:04 PM 1/24/2008, Gudrun wrote: and N. Vita-More This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all humanity want to improve (immortality, happy pills, ...)? Good point. Thank you for catching this and questioning it. You are correct that not ALL humanity should improve if they do not want to improve. That is why I support human rights to augment. I have written and lectured on this quite a bit. Since we are both located within the arts (you find art and me technology design) we ought to discuss this openly and review each other's papers. Then of course you run smack into that not only do a great number of humans not want to self improve or live indefinitely long healthy lifespans. They actually and somewhat understandably see anyone being able to do this as a very great threat to their own well being. Therefore their right to choose not to do these things gets transmuted in their mind to a right to prohibit others doing these things as they see that as a threat to all who choose to not enhance. Certainly the cognitively unenhanced would not be competitive at tasks requiring much cognitive ability. So what is the answer? Enclaves where different choice sets were allowed/common and an ability to choose differently? Gudrun: Do you mean ghettos, or fenced off communities, or a new form of ivory towers? Repeat of history! The Great AGI to split off avatars/angels/still,small voices to persuade each one that they do one these things? I suppose the AGI could upload everyone to a world/situation of their choice and let them work out their own karma in a series of virtual reincarnations. GB Great. .. How does the baptism work? Brainwashing, force-feeding, consumer promise, gentle persuasion, religiously inspired promises? Now you are being either silly or snide and that does not further discussion. Gudrun B. Honestly, not silly (what a judgement) or snide, just a bit playful. Should be allowed. Do not forget, Natasha, that somebody could hijack extropian ideas or ideologies and become some really brutal super-dictator who wants to impose an extropian world view. Well, what is and isn't imposition could make for an interesting discussion. Yes, couldn't it. A bit like the healthy eating or smoking or what is proper social adaption discussion. Think about communism that had failed and had to fail. Marx's ideas were good, nevertheless. Stalin was not that great, was he. Personalities and ideas, they clash, ideas are vehicles, they are currency. Unfortunately Marx's understanding of economics and of human nature were inadequate. G: As, I fear, is most people's understanding of human nature. I do not believe there is ONE human nature. There is a lot of social engineering, though. Projections, more or less rigid corsets, moral implications, ethical concepts, ideal scenarios, animal behaviour patterns .. and SO MANY INTERPRETATIONS and wish-fulfillment. Every ideology is created by and 'transmitted' via its members, via people with ideas, lust for power and 'world domination'. It usually goes like: 1. I have some fine great vision for how things could be MUCH better. 2. It can only be fully realized and bestow its benefits if (at least locally) universal. 3. Not everyone understands through lack of intelligence, bad programming, malfeasance, greed or whatever. 4. To maximize the benefits everyone must be made to comply. There are more democratic and more authoritarian variants galore. And thus the road to hell is [re]paved. AGREE gudrun - samantha - 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/?; - 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=90334146-2e8d89
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemi ngly impossible projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ... The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project .. These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant ed thoughts (and actions). Some odd thoughts: I'd wondered whether you might be interested in the reality rather than the science-fiction - of the connection between OCD and real scientists and technologists. Ben's article arguably raises interesting questions about their psychology generally and not just that of Extropians, (and has the elements, if not the story, for a good movie). I think there is a connection (and I| am not a scientist, as you know) between OCD and art(ists), too. Would be interesting studying this in more detail . Because I am an artist, I somehow utilise the reality and science fiction o f OCD. I am going to this talk at the ICA London about OCD in some weeks time and intend to talk to some of the experts there. (BTW after his highlighting of one Extropian sucide, up comes an article on two suicides closer to AI home - those of Singh McKinstry (both Minsky-related!): There are many suicides in the art world, too http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentP age=all with a note that: MIT has attracted headlines for its high suicide rate in the past, ) The connection between the scientific, systemising personality and autis m - the ultimate in an obsessive need to control and also in a rejection of humanity - has obviously been expounded by Sacha Baron-Cohen : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm G : I have met Sacha Baron-Cohen, who is really interesting, and I agree with what he has to say about this. There seems to be a certain detachment in some people (artists and scientis ts alike), many male, in rationalising and re-inventing the world, in utilisin g everything . I am very much interested in this obsessive need for control. I am not sure if this is rejection of humanity. It is fear of losi ng control of oneself that might create this need of controlling the environme nt. I have studied some literature by Talis, de Silva and Rachman. I give you a taster from my Mphil work, a short statement about Obsessive Compulsive 'Arctificial' Life (that certainly could be applied to OC personalities) Quote from Gudrun Bielz: The OCAL, excerpt of thesis, copy-right 2006, Lond on 1.3.11 Paradox: In and out of the control rollercoaster An obsession is an unwanted, intrusive, recurrent, and persistent thought, image, or impulse. ( ) An obsession is a passive experience: it happens t o the person. (de Silva, Rachman 3). Who wants to be out of control, who wants to have its circuit blown? My circuit blows. Is this an obsessional thought? I blow my circuit. Is this a compulsive action? I have to kill my creators is definitely obsessio nal thinking. This is OUT OF CONTROL. A compulsion is a repetitive and seemingly purposeful behaviour that is performed according to certain rules or in a stereotyped fashion. The behaviour is not an end in itself, but is usually intended to prevent some event or situation. (de Silva, Rachman 3). I wash my hands again and again, I rub them until my electronic or biolo gical system is uncovered, I wash them because I DO NOT want to be contaminated. This is as sign of being IN CONTROL. An OCAL unit that washes its brain out of fear of contamination by th e human virus is IN CONTROL, because genetically modified OCAL perceives humans as dangerous viruses. Humans are dangerous viruses is OUT OF CONTR OL. It is an obsessional thought. GB c 2006, London, UK And you don't say, but aren't artists - whatever their philosophical position - fundamentally opposed to science's current worldview? Science still sees human beings as automata in an automatic process - fundamenta lly totally controlled, - (and v. few AI-ers disagree) - while the arts se e us, in the shape of a million or so dramatic works, as heroes in a heroi c drama - fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. (Even robots in th e arts tend to be more or less heroic). I do not think that there has to be this opposition. I fear there is some opposition to a certain reductionist world view by some scientists. I am actually more interested in physics and ideas like nano or attoworld, quant um mechanics (I am an amateur) and interconnectivity of systems. The idea of automaton does not appeal to me, in the sense of a controlled a nd controllable entity. I like your projection of the arts seeing us as heroes in a heroic drama. I t could actually be quite an anti-heroe or even very banal event. Unpredictability is a very interesting point. Every AI-er should be interes ted in the aspect of unpredictability and out of control (not necessarily
Fwd: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hi Mike, Correction in text, Simon Baron Cohen, not Sacha Baron Cohen. Gudrun Begin forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 27 January 2008 15:32:14 GMT To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Cc: singularity@v2.listbox.com, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemi ngly impossible projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ... The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project .. These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant ed thoughts (and actions). Some odd thoughts: I'd wondered whether you might be interested in the reality rather than the science-fiction - of the connection between OCD and real scientists and technologists. Ben's article arguably raises interesting questions about their psychology generally and not just that of Extropians, (and has the elements, if not the story, for a good movie). I think there is a connection (and I| am not a scientist, as you know) between OCD and art(ists), too. Would be interesting studying this in more detail . Because I am an artist, I somehow utilise the reality and science fiction o f OCD. I am going to this talk at the ICA London about OCD in some weeks time and intend to talk to some of the experts there. (BTW after his highlighting of one Extropian sucide, up comes an article on two suicides closer to AI home - those of Singh McKinstry (both Minsky-related!): There are many suicides in the art world, too http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery? currentP age=all with a note that: MIT has attracted headlines for its high suicide rate in the past, ) The connection between the scientific, systemising personality and autis m - the ultimate in an obsessive need to control and also in a rejection of humanity - has obviously been expounded by Sacha Baron-Cohen : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm Hi MIKE and everyone, it is actually Simon. Sacha is the funny guy who did the film about K. Simon is the Cambdridge Guy who researches autism. G. G : I have met Sacha Baron-Cohen, who is really interesting, and I agree with what he has to say about this. There seems to be a certain detachment in some people (artists and scientis ts alike), many male, in rationalising and re-inventing the world, in utilisin g everything . I am very much interested in this obsessive need for control. I am not sure if this is rejection of humanity. It is fear of losi ng control of oneself that might create this need of controlling the environme nt. I have studied some literature by Talis, de Silva and Rachman. I give you a taster from my Mphil work, a short statement about Obsessive Compulsive 'Arctificial' Life (that certainly could be applied to OC personalities) Quote from Gudrun Bielz: The OCAL, excerpt of thesis, copy-right 2006, Lond on 1.3.11 Paradox: In and out of the control rollercoaster An obsession is an unwanted, intrusive, recurrent, and persistent thought, image, or impulse. (…) An obsession is a passive experience: it happens t o the person. (de Silva, Rachman 3). Who wants to be out of control, who wants to have its circuit blown? “My circuit blows”. Is this an obsessional thought? “I blow my circuit”. Is this a compulsive action? “I have to kill my creators” is definitely obsessio nal thinking. This is OUT OF CONTROL. A compulsion is a repetitive and seemingly purposeful behaviour that is performed according to certain rules or in a stereotyped fashion. The behaviour is not an end in itself, but is usually intended to prevent some event or situation. (de Silva, Rachman 3). “I wash my hands again and again, I rub them until my electronic or biolo gical system is uncovered, I wash them because I DO NOT want to be contaminated. ” This is as sign of being IN CONTROL. An OCAL unit that washes its “brain” out of fear of contamination by th e human virus is IN CONTROL, because genetically modified OCAL perceives humans as dangerous ‘viruses’. “Humans are dangerous viruses” is OUT OF CONTR OL. It is an obsessional thought. GB c 2006, London, UK And you don't say, but aren't artists - whatever their philosophical position - fundamentally opposed to science's current worldview? Science still sees human beings as automata in an automatic process - fundamenta lly totally controlled, - (and v. few AI-ers disagree) - while the arts se e us, in the shape of a million or so dramatic works, as heroes in a heroi c drama - fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. (Even robots in th e arts tend to be more or less heroic). I do not think that there has to be this opposition. I fear there is some opposition to a certain
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote: On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes an interview with him is published in Technoetics (2007). But that probably explains some of your thinking because the fine arts is pretty much turned off to transhumanism and infers an elitism stemming from the ideas of people who support argumentation and indefinite lifespans. That is almost amusing as the Fine Arts are not exactly known for absence of elitism. Has our intellectual environment universally succumbed to some PC reactionary meme set? It is a complex paradox. The group of bioartists under the influence of Critical Art Ensemble has a self-rightous attitude and political opposition to capitalism and consumerism. Most European artists would agree it seems. CAE has taken a strong lead in the field of bioart because of their laboratory in Australia and some of their productions which, on one had criticize others for doing exactly what they are doing, and on the other hand use hyperbole to gain momentum and attention. Much of their productions which are dramatic are beautifully executed. Albeit, if one takes the time to read carefully it is easy to see that they are making rash assumptions based on fallacy. In the academic world this is totally unacceptable and they ought to be called on it. However, CAE claims to be working with tissue in unique ways but they are merely doing what medicine has been doing for years. Many other bioartists are aware of the situation within bioart and vying for attention and position because it is a new field/genre and gaining a lot of momentum, especially the artist who coined the term bioart (Joe Davis). Most of my colleagues are professors in art institutions and we discuss this frequently and at length. In fact, I gave a lecture at the NABA in Milano last month and 80% of the student body said they wanted to live to 50 maximum. That is one of the saddest and most vile things I have heard in quite some time. Were the reasons why they said this explored? Another complex issue. First, the students are in the early 20s and at that age most of us though that anyone over 40 was old. Second, there is the issue of the students being catholic and harboring the idea that old die, go to heaven, and make way for the young. (We know this psychology all too well) But it would seem that artists in Italy would be educated, aware, and willing to explore the cyborg and the transhuman. Cyborg is known, of course, but transhuman requires more intellection and exploration. But, yes, all in all it is quite sad and annoying that this field is so damn slow to catch on, and when it does -- it shouts elitism haves over have-nots capitalists and consumerism rather than actually THINKING - using the brain to explore, investigate and understand what is actually happening. My reason for going back to university was because of this very fact. I decided that rather than staying in the world of science and technology, I would return to the arts and kick up some dust. Natasha http://www.natasha.cc/Natasha http://www.natasha.cc/Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller - 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=90236514-737d4d
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Quoting Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote: On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote and Samantha Atkins wrote The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes an interview with him is published in Technoetics (2007). But that probably explains some of your thinking because the fine arts is pretty much turned off to transhumanism and infers an elitism stemming from the ideas of people who support argumentation and indefinite lifespans. Gudrun Bielz: Not quite sure if this 'useless technology' paragraph refers to my posting about my project. I know about Kurtz's political art and philosophy. I am interested in useless as not commercially viable, as useless in the sense of not being utilised or not being interesting enough to be utilised. I have appropriated Kurtz's term for my own project, interests and desire. That is almost amusing as the Fine Arts are not exactly known for absence of elitism. Has our intellectual environment universally succumbed to some PC reactionary meme set? It is a complex paradox. The group of bioartists under the influence of Critical Art Ensemble has a self-rightous attitude and political opposition to capitalism and consumerism. Most European artists would agree it seems. Gudrun Bielz: This is quite self-righteous, too. Nothing wrong with a political opposition to consumerism and TOTAL capitalism By the way, I am an European artist. CAE has taken a strong lead in the field of bioart because of their laboratory in Australia and some of their productions which, on one had criticize others for doing exactly what they are doing, and on the other hand use hyperbole to gain momentum and attention. Much of their productions which are dramatic are beautifully executed. Albeit, if one takes the time to read carefully it is easy to see that they are making rash assumptions based on fallacy. In the academic world this is totally unacceptable and they ought to be called on it. However, CAE claims to be working with tissue in unique ways but they are merely doing what medicine has been doing for years. Many other bioartists are aware of the situation within bioart and vying for attention and position because it is a new field/genre and gaining a lot of momentum, especially the artist who coined the term bioart (Joe Davis). Gudrun Bielz: One of the advantages of being an artist is that one does not have to comply to a scientific codex. Even if universities and art schools that have become part of universities would like artists rather to adopt a 'pseudo' scientific and therefore sort of measurable output, and not to invent or indulge or just fantasise. (I have worked in art and art education for 20 years and some of it in an Ivy league university) Most of my colleagues are professors in art institutions and we discuss this frequently and at length. In fact, I gave a lecture at the NABA in Milano last month and 80% of the student body said they wanted to live to 50 maximum. That is one of the saddest and most vile things I have heard in quite some time. Were the reasons why they said this explored? Another complex issue. First, the students are in the early 20s and at that age most of us though that anyone over 40 was old. Second, there is the issue of the students being catholic and harboring the idea that old die, go to heaven, and make way for the young. (We know this psychology all too well) But it would seem that artists in Italy would be educated, aware, and willing to explore the cyborg and the transhuman. Cyborg is known, of course, but transhuman requires more intellection and exploration. Gudrun Bielz: I agree with Natasha. They are young, end everybody beyond 30 is already too old for many young people. Some of the older role models, or should I say un-role models are stuck, more interested in positioning than experiencing or (re)searching. That might not help. There is also this strange romanticism, (James Dean) and a probably European idea of gaining immortality of ones ideas and art (and the artist) especially if the artist has died young. This certainly is romanticism and a form of 'perverted' idealism. But, yes, all in all it is quite sad and annoying that this field is so damn slow to catch on, and when it does -- it shouts elitism haves over have-nots capitalists and consumerism rather than actually THINKING - using the brain to explore, investigate and understand what is actually happening. Gudrun Bielz: Capitalism might be a rather successful system, but it is not the icing on the cake. Criticizing it is perfectly alright. the idea of choice, a Thatcherite and Blairite (here in the UK) illusion, is not quite possible for many people. Some psychoanalysts call some transhumans (also extropians like
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemingly impossible projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ... The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project .. These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant ed thoughts (and actions). Some odd thoughts: I'd wondered whether you might be interested in the reality rather than the science-fiction - of the connection between OCD and real scientists and technologists. Ben's article arguably raises interesting questions about their psychology generally and not just that of Extropians, (and has the elements, if not the story, for a good movie). (BTW after his highlighting of one Extropian sucide, up comes an article on two suicides closer to AI home - those of Singh McKinstry (both Minsky-related!): http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all with a note that: MIT has attracted headlines for its high suicide rate in the past, ) The connection between the scientific, systemising personality and autism - the ultimate in an obsessive need to control and also in a rejection of humanity - has obviously been expounded by Sacha Baron-Cohen : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm And you don't say, but aren't artists - whatever their philosophical position - fundamentally opposed to science's current worldview? Science still sees human beings as automata in an automatic process - fundamentally totally controlled, - (and v. few AI-ers disagree) - while the arts see us, in the shape of a million or so dramatic works, as heroes in a heroic drama - fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. (Even robots in the arts tend to be more or less heroic). - 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=90288393-c99cc7
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
On Jan 26, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner wrote: Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemingly impossible projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ... The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project .. These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant ed thoughts (and actions). Some odd thoughts: I'd wondered whether you might be interested in the reality rather than the science-fiction - of the connection between OCD and real scientists and technologists. Ben's article arguably raises interesting questions about their psychology generally and not just that of Extropians, (and has the elements, if not the story, for a good movie). (BTW after his highlighting of one Extropian sucide, up comes an article on two suicides closer to AI home - those of Singh McKinstry (both Minsky-related!): http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all with a note that: MIT has attracted headlines for its high suicide rate in the past, ) The connection between the scientific, systemising personality and autism - the ultimate in an obsessive need to control and also in a rejection of humanity - has obviously been expounded by Sacha Baron- Cohen : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm And you don't say, but aren't artists - whatever their philosophical position - fundamentally opposed to science's current worldview? Science still sees human beings as automata in an automatic process Not really. - fundamentally totally controlled, Nope. - (and v. few AI-ers disagree) - while the arts see us, in the shape of a million or so dramatic works, as heroes in a heroic drama - fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. Both are true and not true. So what? What will you we with our lives? What meaning will we create from the meaningless accident of our existence? That is art, and science, and more. - s - 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=90314832-d6595d
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes an interview with him is published in Technoetics (2007). But that probably explains some of your thinking because the fine arts is pretty much turned off to transhumanism and infers an elitism stemming from the ideas of people who support argumentation and indefinite lifespans. That is almost amusing as the Fine Arts are not exactly known for absence of elitism. Has our intellectual environment universally succumbed to some PC reactionary meme set? Most of my colleagues are professors in art institutions and we discuss this frequently and at length. In fact, I gave a lecture at the NABA in Milano last month and 80% of the student body said they wanted to live to 50 maximum. That is one of the saddest and most vile things I have heard in quite some time. Were the reasons why they said this explored? - samantha - 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=89992167-26859d
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
At 07:15 AM 1/21/2008, Ben wrote: Thanks much for the feedback. Of course! Thank you for the exchange. Sorry it has taken a week to get back to you. 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. I think it would be appropriate to give Max a telephone call and simply interview him - or ask him a few questions that he can answer first hand. I think that going to the source would provide you with the quality and character of information that would bring just the right accuracy to your well-written piece. 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. That depends on whom you are talking. If you were talking to me I would have a different answer than Christine Peterson, although I think she has become more social consciousness and not so libertarian. If you spoke to Philippe Van Nedervelde he would give you a different answer than Harry Hawks. And Harvey Newstrom would give you a different answer than Greg Burch. The same goes for transhumanism in general. Even within the WTA (known as a political organization which was pushing a socialist perspective) you would get a different answer from many of the Board of Directors or even the Honorary Vice Chairs. I think we have to separate out social consciousness and self-responsibility from economics or politics. Of course extropians would like all humanity to be healthy, well and prosperous. BUT how this is accomplished is another set of ideas. Setting up programs to give to people and not to help them improve their lives often has had an adverse effect by causing a dependency on the handouts rather than learning how to get out of the mess. This has been going on for a very long time. The social system, while producing marvelous programs and aiding people, also has many administrative, bureaucratic problems. People feel inner pride when they learn how to take care of themselves. Wanting everyone to benefit means not only helping people who truly need it, but also encouraging those who can learn to help themselves do so. Thus, in very short - the economic/political issue you are raising is one were no one has an answer and it is a problem. Even those who totally support hand-outs and raising taxes to provide more programs for the needy and illegal emigrants are desirous of investing more money and effort into programs that encourage and teach people to get off of welfare, etc. and learn to help themselves. 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 ... Again, I would have to know to whom you are talking and during what time frame such dialogue took place in order to assess the individual's point of view and within what context. 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... I don't think statistics actually work well without carefully including as much diversity as possible. Also when you say You must remember that extropy is the core, original philosophy of
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
At 03:04 PM 1/24/2008, Gudrun wrote: and N. Vita-More 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 dominate. This term makes a socio-economic/political inference, rather than explaining why extropians want to self-improve. One of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL humanity improve, NOT a select few who can afford it. This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all humanity want to improve (immortality, happy pills, ...)? Good point. Thank you for catching this and questioning it. You are correct that not ALL humanity should improve if they do not want to improve. That is why I support human rights to augment. I have written and lectured on this quite a bit. Since we are both located within the arts (you find art and me technology design) we ought to discuss this openly and review each other's papers. Can all humanity afford this improvement? Within what time frame? Now, no - I cannot afford it. Tomorrow, next year, next decade? Most likely next decade. Isn't this a bit like many ideologies or religions that envisage a better world with their rules and discoveries? No it is not. Religious visions are based on prayer. Transhumanist visions are based on technological and scientific probability. What place do humans have in this scenario who do not want to improve ? That is an individual choice. We see it today with people who cannot hear who do not want to hear and resent being told they need to hear. What are their rights? Their rights are their choice. If they do not want to hear, that is their choice. Will extropians become an elite who rules all the others who are not part of this enlightened scenario. Even if ruling is seen as an unwanted process. We do not live in the Roman times wherein a Caesar's' tyrannical rule exists. Extropy and tyranny is an oxymoron. If you read the principles of extropy you will see that critical thinking is fundamental to the reasonableness or rationality of transhumanits. How does the baptism work? Brainwashing, force-feeding, consumer promise, gentle persuasion, religiously inspired promises? Now you are being either silly or snide and that does not further discussion. Immortality. Is immortality really so wonderful? I'm not sure. Not in this body, nor. By the way, Extropy support extreme life extension, indefinite lifespan or superlongevity. I was thinking about Fosca in one of Simone de Beauvoir's novels. He is immortal and lonely. He is one of few, if not the only one. Could there be something like the BURDEN of immortality. Of course and if you read over the many papers, books, etc. of extropy you will see that this theme has been discussed at length. Superlongevity does not mean that a person is forced to live forever. For goodness sakes. If all can share immortality, then reproduction is not necessary or even unwanted (over-population).Or it is permitted for a few chosen ones. Again, please read about these ideas before making assumptions about issues that have been discussed for many, many years. Or we multiply (in the biblical sense) and spread into outer space with all our immortality? What about people from other sects/ideologies/belief-systems who do not want to become immortal other if then within their religious concepts of immortality of souls, etc. Trans(post)humanism as materialised afterlife? Moravec is interesting because he seems to propose and predict the extinction of the human species. A form of 'extendec' suicide? A form of self-hatred? A form of omnipotent delusion? Not necessarily. I also thought that Goertzel's texts were informative and good. Yes I agree. Just a bit anti-extropian, but he is a fabulous person and I think his views are important and I value his ideas. Natasha http://www.natasha.cc/Natasha http://www.natasha.cc/Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty of Technology School of Computing, Communications and Electronics Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller - 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=89952493-27d2b0
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hello all of you , I have read this correspondence with great interest. On 20 Jan 2008, at 14:17, Vladimir Nesov wrote: If one argues for personal moral freedom, it's not about enforcing freedom on others, it's about liberating oneself from influence of others. Vladimir Others will always influence ONE (YOU). Getting rid of influence by others (this includes parents, friends, enemies, etc) is like getting rid of one's personality. Influence of others and influencing others is part of our social existence. About extropians: and N. Vita-More 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 dominate. This term makes a socio-economic/political inference, rather than explaining why extropians want to self-improve. One of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL humanity improve, NOT a select few who can afford it. This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all humanity want to improve (immortality, happy pills, ...)? Can all humanity afford this improvement? Isn't this a bit like many ideologies or religions that envisage a better world with their rules and discoveries? What place do humans have in this scenario who do not want to improve ? What are their rights? Will extropians become an elite who rules all the others who are not part of this enlightened scenario. Even if ruling is seen as an unwanted process. How does the baptism work? Brainwashing, force-feeding, consumer promise, gentle persuasion, religiously inspired promises? Immortality. Is immortality really so wonderful? I was thinking about Fosca in one of Simone de Beauvoir's novels. He is immortal and lonely. He is one of few, if not the only one. Could there be something like the BURDEN of immortality. If all can share immortality, then reproduction is not necessary or even unwanted (over-population).Or it is permitted for a few chosen ones. Or we multiply (in the biblical sense) and spread into outer space with all our immortality? What about people from other sects/ideologies/belief-systems who do not want to become immortal other if then within their religious concepts of immortality of souls, etc. Trans(post)humanism as materialised afterlife? Moravec is interesting because he seems to propose and predict the extinction of the human species. A form of 'extendec' suicide? A form of self-hatred? A form of omnipotent delusion? I also thought that Goertzel's texts were informative and good. Ciao, Gudrun Bielz PhD student in Fine Art University of Reading Title of thesis The OCAP_ The obsessive compulsive 'artcificial' project - 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=89593107-34bca7
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Gudrun:The obsessive compulsive 'artificial' project. Can I ask what your thesis is about? - 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=89671722-2bf9d1
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
[singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Sorry if you've all read this: http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm But I found it a v. well written sympathetic critique of extropianism highly recommend it. What do people think of its call for a humanist transhumanism? - 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=87871446-3cd1ef
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
On Jan 20, 2008 3:06 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if you've all read this: http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm But I found it a v. well written sympathetic critique of extropianism highly recommend it. What do people think of its call for a humanist transhumanism? Thanks Mike for highlighting this informative essay. I think that first and foremost we must not embrace mystery. Ben argues against oversimplifying, but are we honest in adding in details that we don't sufficiently understand? For each irresponsibly added detail brings us away from reality. Preferring a fabulous wrong impression over a simple speckle of truth is not virtuous. Humans don't have stable morality. They learn, they go mad. What is it about evolutionary preprogrammed reinforcers that makes them exceptional before other random concoctions? They have a good position of power, many people obey them. If one argues for personal moral freedom, it's not about enforcing freedom on others, it's about liberating oneself from influence of others. There is no reason in choosing a moral stance if you don't know what effect it will have. Seek understanding if you want to hold back an existing moral plague, including the part you embody yourself. -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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=87886040-d08b59
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hi, FYI, that essay was an article I wrote for the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemaine Zeitung in 2001 ... it was translated to German and published... An elaborated, somewhat modified version was included as a chapter in the 2005 book The Path to Posthumanity (P2P) by myself and Stephan Vladimir Bugaj. I have uploaded the P2P version of the chapter here: http://www.goertzel.org/Chapter12_aug16_05.pdf BTW that book will in 2008 be updated and re-issued with a different title. Ben On Jan 20, 2008 7:06 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if you've all read this: http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm But I found it a v. well written sympathetic critique of extropianism highly recommend it. What do people think of its call for a humanist transhumanism? - 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/?; -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. -- Vernor Vinge - 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=87898088-6dcd8b
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hi Natasha After discussions with you and others in 2005, 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. thanks Ben On Jan 20, 2008 1:51 PM, Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:06 AM 1/20/2008, Mike Tintner wrote: Sorry if you've all read this: http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm But I found it a v. well written sympathetic critique of extropianism highly recommend it. What do people think of its call for a humanist transhumanism? I found Ben's essay to contain a certain bias which detracts from its substance. If Ben would like to debate key assumptions his essay claims, I available. Otherwise, if anyone is interested in key points which I belive are narrowly-focused and/or misleading, I'll post them. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK Transhumanist Arts Culture Thinking About the Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller 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/?; -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] We are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. -- Vernor Vinge - 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=87922044-bb741d
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
On Jan 20, 2008 1:54 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Natasha After discussions with you and others in 2005, 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. thanks Ben I would add that my understanding of the transhumanist/futurist community in general, and extropianism in particular, has deepened since 2005 due to a greater frequency and intensity of social interaction with relevant individuals; so there are probably statements in even the 2005 version that I wouldn't fully agree with now ... ... though, the spirit of the article of course still represents my perspective... ben - 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=87922432-9d71fc
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
At 06:06 AM 1/20/2008, Mike Tintner wrote: Sorry if you've all read this: http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm But I found it a v. well written sympathetic critique of extropianism highly recommend it. What do people think of its call for a humanist transhumanism? I found Ben's essay to contain a certain bias which detracts from its substance. If Ben would like to debate key assumptions his essay claims, I available. Otherwise, if anyone is interested in key points which I belive are narrowly-focused and/or misleading, I'll post them. Natasha http://www.natasha.cc/Natashahttp://www.natasha.cc/ Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK http://www.transhumanist.biz/Transhumanist Arts Culture http://extropy.org/Thinking About the http://extropy.org/Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller - 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=87921547-4eba3e
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
At 12:56 PM 1/20/2008, you wrote: On Jan 20, 2008 1:54 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Natasha After discussions with you and others in 2005, 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. Excellent. Thank you. I will read this version tomorrow morning and reply with any points that I would like to go over with you. Natasha I would add that my understanding of the transhumanist/futurist community in general, and extropianism in particular, has deepened since 2005 due to a greater frequency and intensity of social interaction with relevant individuals; so there are probably statements in even the 2005 version that I wouldn't fully agree with now ... ... though, the spirit of the article of course still represents my perspective... Understood. ben - 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/?; -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008 7:32 PM http://www.natasha.cc/Natashahttp://www.natasha.cc/ Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - CAiiA, situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, UK http://www.transhumanist.biz/Transhumanist Arts Culture http://extropy.org/Thinking About the http://extropy.org/Future If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller - 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=87938809-8a1c15
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Oh you tease. All right then... May I herewith extend a formal invitation to you to reply to my/subsequent posts, and give us the benefit of your opinions and extensive experience in these matters. Hoping you will reply soon, RSVP Natasha: , Mike Tintner wrote: Sorry if you've all read this: http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm But I found it a v. well written sympathetic critique of extropianism highly recommend it. What do people think of its call for a humanist transhumanism? I found Ben's essay to contain a certain bias which detracts from its substance. If Ben would like to debate key assumptions his essay claims, I available. Otherwise, if anyone is interested in key points which I belive are narrowly-focused and/or misleading, I'll post them. Natasha - 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=87943786-17474c
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
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 dominate. This term makes a socio-economic/political inference, rather than explaining why extropians want to self-improve. One of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL humanity improve, NOT a select few who can afford it. ... one might call it libertarian transhumanism. Again, the overemphasis on pigeon-holing Extropy as a political worldview is a misnomer and missing the larger scope of the philosophy which has more to do with human potential and individual/social change than a political world view. ...For instance, visionary robotics Hans Moravec, a hero ... This paragraph presents a false dichotomy because it equates comments about the far future to the near or present. For example, you might ask me, Natasha, what is your dream for the future? And I might say, I'd like to see university students performing research in space habitats on the Moon. And then you write, Natasha is anti-academia to a remarkable, ultra-radical extreme. She wants to do away with all universities on Earth and only have
