Ah, my bad. I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that the characterization I had prescribed to members of this website was so strong that it led me to vilify your response into an attack. I really apologize.
Yup, your initial post is a a summary of my point.
As to your follow up questions:
I am not sure if by ” a group of expert group rationalists” you mean
a group that is majorly proficient in empathetic intelligence (the rationality of groups).
Or a group that promotes everyone to actualize themselves in their own group expertise (type of multiple intelligence), still aiming for an expert group, but one of diverse capacities.
Actually now that i think about it, the answer is the same for both cases. I do not think that this is possible. In my opinion any type of expert is a minority demographic of the larger population.
I am supporting the later idea of having an elite that guides the masses, despite the huge potential for damage/corruption such an idea carries. My defense of such a totalitarian idea would be that humans cannot escape such a hierarchy. Even if we delude ourselves into thinking that we have removed a class elite from our current production of society, the truth is that we have merely chosen an elite that is a hidden class. What I mean by hidden class is that certain aspects of our current episteme hide the totalitarian aspects of our society. For example, I would see deep seeded ideologies of individualism, democracy, and cartesian dualism, and universal human rights, make most people hostile to the idea that cognition is as physical a capacity as running. And as with any physical capacity, there is both natural and nurtured disparity between individuals.
Before I continue I feel I need to further explain myself, because all the ideologies I have listed above are laden with such heavy positive connotations in our culture I fear that my words will be vilified if I do not partially explain them. With for example the idea of universal human rights, you exclude the potential that there are fundamentally different types of people. Again, this idea seems evil and oppressive in light of the dominance of democratic equality in our culture, but I cannot help that.
There number of people who can play professional basketball is not the majority. In the same sense the number of people who can rationally think on a professional level is not the majority.
I don’t think everyone is born with what we consider proficient rationality. Perhaps a majority could be taught to be rational, I am not denying this possibility, but I do not think that it is economically feasible. At least not in our current system of education. But then again, there are many essential facets of society that do not require world class logical skills. In my opinion the existing emphasis our power structure places on rationality has skewed the pretending-doing balance of a large demographic.
I would suggest having a elite of empathetic rationalists who guide the masses to more humane and potentially more rational living.
I don’t think everyone is born with what we consider proficient rationality. Perhaps a majority could be taught to be rational, I am not denying this possibility, but I do not think that it is economically feasible.
I’d doubt the feasibility without brain modification tech.
The link provided in the grandparent is important:
And DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED on people who think Wikipedia is an “Artificial Intelligence”, the invention of LSD was a “Singularity” or that corporations are “superintelligent”!
“Education” is “brain modification technology” in about the same way the invention of LSD was a singularity.
It was a long time ago so my memory is hazy… was that post actually written as a direct response to you back in the day or was the “corporations are super-intelligent” guy someone else?
Perhaps a majority could be taught to be rational, I am not denying this possibility, but I do not think that it is economically feasible.
I’d doubt the feasibility without brain modification tech.
There is very little to rationality. All it takes is to be committed to take consequent actions that are implied by two basic questions:
What do I want?
How do I achieve what I want?
If you ask those questions, everything else will follow naturally. The very first implication is to ask,
How do I figure out what I want?
Rationality, in its broadest sense, is a collection of heuristics that help you to answer those questions. In that respect rational decision making is already implied by our preference for world states that satisfy our utility-function.
This means that brain modifications, if necessary, are not a precondition but a possible consequence of rationality.
I think that most healthy humans could be taught to ask those questions and pursue follow-up actions. The problem are the circumstances in which they reside.
I am of the same opinion of you. I chose rhetorically to emit this argument because it is more radical and I was not sure exactly of my bearings on the open sea of values. But seeing that you are of the same type as me, I would agree with you. I do not think it is feasible in any sense of the word as of now.
Not a native speaker I am guessing? Where “same opinions as you” expresses agreement “same opinion of you” has more potential as a retort. “Emit” gives approximately the opposite meaning to what I assume you intended, given that you did not release, give off, send out or express the radical opinion—you omitted it. (I assume English is a second language since your thoughts seem far more advanced than your expression thereof.)
No actually english is my first language. Though I have spent the past 6 years deeply immersed in the study of Chinese linguistics and scholarship. So I apologize in advance for comma splicing or other somewhat awkward rhetorical strategies that I may use. I try to think in chinese as much as I can and I guess it messes me up at points.
That said, I do not see a causal correlation between the quality of my ideas and my mastery of the english language. I know very well that on a scale of 1-10 it would be generous to call my writing a 7. But I do not think that defines the nature of my thoughts, especially since you do not know what stage of the writing process my responses are in. I will go ahead and tell you anything I write on this site is done in a single draft. I am writing not to meet the rhetorical standards of whatever game you are playing. I am writing because of the potential to see what emerges from me when I mix with interesting materials such as Mr./Mrs MixedNuts. Personally I do not see the point in attacking rhetoric, especially if the idea is conveyed. It seems as insecure as my own initial vilifying of Mr./Mrs. MixedNuts. In fact it fulfills the stereotype I was expecting to meet in posting on this website!
However, if I can have my insecurities, then I cannot hold your insecurities against you. So I forgive you, and I hope we can keep talking.
Ah, my bad. I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that the characterization I had prescribed to members of this website was so strong that it led me to vilify your response into an attack. I really apologize.
Yup, your initial post is a a summary of my point.
As to your follow up questions:
I am not sure if by ” a group of expert group rationalists” you mean
a group that is majorly proficient in empathetic intelligence (the rationality of groups).
Or a group that promotes everyone to actualize themselves in their own group expertise (type of multiple intelligence), still aiming for an expert group, but one of diverse capacities.
Actually now that i think about it, the answer is the same for both cases. I do not think that this is possible. In my opinion any type of expert is a minority demographic of the larger population.
I am supporting the later idea of having an elite that guides the masses, despite the huge potential for damage/corruption such an idea carries. My defense of such a totalitarian idea would be that humans cannot escape such a hierarchy. Even if we delude ourselves into thinking that we have removed a class elite from our current production of society, the truth is that we have merely chosen an elite that is a hidden class. What I mean by hidden class is that certain aspects of our current episteme hide the totalitarian aspects of our society. For example, I would see deep seeded ideologies of individualism, democracy, and cartesian dualism, and universal human rights, make most people hostile to the idea that cognition is as physical a capacity as running. And as with any physical capacity, there is both natural and nurtured disparity between individuals.
Before I continue I feel I need to further explain myself, because all the ideologies I have listed above are laden with such heavy positive connotations in our culture I fear that my words will be vilified if I do not partially explain them. With for example the idea of universal human rights, you exclude the potential that there are fundamentally different types of people. Again, this idea seems evil and oppressive in light of the dominance of democratic equality in our culture, but I cannot help that. There number of people who can play professional basketball is not the majority. In the same sense the number of people who can rationally think on a professional level is not the majority.
I don’t think everyone is born with what we consider proficient rationality. Perhaps a majority could be taught to be rational, I am not denying this possibility, but I do not think that it is economically feasible. At least not in our current system of education. But then again, there are many essential facets of society that do not require world class logical skills. In my opinion the existing emphasis our power structure places on rationality has skewed the pretending-doing balance of a large demographic.
I would suggest having a elite of empathetic rationalists who guide the masses to more humane and potentially more rational living.
I’d doubt the feasibility without brain modification tech.
Surely education is “brain modification tech”. You can upgrade your own software.
No.
A lot of educational tools are technology—I would personally say that all educational systems are forms of technology.
...and they definitely modify your brain. Not counting them? Consider reconsidering.
The link provided in the grandparent is important:
“Education” is “brain modification technology” in about the same way the invention of LSD was a singularity.
It was a long time ago so my memory is hazy… was that post actually written as a direct response to you back in the day or was the “corporations are super-intelligent” guy someone else?
I don’t think I would ever have said “corporations are super-intelligent”. “Agents with super-human powers” would be more my line.
“Superintelligent” means something fairly specific—something which corporations are not yet—and I have been aware of that for quite a long time.
There is very little to rationality. All it takes is to be committed to take consequent actions that are implied by two basic questions:
What do I want?
How do I achieve what I want?
If you ask those questions, everything else will follow naturally. The very first implication is to ask,
How do I figure out what I want?
Rationality, in its broadest sense, is a collection of heuristics that help you to answer those questions. In that respect rational decision making is already implied by our preference for world states that satisfy our utility-function.
This means that brain modifications, if necessary, are not a precondition but a possible consequence of rationality.
I think that most healthy humans could be taught to ask those questions and pursue follow-up actions. The problem are the circumstances in which they reside.
I am of the same opinion of you. I chose rhetorically to emit this argument because it is more radical and I was not sure exactly of my bearings on the open sea of values. But seeing that you are of the same type as me, I would agree with you. I do not think it is feasible in any sense of the word as of now.
Not a native speaker I am guessing? Where “same opinions as you” expresses agreement “same opinion of you” has more potential as a retort. “Emit” gives approximately the opposite meaning to what I assume you intended, given that you did not release, give off, send out or express the radical opinion—you omitted it. (I assume English is a second language since your thoughts seem far more advanced than your expression thereof.)
No actually english is my first language. Though I have spent the past 6 years deeply immersed in the study of Chinese linguistics and scholarship. So I apologize in advance for comma splicing or other somewhat awkward rhetorical strategies that I may use. I try to think in chinese as much as I can and I guess it messes me up at points.
That said, I do not see a causal correlation between the quality of my ideas and my mastery of the english language. I know very well that on a scale of 1-10 it would be generous to call my writing a 7. But I do not think that defines the nature of my thoughts, especially since you do not know what stage of the writing process my responses are in. I will go ahead and tell you anything I write on this site is done in a single draft. I am writing not to meet the rhetorical standards of whatever game you are playing. I am writing because of the potential to see what emerges from me when I mix with interesting materials such as Mr./Mrs MixedNuts. Personally I do not see the point in attacking rhetoric, especially if the idea is conveyed. It seems as insecure as my own initial vilifying of Mr./Mrs. MixedNuts. In fact it fulfills the stereotype I was expecting to meet in posting on this website! However, if I can have my insecurities, then I cannot hold your insecurities against you. So I forgive you, and I hope we can keep talking.