[extropy-chat] Faculty X

[Dirk Bruere]

Samantha Atkins wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you believe that atheists consider themselves superior?  Many 
>>> don't in my experience.  Most i know of aren't the least interested in
>>
>>
>> Just a few on this list, in that case.
>>
>>> exploiting theists.    As long as we are concerned with who thinks 
>>> they are better than whom we are stuck in the same old monkey 
>>> shines.     Personally I don't want to "exploit" anyone.  I do want 
>>> to form enough of an integrating vision that we monkeys have a 
>>> chance of growing beyond the limits of our evolutionary 
>>> programming.   That is a pretty funny sort of exploitation.
>>>
>> Some people have experienced the mystical, and some haven't.
>> That's the point.
>> I consider those that haven't to be deficient in the same way a 
>> psychopath is deficient, and it really annoys me to hear them 
>> bleating on about 'irrationality' etc when they know fuck all of 
>> which they speak. It's like trying to explain to a blind man that 
>> colour is more than a brail readout of wavelength on a spectrometer.
>
>
> As mentioned in earlier posts on this subject, I am very 
> "experienced".  However all the experiences imaginable do not 
> necessarily answer what the meaning and significance of these 
> experiences is.   People who have not had some of these experiences 
> can still have perfectly valid thoughts about how to evaluate the 
> meaning and significance.    I agree that it is annoying when people 
> simplistically dismiss what they have no understanding of.   But it is 
> hardly justified to imply that persons without such experiential 
> knowledge are deficient in ways analogous to being a sociopath.
>
I think that is a valid analogy.
Or how about autism and a deficiency in socialisation as an analogy?
I can give you the inside info on that one because (if I was a schoolkid 
now) I would be diagnosed with Aspergers. I can make a pretty good 
effort at being 'normal' because I have deliberately studied 'normals' 
eg eye contacts, body language, modes of thought etc. and can mimic them 
perfectly (if I'm not too tired). I can't say that I understand people 
though, because quite often their concerns and problems seem trivial to 
me. Do you think I can provide insights into the significance of 'being 
normal'? Because I honestly don't.

>>
>> And 'going beyond our evolutionary programming' sounds all well and 
>> good until we look at the 'irrational' value judgements attached to 
>> that statement. If we are advocating scrapping 'mystical experience' 
>> as deficient and irrational why don't we go the whole hog and get rid 
>> of conscience, love, empathy, emotion in general and other similarly 
>> irrational hangovers. In fact, why not call the new species 'Homo 
>> Superior' - aka the Nazi Superman. Or don't you think that will go 
>> down too well with the punters?
>
>
> We are programmed with a lot of stuff that makes it very difficult for 
> us to survive accelerating technology and reach a happy outcome as a 
> species.   We clearly need to go beyond our programming to have 
> sufficient room to chose our future and hope to achieve it.  What we 
> chose to keep, to add, to re-channel and so on is a deep topic.  But 
> there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that i or anyone else 
> wishes to eliminate all the things you list.    Jumping to such a 
> broad smear is not productive.
>
>
But if people are going to start dismissing whole categories of internal 
experience as being 'aberrant brain chemistry' why not include 
conscience, love, emotions in general etc? On what *rational* grounds do 
they pick out one category of experience (the mystical) for elimination 
and/or denigration and not another?

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 01/03/2005