avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 6 22:41:03 UTC 2010
----- Original Message ----
> From: Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Sat, February 6, 2010 8:08:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Nolopsism
> On 6 February 2010 09:37, Ben Zaiboc wrote:
> > BTW, this is a great paper. I've been reading through it, and so far, it
> seems to make perfect sense. The basic idea is simple and elegant, and as far
> as I can see, completely solves all these circular discussions we've been having
> on this list. I'm sure certain parties wouldn't agree with that opinion though!
> Indeed. Even though he is too pessimistic in saying that "cannot
> accept that we cannot exist". We should say "we cannot avoid making
> use of reflexive indicators", but there are plenty of other useful,
> understandable and practical concepts to which no "essence" really
> corresponds. Why should one's "self" be an exception? Most of dualism
> can easily be reduced to linguistic short-circuits and paradoxes...
Philosophically nolipsism bears some resemblance to Buddhism which is fine from a spiritual point of view. E.g. why fear death when there is no "me" to die, etc. Being an attorney however, I am sure you are aware of the legal can of worms nolipsism opens up. Human rights are tied to identity. If "I" don't exist, then stealing my stuff or even murdering me is a victimless crime. Doesn't make for a happy outcome in my opinion, especially for libertarians. Probably why the authors back-pedalled from their claims in the conclusion.
More information about the extropy-chat