[ExI] Limits of human modification

[William Flynn Wallace]

Anders wrote:
But I am happy to grant that 90+% is just words. The issue is that the
rewards are all tied to doing well in the social environment of fellow
thinkers rather than linked to outside applicability or factors. Fields
without regular feedback from reality will become divorced from it.

------------------------------

​My difficulty with some philosophy, esp. existentialism, stems from having
gone to a Skinnerian grad school.  If you could not put a concept into
operational terms, then you were in the wrong department.

Self, perception, consciousness, awareness, essence, instinct (my favorite
ambiguity) - very difficult to define in real world terms.  Yet 'immortal
soul' lasts and lasts despite lack of anything concrete, and seems to be a
nearly universal concept.

I agree fully with your last sentence.  How can philosophers have
meaningful conversations with one another when they cannot agree on their
terms?  I suspect that each one thinks they are right and the others
wrong.  "Boohoo, nobody wants to use my definition."

"Social environment of other thinkers".  Yes, that fine line between
agreeing too much and disagreeing too much.

Anders, what's wrong with doing your historical research first?  I thought
the idea of research was to take the ball from earlier people and then run
with it your way.  And anyway, I suspect your unconscious knowledge of Kant
etc. guided your way.  (There's a claim that cannot be refuted.)

bill w​


On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:39 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> > <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> Do all economists agree that forcing people to have stupider children
> >>> than
> >>> what modern medicine would allow them to have will result in
> >>> a positive long term impact on net GDP per capita
> >>> ?
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> I truly do not understand the intent of this question.
> >
> >
> > Which word didn't you understand?
> >
>
> ### I am not getting the relevance of the question to the thread.
>
> In the thread I am suggesting that gene mods can and should contribute
> to increasing GDP, and among others I give IQ-boost as an example of a
> mod that should increase GDP.
>
> You ask whether economists think that making people stupider increases GDP.
>
> What's the connection? Do you seriously think that there are many
> economists holding that position?
>
> Rafał
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151130/6421d620/attachment.html>