[ExI] Luciferian Murder?

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Tue Dec 14 21:53:29 UTC 2021

If the intention is to summarize the arguments for different points,
something more like a wiki would seem more appropriate.  Perhaps shift your
content onto RationalWiki or similar, so you can get far more support.

I'm not on extropolis, as I am told that is indeed for endless rehashing of
the same tired (mostly political) arguments.  But let's say his arguments
were on Canonizer.  What precisely, outside of Canonizer itself, would that
affect?  Nothing, it would seem.  Would it even occur to him or most people
to cite Canonizer?

I mean, I think I see what you're going for.  Over in the
Traveller circles, I and others wrote up
https://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Relativistic_Weapon to just point people to
when they asked why simply grabbing asteroids and using them to bombard
their foes was not a thing.  But that requires a wiki that has support, so
people will think to go there.  For what you're going for, there are
relevant wikis that have far more support (including publicity, which
matters: editing something no one knows about and no one's going to use is
a waste of time).

As to "kill", I think you would usually have to modify it, e.g.
"unintentionally kill", or use words such as "manslaughter".  The
implication of "kill" by itself is of intent.

I do not think people would give you the benefit of the doubt, not in this
case given the standard meanings.  They don't know which meaning you mean,
and short of choosing your words carefully there is no way most are going
to know before they proceed to evaluating whether they agree.

On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Adrian,
> I have certainly failed to communicate on this. I apologize.
> THE most important part of Canonizer is the "<Start new supporting camp
> here>
> <https://canonizer.com/camp/create/16-Friendly-AI-Importance/2-AI-can-only-be-friendly>
> " link where you can start a revolution in what is only the currently
> accepted majority consensus.
> My hope for the ability to do this is exactly why we created Canonizer in
> the first place.  I've worked tirelessly, pleading with any of the popular
> direct perception bleaters to Canonize their camp.  I've responded to so
> many of their bleating publications, seeking to meet them at conferences
> where they present, making donations to earn the chance to sit with them at
> the keynote dinner tables, and on and on.  But so far not a one has
> canonized a naive realism camp.  To me, that is very telling of the quality
> of the naive realism camp that only seems to thrive in the current bleating
> tweetosphere where there is no Canonizer.
> Are you subscribed to the extropolis list (CCed) for people who were
> censored from the ExI list? If not, you missed the post where I pleaded
> with Terren Suydam <terren.suydam at gmail.com>, to support the camp he was
> bleating about, against my "AI can only be friendly
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/16-Friendly-AI-Importance/2-AI-can-only-be-friendly>"
> camp.  Their camp could sure use his help, as 10 years ago they were in the
> lead, as you can see with the as_of value set to 2011
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/16-Friendly-AI-Importance/2-AI-can-only-be-friendly?asof=bydate&asofdate=2011%2F12%2F01>.
> Perhaps if he'd contributed some of his new arguments, they'd be more
> successful at converting new people than the current arguments for our
> side, which continues to extend our lead?
> Perhaps you prefer that bleating and tweeting method of doing things where
> everyone posts the same half baked arguments over and over again,
> converting nobody, just echoing around in all their polarizing bubbles?  Or
> maybe  you prefer the hierarchical censoring stuff, as the ExI list seems
> to espouse?   I promise you it takes far less work to just make a small
> wiki improvement to a camp, than to post those same old half baked, often
> mistaken arguments, again and again, forever in the current polarizing
> tweetosphere.  It only takes one or two button pushes to get a camp
> started.  You can then let everyone else take it from there.  No censoring
> is needed on Canonizer, everyone gets a voice.
> That helps to know that for you, even kill implies intent.  But aren't
> there other definitions for that simple verb, to kill?  Aren't there some
> that are just a label for a any action that results in death, regardless of
> intent?  Would one of these definitions of 'to kill' work?  Could we expect
> people to give us the benefit of the doubt, and select the best definition
> (as intended) in this case?
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 4:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> Even "kill" implies intent.  Can you think of a term that makes it clear
>> that basically all such cases are done in complete ignorance?
>> As to Canonizer - it's a similar problem, and similar to the one I have
>> with most interpretations of Christianity (where Lucifer comes from).  You
>> act as if the points of view ("camps") on your site are the only ones to
>> consider.  (Yes, anyone can make another camp, but this takes a lot more
>> work to do well and thus is usually not worth doing.)  Thus, on many
>> (possibly most) issues, debates on your site start with false dichotomies -
>> and there does not seem to be much if any outreach or research to try to
>> find points of view that someone on your site is not already strongly
>> promoting.
>> You have demonstrated that you're just not interested in doing that sort
>> of work: you would much rather debate and defend points of view than
>> actively try to discover what, if anything, you're missing in any given
>> case.  Perhaps you might respond that you are interested in this, then I or
>> someone else would call BS, rather than commence research you'll just
>> defend what you've done so far, and it'll be an aggravating waste of time -
>> so I'd rather just not engage in that.
>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 5:53 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks, everyone, for all the helpful comments.  Especially thanks
>>> Adrean, your examples which are especially helpful.  True, I hadn't fully
>>> considered the definition of murder, and how intent is normally included.
>>> Other's have balked at using the 'murder' term for similar reasons which
>>> I've been struggling to understand.  But these examples of yours enabled me
>>> to clearly understand the problem.
>>> Would it fix the problem if I do a global replace of murder with kill or
>>> killer?  Seems to me that would fix things.  I want to focus on the acts,
>>> and the results of such, whether done in ignorance or with intent or not.
>>> Also, I apologize for so far being unable to understand the problems you
>>> have with Canonizer.  Would it help for me to ask you to not give up on me,
>>> and give me another chance?  As I really want to understand.
>>> I guess I'm mostly just asking if I am the only one that constantly
>>> thinks about this type of "luciferian killing"?  I am constantly asking
>>> myself if the actions I plan to do today will help, save more people, or
>>> not help, killing more people in a luciferan way by delaying the
>>> singularity?
>>> Does anyone else besides me ever think like this?
>>> Thanks
>>> Brent
>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:04 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> I have no desire to engage in your Web site (do not bother trying to
>>>> convince me otherwise: you are unable to address my reasons for not wanting
>>>> to do so, as you have demonstrated that you will not understand them even
>>>> if I explain them again), but I can point out a flaw in your reasoning: you
>>>> assume intent.
>>>> Most - basically all - behavior that delays resurrection capability is
>>>> done out of ignorance: the person is unaware of the concept of
>>>> resurrection, at least in any non-supernatural, potentially-non-fictional
>>>> form.
>>>> Most - basically all - of said behavior that is not done out of
>>>> ignorance, is done out of disbelief: the person is aware that some people
>>>> believe it is theoretically possible but personally believes those people
>>>> are mistaken, that it is not theoretically possible and thus that there are
>>>> no moral consequences for delaying what can never happen anyway.
>>>> There is either extremely little, quite possibly literally no, behavior
>>>> that delays resurrection that is performed with the intent of delaying
>>>> resurrection.  "Manslaughter" would be a more accurate term than "murder".
>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:56 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>> Fellow transhumanists,
>>>>> We’re seek to build and track consensus around a definition of evil in
>>>>> a camp we’re newly calling “Liciferian Murder
>>>>> <https://canonizer.com/topic/114-Evil/3-Luciferian-Murder>”.  If
>>>>> anyone agrees that this as a good example of evil, we would love your
>>>>> support.  And if not, we’d love to hear why, possibly in a competing camp.
>>>>> Already getting the typical blow back of polarizing bleating and
>>>>> tweeting from some fundamentalists, but as usual, nobody yet willing to
>>>>> canonize a competing POV which would enable movement towards moral
>>>>> consensus.
>>>>> Brent
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20211214/825008cb/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list