[extropy-chat] Books: Harris; Religion and Reason

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jan 9, 2006, at 5:18 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> Ok, lets see if I can keep this at an elevated level.
>

As opposed to?

>
> If there are those who would like to support my renomination to the  
> ExI Board based on the platform that all information as is feasible  
> should be preserved and that the execution of programs which seek  
> to destroy information without a substantive argument that such  
> information is worthless ( i.e. a legitimate reason to erase  
> information rather than simply an unjustified assertion that one  
> religion is right and another is wrong) should be terminated, I  
> would be willing to accept such a nomination.  Note carefully, that  
> I am *not* saying that the information potentially contained in  
> external programs should be erased ( e.g. current forms of capital  
> punishment) -- I am simply saying that the execution of programs  
> that would intentionally erase information without a really good  
> (proven) reason should cease execution.
>

I don't think positioning on "information" is particularly clear and  
therefore not a good platform.  How would this "cease execution" be  
implemented?  I wouldn't want to see a board member advocating nuking  
Iran, for instance or doing a Pat Robertson advocacy of assassinating  
people like Pat Robertson.

> So, in some respects, I am throwing my glove down to the ExI  
> board.  Either you *are* or you are *not* extropic.  Harris has, in  
> my mind, outlined the problems with being a "tolerant" extropian.

While I have less and less tolerance for a lot of imho brain damaged  
and brain damaging notions, beliefs and practices,  I am not  
altogether comfortable with hardline pronouncements about who and  
what is and is not extropic from you or any other supposed  
authority.  Discussions about such are fine though.

>   The problem with that is that it means transhumanism rules and  
> extropianism falls.  In transhumansism (using its most basic  
> definitions) there is no moral compass.  One can become transhuman  
> along many vectors, some good, some bad.  With extropianism, there  
> is at least some guideline -- more information is good, information  
> destruction (entropy) is bad, allowing (or worse enabling) the  
> destruction of information is bad, etc..  This leads to the  
> questions of what paths will generate the most "good" information  
> the soonest (perhaps with the minimal destruction of *perceived*  
> less useful information)  and how does one deal with entirely  
> unexplored paths (where the information gain may have positive,  
> neutral or negative consequences).

Perhaps in seeking elevated style you have become too abstract to  
make your meaning clear.  Please say more.

- samantha