I definitely took that part out of context. But it is still pertinent. In this case, what if everyone votes to limit harmful speech? I get that calling it a “right” places it outside the whims of democracy; but we already limited this “right” by declaring you cannot yell “fire” in a theatre along with a few other similar examples. If it is not an absolute “right”, then we can debate its applicable extent. (and I apologize, I may have been traumatized by too many weak libertarian/min-archist arguments where all government power is a bad thing – so I may have taken that bit in a seemingly strange direction). — ZhouBoTong

I actually disagree about the whole "fire in a theatre" thing. I think this contributes to a phenomenon known as "bystander apathy".

Essentially, bystander apathy is what happens when you drive by a wreck on the road, and you decide not to call it in because "someone else will do it". So, how do I think that these two things connect? Well, if someone thinks that they see a fire in a theatre, (of course you would have to be pretty stupid to just think and not know that there was a fire, but you have already said you don't think most people are very smart, so I don't think this is too much of a stretch.) but they aren't sure, they have two reasons now not to yell "fire!". The first is that they think someone else will do it, and the other is that in the event they are wrong, they face legal repercussions. You will, of course, have a lunatic that tries to get everyone out of the theatre for any kind of nefarious reason, but laws don't stop crazy people, and they can't get tried until after the event. Essentially, they don't care about laws and they have plenty of time to do what they want with those people before the police arrive, so outlawing speech like that is not only useless but harmful.

I think a more effective approach to making theatres safe is to study and help the lunatics who would use their rights to hurt people, rather than making everyone suffer.

Sorry for making this in another post. I came back today to check what was going on and realized that I didn't respond to this.

While a child can't understand quantum physics, once they are old enough to learn, they can keep that knowledge their entire lives barring any kind of neurological degeneration.

@TogetherTurtle

I was going to comment on the "level playing field" but you actually address my problems in your Sci-Fi solutions so I will mention it then. For this quote I just want to add, "they can keep that knowledge their entire lives barring any kind of neurological degeneration and given that they use the information they learned on a regular basis." If I learn something, then don't continue engage with that information in some fashion, my brain will forget it (and most people are similar). Also, how long I remember something depends on how well I learned it in the first place. I am one of those that fairly regularly laments about the amount of information that I once new (I definitely know more now that at previous points in my life, but I probably know less than 10% of everything that I once knew).

It may seem unreasonably small, but one connection made in your brain while you were out playing alone one day could have made it easier for you to understand your father's methods, and from there it would just increase. At least in my experience, small things don't matter often, but when they do, they matter significantly

@TogetherTurtle

If the nearly imperceptible differences between my upbringing and my brother's result in such noticeable differences in mental ability, then I worry that we are a LONG way from any ability to interpret these differences into an educational experience.

So, I have a bit of an opportunity to talk about my crazy sci-fi ideas it seems

@TogetherTurtle

Well they may be a little crazy in that it may take humans a while to figure out all that (maybe the A.I. can help us along), but otherwise, I like it. It actually describes a "level playing field." Some of what you describe goes beyond just guiding evolution, but I am still on board. Now, it does assume that all humans have access to the technology. Also, what about the 40% of people (pulled that number out of my @**), that will view genetic engineering, etc as wrong/evil/or just no. Don't they fall behind? I get that I am getting very deep into an imaginary hypothetical, but the problem is still there.

I do think this is funny, but perhaps we were both wrong.

@TogetherTurtle

For sure. When I was saying we are both right, I was trying (and failing on a re-read) to imply that we must be missing something if the same logic led to opposite conclusions - which is exactly what you go on to suggest in this paragraph.

Maybe we can relate to them more if we change ourselves to enjoy their interests as well.

@TogetherTurtle

Interesting thought, but here is my problem with most other people's interests, they are entirely focused on one topic. You mentioned your family does not have the same interests as you, well what are their interests? If they are like most people I know, their interests can be summarized in one word: people. What is the first thing a family member or friend says after a long absence, "so how is life going? how is your job? are you dating anyone? etc." Every question has to do with our lives, because that is what they are interested in. Now as someone who hates talking about my or your life (unless it relates to a larger concept or idea), I get this is all social convention. But it is also more than that. These social conventions ARE what people like to talk/think about. Even seeming interests, like sports, end up being more about people...anyone who is huge baseball fan, but ONLY watches the Atlanta Braves is NOT a huge baseball fan. They are a Braves fan. They enjoy talking about last night's game with people at work. They like cheering and saying my team beat your team, but they do not have a great interest in actual baseball (to be fair I assume some percent of baseball fans truly like baseball, but I would guess less than 50% - and football, soccer, etc is the same). So I like the idea of shared interests, but you can see I am a bit pessimistic about the possibilities.


Dang, I am out of time for today. I think you had a couple of other important points, and I will try to get those tomorrow. (and I did not even proof-read this so sorry for any problematic errors).

Dang, I am out of time for today. I think you had a couple of other important points, and I will try to get those tomorrow. (and I did not even proof-read this so sorry for any problematic errors). — ZhouBoTong

Don't even worry about it. It is said that you can't rush perfection, and even so, we are far from that.

Interesting thought, but here is my problem with most other people's interests, they are entirely focused on one topic. You mentioned your family does not have the same interests as you, well what are their interests? If they are like most people I know, their interests can be summarized in one word: people. — ZhouBoTong

I think there is a Benjamin Franklin quote about this, but I couldn't find anything since the man seemed to be a walking quote machine that spent all his free time rearranging words to make them both meaningful but also memorable.

As for discussing people, I think that it is limiting, but much in the same way as only discussing events or theory crafting. There is only so much to discuss. Theories are more applicable to the real world, but I can't imagine a future where leisure is a thing of the past. We can modify ourselves to not need amenities, but I don't think that we will ever remove the desire for amenities simply because we wish to enjoy the fruits of our labor per se. So as we make strides in knowledge of the natural world and how to apply that to make our lives better, they are studying things that aren't necessarily important to the improvement of the human race as a whole but are important to us culturally. Essentially it is my belief that culture is as equally important as science because the two need each other to push forward. If there were no stories of far off worlds colonized for the glory of humanity, would we even have the idea to do that? If there were no televisions or radios or the internet, would we hear of those stories even if they existed?

and given that they use the information they learned on a regular basis." — ZhouBoTong

Very true. Practice is a necessity.

I was going to comment on the "level playing field" but you actually address my problems in your Sci-Fi solutions so I will mention it then. — ZhouBoTong

I wonder if practice could be thrown aside by infallible memory banks holding information for centuries. Even with modern information storage formats, you can lose some quality over time, but remembering a lecture 20 years from now like it happened yesterday (or in fact, better than that) is a huge step up.

If the nearly imperceptible differences between my upbringing and my brother's result in such noticeable differences in mental ability, then I worry that we are a LONG way from any ability to interpret these differences into an educational experience. — ZhouBoTong

This reminds me of an interesting mystery that never hit me until I saw it written out. Will we reach the end of science? Does the universe have a set number of secrets or will we run out one day in the far off future? Right now, the trend seems to be the number of questions increasing, but could that change?

As for me, I would like it if there were always mysteries. It may be a bit selfish, but if I can, I would like to extend my life for the sole purpose of assisting humanity in discovering these. Whether this means mind uploading, biological life extensions or cybernetic implants don't really matter to me. As long as some part of me is off doing its part then I can rest peacefully even if my consciousness doesn't transfer on with it. That's a whole other discussion though.

Now, it does assume that all humans have access to the technology. Also, what about the 40% of people (pulled that number out of my **), that will view genetic engineering, etc as wrong/evil/or just no. Don't they fall behind? I get that I am getting very deep into an imaginary hypothetical, but the problem is still there. — ZhouBoTong

Getting deep into things we can't prove is what we do. I can give it a pass for sure.

As I said earlier, I'm not an economist and could probably use some more reading on the subject, but I do know that the resources to actually do these things are out there. Whether or not distributing them equally enough to do this is feasible in current or even hypothetical social and economic structures is unknown to me. As for the people who don't wish to advance themselves, I think they are necessary for two reasons. One, I typically believe that a society has to have dissidents. If everyone agreed, then there would be no direction for society to go in because it would already be there. That leads to stagnation and in my observation death of a group as a result. Two, I think that having a group of unaugmented humans would be good as a safety net in case we do something to ourselves that does damage or we wish to be reversed. They could also be good for studying the human mind as it originally was, as well as research into social structures and many other things. They may not have a place in the debates we discussed, but they are certainly welcome. The only thing stopping them from coming is them.

@TogetherTurtle

After my last post, I realized that I wasn't really addressing the thread topic. And your response has followed my lead. As I am new and don't want to already be labelled as a thread-thief, I will get all of my responses together (may take a while) and send them to you in private message (assuming I can figure out how to do that, hehe). I would try creating a new thread, but our ideas seem to encompass too many aspects of society - not sure what the thread would actually focus on?

If I find a point or two that is still connected to "free speech vs harmful speech", then I will post it here.

Thanks for the additional thoughts.

Sure thing. I don't think anyone cares too much about getting off topic, as it happens a lot here, but if you would feel more comfortable sending stuff directly I don't have a problem. If I remember correctly sending new messages is fairly simple here so I'm sure you will get it.

@TogetherTurtle
Well no one seemed to be worried, so I will just post it here...and in re-reading, you at least have one comment per post that is on topic, so we are not way off topic.

Individualism and communalism, a dichotomy for sure. But I've noticed something about dichotomies, that even though the two sides are portrayed as complete opposites, as two faces of a coin, the distance between those two faces, in reality,is tiny.

- @TogetherTurtle

I agreed with pretty much everything in this paragraph. In my experience, however, most communalists do acknowledge the existent of individuals…whereas many individualists seem to act like “community” is some sort of Marxist conspiracy that doesn’t actually exist, which makes for unproductive discussion. I like to think of myself as neither, but a brief reading of anything I have ever posted, suggests I am more of a communalist; at least I can recognize some of my bias :grimace: .

Essentially, bystander apathy is what happens when you drive by a wreck on the road, and you decide not to call it in because "someone else will do it". So, how do I think that these two things connect? Well, if someone thinks that they see a fire in a theatre, (of course you would have to be pretty stupid to just think and not know that there was a fire, but you have already said you don't think most people are very smart, so I don't think this is too much of a stretch.) but they aren't sure, they have two reasons now not to yell "fire!". The first is that they think someone else will do it, and the other is that in the event they are wrong, they face legal repercussions. You will, of course, have a lunatic that tries to get everyone out of the theatre for any kind of nefarious reason, but laws don't stop crazy people, and they can't get tried until after the event. Essentially, they don't care about laws and they have plenty of time to do what they want with those people before the police arrive, so outlawing speech like that is not only useless but harmful.

- @TogetherTurtle

Thanks for bringing us back closer to the thread topic :grin: . First off, I have not heard of “bystander apathy”, but I am fairly certain that I suffer from it on some level. I have struggled with motivation for most of my life, and I have certainly expressed the idea that, “there is not much that NEEDS doing, because if I don’t do it, someone else will.”
Your discussion of “fire” in a theatre and bystander apathy is helpful for me in understanding my own position. I think that any rule can have problems and exceptions. And I would argue that the idea of absolute free speech is another rule that surely has exceptions. I think societies’ rules or rights are designed to benefit most people, most of the time. I was about to say, we should just drop the whole idea of free speech and evaluate each incident on a case by case basis (Was harm caused? What are acceptable/unacceptable levels of harm?). But I think concepts like rights (invented concepts as far as I am concerned), may be beneficial for most people, most of the time. Hmmmm, so I am stuck again.

I think a more effective approach to making theatres safe is to study and help the lunatics who would use their rights to hurt people, rather than making everyone suffer.

- @TogetherTurtle

Crazy people is a whole ‘nother can of worms. If we know we can “fix” their “crazy” by giving them medication from age 5, should we? Sure, they can now live a “productive” life, but they certainly did not have much choice. I am still leaning toward, “yes we should”, but there are issues. Hopefully, the future will provide brain solutions along the lines of things you have discussed earlier in this thread, and then I agree…if we can help or educate people so that restrictions on speech are just unnecessary, let’s do that.

As for discussing people, I think that it is limiting, but much in the same way as only discussing events or theory crafting. There is only so much to discuss. Theories are more applicable to the real world, but I can't imagine a future where leisure is a thing of the past. We can modify ourselves to not need amenities, but I don't think that we will ever remove the desire for amenities simply because we wish to enjoy the fruits of our labor per se. So as we make strides in knowledge of the natural world and how to apply that to make our lives better, they are studying things that aren't necessarily important to the improvement of the human race as a whole but are important to us culturally. Essentially it is my belief that culture is as equally important as science because the two need each other to push forward. If there were no stories of far off worlds colonized for the glory of humanity, would we even have the idea to do that? If there were no televisions or radios or the internet, would we hear of those stories even if they existed?

- @TogetherTurtle

I agree with most everything in this paragraph, but it has somewhat dodged the point I was trying to make (or at least I think it does). Yes we need people who are interested in all aspects of life. Improvements in culture are certainly important too. My point was, all those who people whose interests I summarized as just “people”, are not going to make contributions to culture. That would require an interest in culture. Maybe instead of “people”, I should have said “persons”? Still not right. What I mean is that they are interested in the lives of individuals. Whether that is friends, family, or some random celebrity, they care about the individual lives of these people. They are much less interested (not at all?) in how all of these lives interact to create things called culture or society. I am not sure I am making my point clearly…maybe this helps: If we wanted these people to “study”, they would go to People Magazine, not some serious academic Sociological journal. By the way, I am not trying to say these people are in any way “less” than you or I. I am just saying that their interests (or lack there-of) mean they are not interested in discussing, researching, debating, etc any of this stuff. They would be happy to talk about, say, the relationship between Pete Davidson and Kate Beckingsale (just took one of the headlines from bing homepage), and good for them, but I will be bored. Notice that I am "bored" by their topic, and they are "bored" by some of mine. I am not better than them because my interest are slightly more respected in academic circles, nor are they better than me because talking football gains more friends than talking free will vs determinism. I was just pointing that said people should not be expected to contribute to philosophy, any more than I should be expected to hold up my end of the conversation on celebrity couples.

I wonder if practice could be thrown aside by infallible memory banks holding information for centuries. Even with modern information storage formats, you can lose some quality over time, but remembering a lecture 20 years from now like it happened yesterday (or in fact, better than that) is a huge step up.

- @TogetherTurtle

Sign me up :up: And I think you are right, doesn’t practice just create shortcuts in neuron paths? (huge apologies to any neuroscientists that actually understand this stuff) So if we can replicate those shortcuts, then we could not only increase knowledge capacity but skills also (mental or physical – physical may require strength/agility but the “muscle memory” could be cheated).

This reminds me of an interesting mystery that never hit me until I saw it written out. Will we reach the end of science? Does the universe have a set number of secrets or will we run out one day in the far off future? Right now, the trend seems to be the number of questions increasing, but could that change?

- @TogetherTurtle

I hope that part of what makes us human (some of us? Hehe) is that desire to keep looking beyond the horizon. Even if we transform ourselves into eternal techno-energy super beings who can just will things in and out of existence, I like to think that some people would still be striving for the next stage (whatever that might be). I think Star Trek covered this with the Q. They had the powers of a god, but no desire to grow any further. This made them interested in humans, who always sought to improve themselves (yes a bit of a contradiction in there, if they were interested in humans' need to grow, then couldn't it be said that they had an interest in growing?).

As for me, I would like it if there were always mysteries. It may be a bit selfish, but if I can, I would like to extend my life for the sole purpose of assisting humanity in discovering these. Whether this means mind uploading, biological life extensions or cybernetic implants don't really matter to me. As long as some part of me is off doing its part then I can rest peacefully even if my consciousness doesn't transfer on with it. That's a whole other discussion though.

- @TogetherTurtle

You are more noble than I. I also would like to continue to be around for millennia, but more for my own curiosity, than to help humanity (despite my fairly pessimistic attitude about people in general, I actually believe humanity will progress as long as there are not complete societal collapses – unfortunately history suggests these collapses are inevitable, but the modern world has changed enough to be almost unrecognizable to earlier societies, maybe the massive amount of digital storage will allow knowledge to be retained, limiting collapses to partial vs complete). Besides watching human progress, I also just want to witness some of the cool galactic events: like watching the sun grow until it encompasses the earth, or when the milky way collides with the Andromeda galaxy, but that is all just for fun.

As I said earlier, I'm not an economist and could probably use some more reading on the subject, but I do know that the resources to actually do these things are out there. Whether or not distributing them equally enough to do this is feasible in current or even hypothetical social and economic structures is unknown to me. As for the people who don't wish to advance themselves, I think they are necessary for two reasons. One, I typically believe that a society has to have dissidents. If everyone agreed, then there would be no direction for society to go in because it would already be there. That leads to stagnation and in my observation death of a group as a result. Two, I think that having a group of unaugmented humans would be good as a safety net in case we do something to ourselves that does damage or we wish to be reversed. They could also be good for studying the human mind as it originally was, as well as research into social structures and many other things. They may not have a place in the debates we discussed, but they are certainly welcome. The only thing stopping them from coming is them.

- @TogetherTurtle

I agree that the resources do exist. I was more concerned with who gets the benefit, but you addressed that here (admittedly we do not have a solution, but for me just acknowledging that the resources will NOT be equally distributed, allows for the mitigation of many of the harms that would result). I like your thoughts on the un-augmented. Clever idea to have them around, just in case. I just hope that we can avoid creating an under-class. As long as everyone agrees that the un-augmented are equal in value to the augmented (ie, just because someone is smarter, or stronger, or funnier, of kinder, does not necessarily make them a “better” person. Now if I am trying to accomplish a goal, then I may prefer a smarter or stronger person. But life does not have goals, aside from the ones given to it by humans).

They are much less interested (not at all?) in how all of these lives interact to create things called culture or society. — ZhouBoTong

They are not interested in the how, but they are certainly the what. That was my point. If they didn't exist we wouldn't have a culture to study.

I was just pointing that said people should not be expected to contribute to philosophy, any more than I should be expected to hold up my end of the conversation on celebrity couples. — ZhouBoTong

Perhaps not expected to contribute to something specific, but expected to contribute. It connects to a field of study I have been interested in recently. How do people develop an interest? If we know that, can we make people interested in everything?

(yes a bit of a contradiction in there, if they were interested in humans' need to grow, then couldn't it be said that they had an interest in growing?). — ZhouBoTong

Maybe they are growing interest in growing by studying the human's interest in growing. Complex, but I wouldn't expect less from a god.

Besides watching human progress, I also just want to witness some of the cool galactic events: like watching the sun grow until it encompasses the earth, or when the milky way collides with the Andromeda galaxy, but that is all just for fun. — ZhouBoTong

I like to think of the fun as payment, and the help as work. I would live for both, or at least that's what I think now. Any future version of me is subject to their own development.

I just hope that we can avoid creating an under-class. — ZhouBoTong

I think they would have a strange equivalence to pets. We give them everything they need, and in exchange, we get to watch and study. I don't think they would even need class structure unless they choose to have one. It would be as if New York was lifted off the face of the earth, hooked up with all of the facilities it would need, and then was studied. Whether or not they know what is happening has to do with the experiments we are running and the consent of the subjects. If they wish to ascend, they can do that as well.

(ie, just because someone is smarter, or stronger, or funnier, of kinder, does not necessarily make them a “better” person. Now if I am trying to accomplish a goal, then I may prefer a smarter or stronger person. But life does not have goals, aside from the ones given to it by humans). — ZhouBoTong

I think that in a world where those things aren't able to be implanted via advanced science, it does make them better. However, in a world that does have those things, I imagine everyone who chooses to will have them.

@TogetherTurtle

They are not interested in the how, but they are certainly the what. That was my point. If they didn't exist we wouldn't have a culture to study.

@TogetherTurtle

Haha, yep I somehow missed that entirely. No arguing with that.

How do people develop an interest? If we know that, can we make people interested in everything?

- @TogetherTurtle

Well if we can answer the first question, then we will at least know whether it is possible to create omni-interested humans. Dang, it sure would be cool to be interested in everything (but if it doesn't come with more time, it might just be frustrating, haha).

I like to think of the fun as payment, and the help as work. I would live for both, or at least that's what I think now. Any future version of me is subject to their own development.

- @TogetherTurtle

I like the sound of this. It seems there is a well thought out balance to your life. But just one thing to point out here, if I am truly interested in something then the "work" is fun. But I think your point is, that you are happy to sacrifice a little fun, in order to improve the world (which I suppose could lead to heightened "fun" in the future?).

I think they would have a strange equivalence to pets. We give them everything they need, and in exchange, we get to watch and study. I don't think they would even need class structure unless they choose to have one. It would be as if New York was lifted off the face of the earth, hooked up with all of the facilities it would need, and then was studied. Whether or not they know what is happening has to do with the experiments we are running and the consent of the subjects. If they wish to ascend, they can do that as well.

- @TogetherTurtle

First, I entirely think that you genuinely would do the above with zero consideration that you were "better" than the subjects being studied. However, I do not view that as possible for most people. I think the situation described would precisely create an underclass. In fact, it may describe a situation where some of us have evolved (whether naturally or using technology) into a new species; but it is still interesting to study the lowly homo sapien. Similar to humans studying chimpanzees today (again I don't think Jane Goodall thought she was "better" than the chimps, but it is hard for a third party to not view this as a "superior" group studying an "inferior"). Hmmmmm, I am thinking this is MY problem not yours or Jane Goodall's. Shouldn't I assume you/she/they have the best of intentions rather the worst? Hard to get past appearances of impropriety, but they are just appearances.

I think that in a world where those things aren't able to be implanted via advanced science, it does make them better. However, in a world that does have those things, I imagine everyone who chooses to will have them.

- @TogetherTurtle

Well if I get comfortable enough, I may have to start a thread on this whole "better" thing.

Well, it’s all up to speculation anyway and I think we’ve come to a conclusion on that. I’m interested in the “what makes people better” discussion as well. I’ll look out for it. In the mean time I would say it certainly has to do with context. So I’ll see you then.

Re laws in general, I'm basically a minarchist. I'm a minarchist because I don't believe that anarchy is possible. Under anarchy, someone/some group is going to take control via organized force, and then it's no longer anarchy. — Terrapin Station

When I was younger - and, it seems to me, more naive and less wise - I yearned for anarchy, seeking to avoid controls as though they were prison bars. Now, I think that no (hu)man is an island, and that humans live their lives co-operatively, not in isolation. So now I think that anarchy is not desirable, because it seems to deny the ineluctable social nature of human existence. Words such as "rules" and "laws" seem to describe undesirable shackles on our freedom, but really all we have is our mutual dependence, which I see as not being a Bad Thing. :chin:

Whether you desire anarchy or not, you can't have it anyway, so you may as well settle on something you could have.

The issue with the current hegemony lies in with liberal institutions , whether right leaning or left leaning (it doesn't matter) of social media who dictate what can and/or cannot be said. Since I oppose liberalism in all its forms, restoring free speech would require most of these institutions to sell their assets to a public domain, such a state appartus, to avoid any sort of bias in either side with a mixed delegation of people from many walks of life and across the board in terms of ideology to ensure no "tyranny of a majority" exists. However how this arrangement comes about depends how much faith one has in the general macrocosm of humanity.

Another argument is that more speech, not censorship, is the antidote to “harmful speech”. Censorship not only robs the speaker of his fundamental rights, but it also robs the rest of us the opportunity to see his ideas destroyed, and as a corollary, the opportunity to arm ourselves against them.

In fact the Nazis saw any criticism of their pseudoscience as harmful speech, and thus led one of the most censorial regimes in human history.

Unrestricted freedom of speech can lead to massive manipulation of the population by those who hide behind freedom of speech. As you said, the KKK hid behind hoods, but what happens when they hid behind freedom of speech and you cannot do anything to battle their manipulation of people desperate to find a black sheep for their problems? If you had a method to pinpoint when they are manipulating, when they don't have reasonable or rational opinions and through that be able to pierce their defense of hiding behind free speech, without restricting free speech. Isn't that a powerful weapon against the populism and growing common racism and polarization we see right now?

I don’t think that’s true at all. “Massive manipulation of the population” would be nearly impossible where free speech exists because dissent wouldn’t be suppressed. Though it’s true that Truth will be distorted in a free speech society, it is far worse in a censorial society, which not only distorts the truth but also actively suppresses it.