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
@TogetherTurtleWhile 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.
@TogetherTurtleIt 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
@TogetherTurtleSo, I have a bit of an opportunity to talk about my crazy sci-fi ideas it seems
@TogetherTurtleI do think this is funny, but perhaps we were both wrong.
@TogetherTurtleMaybe we can relate to them more if we change ourselves to enjoy their interests as well.
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
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
and given that they use the information they learned on a regular basis." — ZhouBoTong
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
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
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
- @TogetherTurtleIndividualism 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.
- @TogetherTurtleEssentially, 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.
- @TogetherTurtleI 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.
- @TogetherTurtleAs 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?
- @TogetherTurtleI 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.
- @TogetherTurtleThis 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?
- @TogetherTurtleAs 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.
- @TogetherTurtleAs 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.
They are much less interested (not at all?) in how all of these lives interact to create things called culture or society. — ZhouBoTong
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
(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
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 just hope that we can avoid creating an under-class. — ZhouBoTong
(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
@TogetherTurtleThey 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.
- @TogetherTurtleHow do people develop an interest? If we know that, can we make people interested in everything?
- @TogetherTurtleI 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.
- @TogetherTurtleI 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.
- @TogetherTurtleI 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.
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
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?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.