Korimyr the Rat:

Their beliefs are no less valid than yours. You keep mentioning "verified" knowledge... but you're talking about verifying knowledge according to the standards, and using the methods, that you accept.

Humans have differing standards as to what constitutes evidence - the standard of verification that can become the basis for consensus is the scientific standard - evidence must be verifiable and demonstrable.

I think that Transhumanism should promote the scientific method of verification - is there an alternative?

Korimyr the Rat:

 Clearly to you, perhaps. Your moral values-- the ones you base your notions of law upon-- were derived from subjective opinion, as well. After all... what's wrong with suffering? Why should humans be happy? Why should government attempt to be "rational" at all?

Humans inherently desire maximum happiness. let's debate this.

Korimyr the Rat:

why would we want to create a society that all of us can live in? I can think of several people and groups of people that society would be better off without.

Because we might be considered expendable in someone else's eyes.

ideal:

Abolitionist, apparently you and I want to live in two seperate worlds. 

A society where all law is based on verified scientific fact and objective betterment in its strictest form wouldn't leave many options.  I envision a society where I wake up in the morning, eat dietary supplement number one in the mandated portion for my height and body weight, and ride the government operated ecologically sound transportation system to work.  Half way through the work day, I eat dietary supplement number two in the mandated portions for my height and body weight, then, at the end of the work day, I ride the government operated ecologically sound transportation system to the community leisure center.  At some point while at the leisure center(but only once), I'll eat dietary supplement number three in the mandated portion for my height and body weight, and at the end of the leisure period, I'll take the government operated ecologically sound transportation system to my residence where I'll promptly report to bed.

This may sound pretty extreme, but it's the logical conclusion of what you're promoting.  I like the fact that I can wake up at three in the morning, hop in my beat up 86 cutlass, go to the nearest diner, have chili cheese fries and a coke, go home, turn on HBO and fall back asleep on the couch. 

I much prefer a world wherein societies laws are based on public opinion rather than science.  Remember that public opinion is skewed by people's religious views.

Abolitionist:

why not? people are suffering - thus the system needs improving

To repeat myself, you believe all systems, in this specific case the government and the legal system, can be made perfect so there will no suffering caused by them. I believe such perfection is impossible. Note that I did not say the systems can't be improved.

I just think your posposal for improvement, shutting out all access to the political system for people or legislation whose ideology you disagree with, won't work. I think your proposal will have bad more bad consequences than good.

Abolitionist:

Sure, Darwinians are stupid and selfish by design and will corrupt anything for their own ends including the scientific [process of verification].

Are you seriously proposing that anyone who believes that Darwin's theory of evolution is accurate--nearly all biologists--is stupid? If so, this is a perfect example of what I mean by the misinterpretation of scientific truth. You have a flawed understanding of Darwin's theories, which are part of our current body of scientific knowledge, therefore, by your own proposal, you ought to be shut out from the political system.

Abolitionist:

Computers do a much better job of testing theories and verifying information without distortion.

Computers currently have no consciousness or capacity to judge complex moral and social questions. On these matters they are less capable than we are. And even if they were, even if they were more competent than we are, they'd never be  totally perfect. Superhuman intelligence does not imply infallibility.

Mr. Farlops:

I just think your posposal for improvement, shutting out all access to the political system for people or legislation whose ideology you disagree with, won't work. I think your proposal will have bad more bad consequences than good

Are you seriously proposing that anyone who believes that Darwin's theory of evolution is accurate--nearly all biologists--is stupid? If so, this is a perfect example of what I mean by the misinterpretation of scientific truth. You have a flawed understanding of Darwin's theories, which are part of our current body of scientific knowledge, therefore, by your own proposal, you ought to be shut out from the political system.

Computers currently have no consciousness or capacity to judge complex moral and social questions. On these matters they are less capable than we are. And even if they were, even if they were more competent than we are, they'd never be  totally perfect. Superhuman intelligence does not imply infallibility.

 Does separating suffering from life require perfection?

I don't remember any comments about Darwin's theories by me - what are you referring to here?

Consensus can be found by using the best available knowledge at any given time.

It's only rigid ideologies and Darwinian motivational factors that detract from consensus regarding a specific question.

We can potentially give computers the ability to evaluate any specific aspect of morality.

Abolitionist:

Science would be too boring? You'd rather go on Darwinian instincts?

I'd rather go on public opinion, which is shaped by science, religion, instinct, and everything else that affects the public.  It allows for the most free society(barring 'tyranny of the majority'). 

That scenario you describe above - how did you determine this would result in a society whose laws are based upon verified scientific fact rather than opinions?

The scenario is just my envisioned extreme of a society which based everything solely upon verified scientific fact and objective betterment.  It's not what I think would actually happen(I've simply watched Equilibrium too many times), but I do think it would provide us with a drab existence putting forth few options.  Most enjoyable things are not objectively good(in my experience). 

Abolitionist:

Does separating suffering from life require perfection?

Of course not. But if you wish for a complete and utterly flawless separation between life and suffering then yes, perfection is required.

This takes me to one of the central principles of my thinking and opinion: There are just some things that never get settled.

Mr. Farlops:

Abolitionist:

Does separating suffering from life require perfection?

Of course not. But if you wish for a complete and utterly flawless separation between life and suffering then yes, perfection is required.

Suffering will simply cease to exist when the two are separated. We won't need to keep any perfect barrier between the two.

ideal:

I'd rather go on public opinion, which is shaped by science, religion, instinct, and everything else that affects the public.  It allows for the most free society (barring 'tyranny of the majority').

The freedom to be irrational is ok when it applies to one's beliefs about reality. But we cannot accept an opinion or base policy on this opinion simply because it exists - it must be supported by evidence.

There is a split between faith/dogma and the process of verification. Faith and dogma are proclaimed to be beyond verification - inherently true and yet still untestable using whatever methods are available...

ideal:

a society which bases everything solely upon verified scientific fact and objective betterment would provide us with a drab existence putting forth few options.  Most enjoyable things are not objectively good (in my experience).

Would it? what rationale do you have for this position?

How will you determine if what you think is correct?

"Suffering will simply cease to exist when the two are separated. We won't need to keep any perfect barrier between the two."

How long can this separation be maintained? Will it work in all cases? I never said it won't work. I just said it won't work all the time and in all cases. Let's not turn this into the argument clinic, Ab. You know what I mean and, you're trying to evade my point.  

Abolitionist:

I think that Transhumanism should promote the scientific method of verification - is there an alternative?

I think Transhumanism should promote the scientific method of verifying objective physical facts-- and not make the error of believing that science can verify moral or political truths.  We must allow those who oppose us to exist, and we must leave them some room to oppose us-- because it is the opposition that proves the value of our beliefs and it is the opposition that forces us to be fit.

Abolitionist:

Humans inherently desire maximum happiness. let's debate this.

 Let's not debate it; it's a mere tautology. Humans inherently desire, and it is the fulfillment of desire that creates happiness-- but only temporarily. People who only want "to be happy" are typically people with no clue what they really want-- which is why they are doomed to never acheive happiness.
 

Korimyr the Rat:

why would we want to create a society that all of us can live in? I can think of several people and groups of people that society would be better off without.

Abolitionist:

Because we might be considered expendable in someone else's eyes.

Yes. And?

That struggle is part of the point. It is the drive to prove ourselves worthy and the drive to be vindicated before one's enemies, that force us to be the very best people we're capable of being-- that force us to continually improve and evolve, even before we consider genetic evolution.

Mr Farlops wrote, "Are you seriously proposing that anyone who believes that Darwin's theory of evolution is accurate--nearly all biologists--is stupid? If so, this is a perfect example of what I mean by the misinterpretation of scientific truth. You have a flawed understanding of Darwin's theories, which are part of our current body of scientific knowledge, therefore, by your own proposal, you ought to be shut out from the political system."

I believe Abolitionist was referring to Social Darwinists.

AggressiveProgressive:

I believe Abolitionist was referring to Social Darwinists.

He seems to mix those up.

Mr. Farlops:

"Suffering will simply cease to exist when the two are separated. We won't need to keep any perfect barrier between the two."

How long can this separation be maintained? Will it work in all cases? I never said it won't work. I just said it won't work all the time and in all cases. Let's not turn this into the argument clinic, Ab. You know what I mean and, you're trying to evade my point.

It's easy to assume that others know what we mean.

I'm saying there won't be a separation, suffering would just cease to exist. There is a theory that suffering is an inherent emergent property of the universe - but this has not been proven.

Korimyr the Rat:

I think Transhumanism should promote the scientific method of verifying objective physical facts-- and not make the error of believing that science can verify moral or political truths.  We must allow those who oppose us to exist, and we must leave them some room to oppose us-- because it is the opposition that proves the value of our beliefs and it is the opposition that forces us to be fit.

I think there must be a distinction between the process of determining the truth regarding a specific question and the process of making compromises for the sake of the greater good.

Abolitionist:

I think there must be a distinction between the process of determining the truth regarding a specific question and the process of making compromises for the sake of the greater good.

I agree. The problem is, in moral and political issues, there is no "truth" to be discovered, scientifically or otherwise.