AP wrote, "I believe Abolitionist was referring to Social Darwinists."

Well perhaps he was lumping them in there but I don't think he made the distinction clear enough.

And the following is directed towards Abolitionist: 

I think my earlier point stands. Recent history is littered with groups who claimed that science supported their political ideologies.

Shutting out opinions one doesn't like by claiming the legitimacy of science is very scary to me. Shutting out dissent, even irrational and nonsensical dissent, is bad.

It's better to debate everything openly and have the patience to let the public stagger and stumble around to the right position. It's frustrating but I really can't think of a better, more stable way.

There are fools on both ends of the spectrum and I disagree with them but, I don't think they should be shut out. Kass may irritate me. Rifkin may irritate me. But I don't think either should be silenced. Let them shoot themselves in the foot in public and let the people see how silly their ideas are. If nothing else will, eventually foolishness, feuding and bloodshed will exhaust us and force us to finally think for a change.  Have some confidence and patience with people. I mean, in the end, what else have we got left?

I think history is on the side of rationalism and science. Just keep improving education and living standards and people will finally have the time to think for themselves. The wisdom will come if we just keep our heads.

"...[T]here is no easy walk to freedom..." Nelson Mandela, September 21st 1953

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.

Why do you maintain that science cannot verify moral or political truths?

Korimyr the Rat:

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.

Opposition through through testing of competing theories using the scientific process can be useful - an opposition based on rigid 'unquestionable' truths is just an opposition.

Korimyr the Rat:

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.

Do you desire to desire or do you desire to be happy Korimyr?
 

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.

Does competition make us the best we can be? Ultimately it is counterproductive to global happiness. It is a crude mechanism for learning that we can eventually eliminate.

Mr. Farlops:

Have some confidence and patience with people. I mean, in the end, what else have we got left?

I think history is on the side of rationalism and science. Just keep improving education and living standards and people will finally have the time to think for themselves. The wisdom will come if we just keep our heads.

Am I saying that people should be shut out? I'm saying that we need rational processes to filter our political options. Many groups claim scientific support for their ideas - let their theories be tested.

I too have faith that the scientific process will yield the correct view over time - but I also expect humans to act as they are designed to act...

AggressiveProgressive:

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.

I was referring to human beings - labelling them as Darwinians as they were not created intentionally through genetic engineering/screening.

Abolitionist:

I'm saying that we need rational processes to filter our political options. Many groups claim scientific support for their ideas - let their theories be tested.

I too have faith that the scientific process will yield the correct view over time...

Abolitionist:

...but I also expect humans to act as they are designed to act

Abolitionist:

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.

I am saying that we should base policy on the decision of the whole of society which reflects everyone's individual opinions.  This is what free societies do. 

Abolitionist:

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...

True.  You cannot deny people's opinions simply because they are based on something which is unprovable though. 

Abolitionist:

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?

Not much.  Just the basis of your argument: 

Abolitionist:

I'm saying that we need rational processes to filter our political options.

Abolitionist:

How will you determine if what you think is correct?

Hopefully, I won't.  I would like to never see it happen in my life time. 

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.

Abolitionist:

Why do you maintain that science cannot verify moral or political truths?

Very simple principle of moral philosophy-- no "is" implies an "ought". Science can only inform us about what is... while morality and politics are primarily concerned with what ought to be.

Korimyr the Rat:

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:

Opposition through thorough testing of competing theories using the scientific process can be useful - an opposition based on rigid 'unquestionable' truths is just an opposition.

 And when we are discussing matters in which science has no answers for us, how do we "test" our ideas then? We are left with only two methods... the open forum and the closed fist. And while the world is full of people who readily proclaim the moral superiority of the open forum, human history shows us that the closed fist prevails far more often.

Korimyr the Rat:

Humans inherently desire, and it is the fulfillment of desire that creates happiness--

Abolitionist:

Do you desire to desire or do you desire to be happy Korimyr?

 I desire because I desire. There's really nothing more to it than that.

Abolitionist:

Does competition make us the best we can be?

Yes. 

Abolitionist:

Ultimately it is counterproductive to global happiness.

Then to Hell with "global happiness". Once again, we're back to rows and rows of "people" tuned out of reality, pushing their own bliss buttons.

 That is not my vision of a better, brighter future; the fact that it's anyone's saddens me more than a little.

Mr. Farlops:

Abolitionist:

I'm saying that we need rational processes to filter our political options. Many groups claim scientific support for their ideas - let their theories be tested.

I too have faith that the scientific process will yield the correct view over time...

If that's all you're saying, I agree.

Abolitionist:

...but I also expect humans to act as they are designed to act

Humans aren't designed. Humans are machines that result from emergent processes.

Yes, rather than designed by Darwinian processes it's more accurate to say that we emerged as the former might imply a designer to some. Perhaps just 'we are the result of Darwinian processes' is least speculative.

ideal:

I am saying that we should base policy on the decision of the whole of society which reflects everyone's individual opinions.  This is what free societies do.

To some extent, though all societies have filters that policies must pass through to ensure that they are the best effort rather than just based on majority opinion that has no proven basis.

We don't necessarily want what is simply chosen by the most heads in a society. We need scientific filters for opinion - history has proven this. There has not yet been a true elective democracy - policies are still decided by groups of experts. What I'm advocating is increased rigor.

I believe our filters currently lack rigor because the separation of church and state has been violated.

Korimyr the Rat:

Very simple principle of moral philosophy-- no "is" implies an "ought". Science can only inform us about what is... while morality and politics are primarily concerned with what ought to be.

Thank you for bringing this up. We have discovered that neuroscience has provided evidence for and against our moral and ethical theories. We can say that science has validated the theory that humans are motivated to maximize their subjective happiness and minimize their subjective pain.

Korimyr the Rat:

When we are discussing matters in which science has no answers for us, how do we "test" our ideas then? We are left with only two methods... the open forum and the closed fist. And while the world is full of people who readily proclaim the moral superiority of the open forum, human history shows us that the closed fist prevails far more often.

Why only those two options in your view? We can also determine likelihoods, examine the weight of evidence, probabilities, statistics, etc. There is a point in all arguments - if the rationale is clearly delineated - where critical distinctions can be made and theories can be put to the test.

Hinderance occurs when people become resistant to the process of delineation and just start saying : well that's how I feel or that's what's got me through life so far...

This is due to Darwinian design that humans are reluctant to examine their theories - theories take on a physical form in the brain and many have untested reasons for being unwilling to examine their theories.

Abolitionist:

Yes, rather than designed by Darwinian processes it's more accurate to say that we emerged as the former might imply a designer to some. Perhaps just 'we are the result of Darwinian processes' is least speculative.

Technology gives us the ability to design ourselves. There can be evolution in design but it is a guided process. We change our tools and machines to reach some goal. This is one of the reasons why cultural evolution can be faster than biological evolution. Cultural evolution has goals and is guided. Biological and chemical evolution, on the other hand, is unguided and is goaless. It's just blind variational and selectional processes.

It took a few million of years for biological and chemical forces to arrive at a machine as complex as a eukarotic cell. Our engineering, on the other hand, rivaled that complexity in less than 500 years.

Anyway, just so long as we all got that distinction clear. It irritates me no end when otherwise well meaning people misinterpret Darwin.

Abolitionist:

We can say that science has validated the theory that humans are motivated to maximize their subjective happiness and minimize their subjective pain.

 Yes, we can. Science has told us that this is most probably true.

 What it does not and can not tell us, and what you are asserting, is that because we are motivated to seek maximum happiness, we should have it-- more specifically, that it should be given to us through the use of technology.

 I disagree, because I believe that unhappiness and pain serve valid purposes as well, and it is the struggle to acheive happiness that is morally important, and not happiness itself.

Korimyr the Rat:

When we are discussing matters in which science has no answers for us, how do we "test" our ideas then? We are left with only two methods... the open forum and the closed fist.

Abolitionist:

Why only those two options in your view? We can also determine likelihoods, examine the weight of evidence, probabilities, statistics, etc. There is a point in all arguments - if the rationale is clearly delineated - where critical distinctions can be made and theories can be put to the test.

 Because only those two options exist. You mention likelihoods, probabilities, and statistics... but these are not methods. They are only the means by which we argue our case in the open forum, or the justification we use in applying the closed fist.

You can "prove" anything you like, but proof has no power unless it is accepted by your opponents. Even in science, there is no real "proof"-- there is only persuasion.

Korimyr the Rat:

I believe that unhappiness and pain serve valid purposes as well, and it is the struggle to acheive happiness that is morally important, and not happiness itself.

What purposes does pain serve that could not be replaced with an informational system devoid of suffering?

Korimyr the Rat:

You mention likelihoods, probabilities, and statistics... but these are not methods. They are only the means by which we argue our case in the open forum, or the justification we use in applying the closed fist.

You can "prove" anything you like, but proof has no power unless it is accepted by your opponents. Even in science, there is no real "proof"-- there is only persuasion.

This brings us to the core of the debate between science and religion - what constitutes evidence.

Science maintains that evidence must be observable while religion states that evidence does not have to be observable - that we must use faith in a doctrine or theory to suppress our tendency to question in order to be happy - which we know does not work.

I think we need to shift power to authorities that use the scientific standard of verification rather than those that rely on unverified doctrines to provide truth.

So I agree there is a real battle in the here and now between faith and reason. Yet I don't think that persuasion will be required when we achieve consensus about what constitutes evidence;

I think most disagreements stem from vested interests - therefore we need to make a distinction between making political compromises and determining the truth regarding a specific question. Rational filters can be developed to help susceptible humans avoid assumptions stemming from vested interests.

Moved.