Hello C

I found your essay interesting but would like to add one extremely important addition to your abstract's final sentence (and something that needs to be expanded into the text). Your final sentence stating that "freedom has to be protected by access to information, education, transparency and critical thinking" is correct, I believe, but freedom will only be maintained if "accountability" is assured and rapidly addressed. Basic human behavior is genetically constrained and has not changed in millennia and most people not held accountable for their behaviors will attempt to get all they want by what ever means they cam.

Cheers,

Don Barker

    Hello Mike,

    Sure, sincere criticism is always welcome. I look forward to read your essay and comment on its page.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Hello Don,

    "freedom will only be maintained if "accountability" is assured and rapidly addressed. Basic human behavior is genetically constrained and has not changed in millennia and most people not held accountable for their behaviors will attempt to get all they want by what ever means they cam."

    Yes, you are right that the temptation to abuse freedom to break others' freedom exists and should be prevented. Holding people accountable for their behaviors is a tool that is and should be better used to maintain freedom. On the other hand, we already established that people tend to abuse their power, and this applies also to those who are in charge with the law. People are punished for any kinds of reasons, and currently this is used more as a tool against freedom, rather than for freedom. Who will guard the guardians? An open society seems to me a good starting point, and I defended this in the text. Thank you for emphasizing the complementary aspect and giving me the opportunity to detail.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Thanks Cristi,

    A. I see you as a faithful apologist for contemporary ideals. Your essay contains a contradiction that isn't so much a fault in your own thinking, as a fault in the society you speak for. The section titled "Undefining the man" (p. 1) immediately contradicts itself by defining him. It affirms a utopian ideology of individual freedom that simultaneously confesses to be intolerant of competitors. It will not tolerate ideologies that affirm an "idealization of man, a simplified model", yet itself affirms just that. "One should always let humans be what they want" is the rule, yet this rule is immediately broken by rejecting other definitions of humanity, or more complex definitions, for fear they'll undermine freedom and lead to violence. Even your harmless looking axiom 1 ("The most important things in the world are life, consciousness, happiness") is quickly rejected because "assumptions about what people need most" lead to "building a dystopian, repressive world", or even "horrific oppression measures including genocides" (p. 6).

    Again, I don't think you introduce these inconsistencies yourself. I think they originate in modern society and you faithfully reveal them. To be completely faithful to that society, you must now ignore my critique.

    B. "Perhaps there should be a subjective science", you suggest, to "study that interior activity that can't be verified by outside observers." (p. 4) I'm not an expert here, but I read that the subjective world is grasped by our "aesthetic-practical" and "moral-practical" complexes of rationality (Habermas, Reason and the rationalization of society, p. 238). More specifically it's grasped by a combination of eroticism and morality. As you foresaw, there's a big X to exclude any objective peeping Toms.

    Mike

    Hi Chidi,

    Thank you for reading my essay and for your comment. I look forward to read your essay.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Dear Michael,

    Thank you for the comments, which reveal how you see my essay. I see it differently, but you are free to understand it as you want.

    A. For example, you say "The section titled "Undefining the man" (p. 1) immediately contradicts itself by defining him." I don't think I defined man, you are just playing with the words. If you found a definition I gave to man, you probably could quote it here. Next, you take other affirmations which I made, and try to turn themselves against themselves, by applying the same recipe. I disagree with you. If I reject any definition, doesn't mean I give a definition. If I reject a simplified model, it doesn't mean this itself is a simplified model. If you find a contradiction, it would be helpful if you state it exactly, not just claim that there is a contradiction because I reject a definition or a model. You say that I propose a "utopian ideology" which 'will not tolerate ideologies that affirm an "idealization of man, a simplified model"'. If you read more in my essay, you will find that by freedom I also understand that people should be free to associate and organize how they want, so long as they don't force others to do the same. So I don't understand where you see the intolerance. Sorry, but I think this kind of criticism you are using can work against anything and proves nothing. Whatever criticism someone makes, you can say "but your criticism itself is guilty of the same problem as the thing you are criticizing". While this may happen sometimes, it would be good to also bring some evidence that this is so for each particular case. You close this part by absolving me of these "contradictions" you identified in my thinking, by basically saying that I borrowed them from contemporary ideals and are not original anyway. While I don't consider myself a great and exceptionally original thinker in social issues, I consider that in this essay I distilled much of my life experience with various kinds of people and groups, and not just repeating stuff others say. I think that contemporary society is far from what I describe I wish it to be, so I don't see where is the apology you say I make for contemporary ideals. I see you are a frank person, who offers criticism with the best intentions, so I hope you will appreciate the well intended criticism I made to your criticism.

    B. Thanks for the reference. While I had something else in mind by "subjective science", I think this reference can be helpful.

    Thanks again for the comments and well intended criticism.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    You're welcome Cristi, thanks in return for answering. I reply to clarify my critique of inconsistency. And I suggest how to correct it (if you agree) in order to make my meaning clearer.

    A. You reiterate that "people should be free to associate and organize how they want, so long as they don't force others to do the same." I agree with this. Still (to explain my critique) what you're affirming here is an ideal. You claim that humanity ought to be thus, and therewith present a utopian vision of man. This is good.

    But then you simultaneously warn against utopian visions and "idealization of man" in general for fear they might undermine this paramount ideal of freedom. Here is the contradiction. With this, freedom is ground and baked unleavened into a "simplified model" of humanity, an ideology that is jealous and fearful of rivals and through that fear itself a limitation on freedom. It might easily escalate into violence against those who disagree with it, for example. The ideal is here contradicted.

    You reply to Rick Searle's defense of utopianism (May 2), "Would it be too strong the claim that at the root of any large scale act of repression or violence, there is the idea of the aggressors that the things ought to be in a certain ideal way, and the victims are to be blamed if the things are not like this or if they seem to endanger their ideal?"

    Yes, that's too broad. The Vikings who terrorized the dark ages were motivated not by ideal but material interests. So were the slave traders who descended on Africa (I agree with Rick). Your warning against ideals is too general.

    More to the point, logical consistency demands that one drop any such generalized warning against utopian visions, goals, definitions and other ideals of humanity when promoting just that, especially when promoting the ideal of freedom. Other ideals (even full-blown ideologies) aren't necessarily corrosive of freedom; indeed, they might even be essential to it. Freedom might have a larger purpose, a reason for being. We wouldn't want to discourage the search for that, and it would tempt tragedy to do so in the name of freedom itself.

    (It would also discredit my own thesis, which you don't otherwise object to.) - Mike

    Hi Mike,

    First of all, while I warn people about utopies and ideologies, I never claimed one should fight against them. I just warn people to allow others to be free, and to use their own critical thinking when others try to sell them one ideology or another. But you claim that I propose "an ideology that is jealous and fearful of rivals". I didn't do this. How is it possible, when I say one should leave others to choose their path, to understand that I say one should forbid all other paths? I am not native English speaker, and perhaps my way of speaking is difficult for other people, but I use simple words, and I don't think there is any room to interpret any of my words as encouraging violence or intolerance, as you claim. While I am writing this, I am amazed and very amused by your interpretation. On the other hand, I am worried, because perhaps you are right, someone may interpret my words as encouraging intolerance. After all, you do this :)

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Many thanks, Cristi, for your crisp observation at my end. It helps the lonely wanderer to find he still could be located somewhere on the map.

    Wishing you the best,

    Chidi

    Hello Cristinel

    Your philosophical essay would benefit by considering utilitarianism. (The greatest good for the greatest number.) You would also be a good person to consider the limits of utilitarianism.

    You see humanity as the measure of all things, perhaps even if replicated. If humans are good, aren 't more better? (Until we hit limits. ) Consider two poles of future projections: existential risk, and singularity. Actualization of existential risk (i.e. extinction of humanity) reduces utility to zero. Some singularities do not increase human numbers, but some versions increase them immensely. For example, Lewis [1] estimates that there is enough material in the asteroid belt to build habitats for 10,000,000,000,000,000 people. (10,000 x 1 trillion) - - probably an overestimate. If we assume that every human life has its share of good, that is a lot of utility. Meltzer et al [2] shows a possible method for construction of these habitats. Armstrong and Sandberg [3] show a possible method for settling, not only the asteroid belt or even the galaxy, but thousands of galaxies.

    These all are forms of singularity and require exponential growth. Exponential growth sometimes hits limits. Nevertheless, even if we assign these a fairly low probability, they still have a humongous expected value (probability times value) specifically in terms of human lives. That suggests that they are worth at least some attempt to make them happen.

    However, how much attempt? It seems wrong to put all of our eggs in the basket of settlement of the universe so that there is nothing left if that doesn 't work, even if the expected utility for that branch calculates as greater. What do you think? How should we configure our portfolio of investments in our future? This is the next step in my thoughts, so I could use help.

    I deliberately stop with Armstrong in my essay, to avoid the issue of whether artificial humans should count in utilitarian calculations. Anderberg's essay in this contest [4] does not hesitate to go there, so his utilitarian calculations are potentially higher than mine. I like his cute formula, integrating utility to result in a smiley face.

    [1] John Lewis, Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets, Perseus Publishing, 1997, pg. 194.

    [2] Philip Metzer et al, "Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of Space Industry and Solar System Civilization," Journal of Aerospace Engineering, April 2012.

    [3] Stuart Armstrong & Anders Sandberg, "Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox," Acta Astronautica, Aug-Sept 2013.

    [4] Tommy Anderberg, A Future Brighter than 100 Trillion Suns, FQXi essay contest.

      Dear Cristinel (Christian?)

      I have just read your essay, and my initial suspicion that we had a lot in common (not only similar names) was confirmed. Yours is in my opinion one of the best essays in this contest.

      The reasons I find this are: (1) the essay is well-written and adds value and material for thought; (2) the fundamental points are clear and highly relevant: the connection of freedom with education through critical thought (and why this is by far much more relevant than steering-- specially when imposed ideologies come to mind); and the notion that consciousness probably transcends our current reductionistic views, needing therefore some other methodology or way of thinking in order to address it more properly.

      Indeed, as much as I use the scientific method in my daily work and highly appreciate how far we were able to understand the universe through it (and how far we can still reach), it is not at all obvious to me that everything can ultimately be intelligible through that single method. It has been proven powerful, but it might be not "enough". Also, it is not clear that the universe is indeed made of simple constituents to begin with. The reductionist worldview might be an artifact of how our current brains process information, or just an assumption that seem to work for the moment.

      When it comes to life, and consciousness in particular, reductionism does not seem satisfactory to me, that is, to draw a one to one correspondence between the "I"--- as this "mystery that I feel" ("I think therefore I am") in one side --- and an "illusion" produced by a set of neurons by the other side. Evidently, the understanding of how set of neurons produce all they seem to do inside our brains and bodies, as shown up to this point through the scientific method, does give me a huge sense of awe and fascination, but it clearly does not saturate all possible explanations: they are but a fine description of what is "going on", but the "why" is completely missed.

      I have rated your essay highly and wish you good luck.

      Regards,

      Christine

        I've trouble getting my meaning across, Cristi. I agree you shouldn't be "amused" by the possibility that you might be wrong, but instead take it seriously. I speak plainly:

        Your essay has two inconsistencies. First, you claim that utopian ideologies are bad. (Okay, let's assume that.) Then you offer a utopian ideology. (Whoops, that's now a bad thing.) So there's the first inconsistency. You see?

        Second, you offer an ideology based on freedom while simultaneously warning the reader that other ideologies (never yours!) are behind every "large scale act of repression or violence" and lead to "horrific oppression measures including genocides". Wow, that's a frightening message! And frightened people become angry, and angry people do terrible things to the people they fear. By stoking fear, you incite violence. But violence and freedom are incompatible, right? So there's the second inconsistency. *

        I repeat my recommendation on how to correct both inconsistencies. Simply drop the claim that utopian ideologies etc. are generally bad, generally to be feared.

        Mike

        * Please don't offer the claim that angst-ridden, freedom-loving people are gentle and peaceful, as I'd cite horrific examples to the contrary.

        I agree with Rick, Cristi, your claim is too strong. The slave traders who descended on Africa didn't think, "[Our] victims are to be blamed". Nor were their actions motivated by ideals. They were motivated by greed, plain and simple.

        Likewise for the Vikings who terrorized the dark ages. They weren't chasing ideals, but material interests. - Mike

        Dear Christine,

        Thank you for reading and commenting my essay. Your comments show that we have a lot in common, so I will read your essay soon and comment. My first name is indeed Cristinel, although "Cristian" is more common in Romania too. The feminine version is "Cristina". Good luck in the contest!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Mike, if you read my reply, you can see that I agreed with him before you did :)

        Mike, this is a loop. You just repeat your claims, and bring no argument, or counterargument to my reply, in which I already explained this. So I will just link back to my reply. You are free to refine your viewpoint and bring more arguments, but if you expect that if you repeat them, I will change my mind, this will not gonna happen. I will change my mind in light of good arguments, as I did in the discussion with Rick Searle (which you mention here). I don't know why, you insist to interpret my words differently that I wrote and meant, despite my attempts to clarify them. Also you try to present a discussion I had with Rick Searle in a totally different light. I don't understand why.

        Hello James,

        Thank you for the interesting comments. Your arguments for utilitarianism make me eager to read your essay. I also find interesting your comments about having more humans. Thank you and good luck in the contest!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        7 days later