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

    Dear Wilhelmus,

    Thank you for the comment, and I agree the discussions can continue. Thanks for the link to your essay, I will comment.

    Best regards and good luck,

    Cristi

    22 days later

    Hello Cristi,

    I posted an article giving some publicity to your piece:

    http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20140705

    Congrats on being a finalist!

    Rick Searle

      Hi Rick,

      I enjoyed very much reading your article on the website of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and I thank you for also mentioning my essay, among some excellent essays you presented. I am happy your excellent essay is a finalist!

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Write a Reply...