further, it doesn’t actually seem all that trivial to “solve” “known ignorance” if you look at the world, people disagree on what ignorance even *is*
-
-
Replying to @averykimball
Yes, but the fact that 98% of human beings are insane doesn't change the fact that 2% are broadly correct and in agreement.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
the two percent that think their are *finally* correct, are insane
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball @Alephwyr
thinking mind-uploading is a silver bullet for *fundamental* human problems is not a position i would relish to defend
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
Not by itself obviously. But it would make everything necessary to resolve the fundamental human problems (IE, the excising of the tumor of human nature) much much easier. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alephwyr
human nature is the source of all meaning in the universe excising it, to better conform to your conception of good, is paradoxically nihilistic and authoritarian you are a person, these fundamental problems are intrinsic to people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
This is not tightly reasoned. First assertion wrong, second assertion pointless (almost everything is "nihilistic" from some vantage point, authorianism is a bullet I'm willing to bite in this context), last assertion depends on a circular definition of personhood.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
-
Replying to @averykimball
1. Everyone accuses anything reductionist of being nihilistic. But reductionism is a matter of degrees. Believing in one less "thing" than someone else doesn't make you a full blown nihilist any more than believing in one less god than someone else makes you an atheist.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Alephwyr @averykimball
2. Human nature contains whatever the source of meaning is but not everything in human nature is necessary to whatever the source of meaning is
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
3. These problems are innate to humans, not people. There are potentially infinite variations of persons that are non-human and some of these don't have these intrinsic problems.
-
-
Replying to @Alephwyr
oh, so some people will be infallible? they will never disagree with each other? are you sure you're not mistaking "people" for a "person"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @averykimball
There are subjective and objective domains and they are seperate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.