Saturday, February 18, 2017

Commenting on cyborg_nomade's 'naturalism, ethics and politics' post


Over at Antinomia Imediata, cyborg_nomade says;
" '1) the preemptive rejection of the strong naturalist intention (study ethics and politics solely in view of empirical evidence) does not offer any good reason why it should be so.'
'1.1) one good reason I would see is that, while we can understand evolutionary impacts of certain kinds of political and ethical arrangements (and under which conditions they come into being), effectively testing them would demand another framework – one such as federalism or the archipelago.'
'1.2) the reason “it assumes that empirical knowledge is superior to ethical and political knowledge” is weak. the naturalist method has produced demonstrable results for over 4 centuries now, incarnated in the technological world all around us. ethics and politics have produced nothing of the kind. if that’s not an evidence against the method used in ethics and politics so far (an introspective method, based at best on logic and at worst on suspicious “a priori” definitions).' 
'thus it’s not that empirical knowledge is superior to ethics and politics, but that the empirical method works better than the introspective method used in ethics and politics.'
'2) the attempt to evade the facts of empirical knowledge (for whatever reason) does not make certain political or ethical theories any better adapted to empirical reality. their flaws and their course when realistically applied can be empirically predicted. refusing to listen and pay careful attention to what naturalist empirical knowledge has to say is undertaken at the critic’s own risk. reality rules.'
'3) there’s an universal impartial judge, and it’s called reality. reality shows itself through survival. irrealism will lead to death, necessarily. those that survive the most, have the most truth in their beliefs and practices. those that die, don’t.'
'3.1) sure, the contest may last a long while. and to this extent, two different and even contradictory sets of beliefs may be held as truth, at the same time. in such a point in time, both must be held as truth indeed. when one dies, then the other must be recognized as the truth that prevailed.'
'3.2) once again, choose to ignore reality at your own peril.'
3.3) theories, of course, evolve. hopefully, learning from deaths around itself. if a theory that leads to longer survival is abandoned, for whatever reason, the whole of the institutions and societies that embed and accept them will eventually die, especially when in competition from societies that haven’t committed the same mistakes (and will themselves learn quite a bit about how not to run institutions and societies).'
'4) for normativity, see “The Blind Mechanic II”'
'5) Only naturalist methodology is “legitimate” because only it works as a good proxy for real consequences, and thus ensures realism. all other methods are greatly liable to delusion and willful blindness.'
Quoted here in full.

I am glad that someone else agrees with me. I have been saying for some time now, but usually only implied, that the only competent judge of man is Gnon.

Usually reaction implies that because nature and nature's god agree with tradition that tradition is the limit of human morality, and that there is nothing beyond that. For example: the fact that patriarchy always wins is taken as proof that it is correct, and not as an indication that the human race should use transhumanism to engineer a species that can survive and breed without it. Religious people and male dominated households have more children than secular/atheist/feminist ones. HRx and CRx types then feel justified in asserting that Gnon has spoken in favor of the traditional and religious framework of living. And it has — for now.

But all of Gnon's rules are just algorithms and math can be gamed.

One last note. I would add that reality is the beginning of morality: meaning; that which destroys itself is automatically evil but that which survives is not automatically virtuous. Survival is the beginning of morality, but not the end.

Eventually this leads to a recursive behavior. One species uses its conceptions of morality to design another, potential successor species. That species then uses its moral code to design the next, and so on, and so on. The moral codes of each arise out of their own genetics. The moral codes of each then design the genetics of the next. So in essence each genetic code is producing the next. The process occurs recursive until it reaches a dead end. However, there are multiple species that are engineered. So ALL species never reach dead ends. The result is a family tree of human species designing each next species. Most of these lines die off but the process itself is eternal and rapid evolution of intelligence occurs within the biological substrate. Future successful moralit(ies) bear only tangential resemblance to past traditions.




No comments:

Post a Comment