I agree that we appear to be arguing at cross purposes here, so this will be my last post on this thread.

But a paedophile is doing something immediately evil: rape. This action has an actual effect (as opposed to futurist say "hmm, I believe that this will happen and I want it to").

Part of the whole problem we have been having centers around semantics and implied meaning. You appear to have a very physical interpretation of "evil", for example. If a monster looks at a child and thinks "hmm, I believe that I could molest this child, and I want to", is he not contemplating evil? What if he merely advocates performing evil acts, rather than committing them himself?

Please note that I do not necessarily believe that Singulatarianism , transhumanism, extropianism or any other -ism discussed in this forum is inherently evil. Misguided, yes. Simplistic, naive and headed for a rude awakening, yes. The possibility for evil arising from such philosophies is ever-present, but the philosophies themselves are, in my opinion, merely mistaken.

The Shock Levels seperate ideas based on their logical progression

Logical according to who? The list you quote lumps acceptance of medical immortality in with interplanetary exploration, and nanotechnology in with uploading. This is an arbitrary list assembled, as I keep saying, according to the prejudices of the already converted.

To use another invented example: If I created a similar technology shock level list in the 1920's and 30's, I might place "knowledge of the implications of genetics and inheritability" into shock level two. Fine. But if I also place "acceptance of the rightness and necessity of compulsory sterilization" (which happened in the US, not just Germany), then we have a whole new ball game. To lump technologies you feel are inevitable in the same class as applications of said technology you wish developed biases the way the artificial distinctions are viewed by both the elect and the hoi polloi.

This by no means makes him stupid, because he is in fact a very smart man, but simply does not think that certain ideas will manifest in the future.

I would say that he is more unsettled by the possibilities of future technologies, and questions our rush to embrace them. Acceptance of genetics is different from acceptance of the application of eugenics. Mind you, if he or anyone else said that there was no evidence that the Singularity was anything more than the erroneous extension of growth curves to a nonexistent asymptote, I would have to agree.

The SLs are a progression of ideas and I agree with them, more or less, so I use them as a tool in my discussions.

Which is fine, as long as you don't use your categorisation of a person to dismiss the logicality or defensibility of thier arguements. If someone raises an objection, particularly a moral one, then their objections should be dealt with by debating the merits of the respective positions, not by dismissing them as easily shocked. If they refuse to change their mind in the face of what a "reasonable" person would consider compelling arguements, then maybe the appellation would be appropriate.

Good luck finding an an impartial, reasonable person, though :-/

A modest proposal for a new millennium As I watch the news and read the newspaper. I am bombarded by some new image or piece of information, which shows some child committing an act of violence against society. I soon become fearful that my happiness and safety as well as my cherished way of life are at threat of a growing population of violent children. There seems to be no clear solution to this problem in the near future as more and more ethically unguided parents spawn these ticking time bombs. Because if they are bringing firearms to school and killing their classmates, it will only be a matter of time before one of the little monsters hacks a defense agency computer an unleash nuclear holocaust upon a naive world. As I see it these children represent a clear danger of the extinction of the human race. So I humbly propose that all people relinquish the capability of having children. Or at least governments should have their citizens vote upon the proposal. For those states that do not need to resort to democracy to implement such a proposal then I implore them to set up sterilization programs at once. I understand this might seem very radical to many people and maybe very difficult to implement but I point to China's population control program as my proof that such a proposal is very reasonable and possible. I am also aware of a group people that feel it is their human right to have children. They simply assume this based upon the fact that they have the capability to create them. To easily label them we shall call them Potentialparantals. These people claim that the potential for children to make the world a better place clearly outweighs whatever danger they represent. Clearly they must have been at one time dysfunctional children themselves to have such a strong support for children. These people should be the first we round up and sterilize to insure that they to do not create any more dangerous children. Maybe one day the world will be a better place for child creation. At that time we can discus the possibility of controlled and closely monitored child production. Sincerely John A. Montgomery

Well, I wrote that I wouldn't but you brought up some new arguments to be addressed. In some cases, I have nothing more to add, since my old arguments stand, in my opinion.

"Or because it is evil. To use my initial 'sex level' metaphor: If a paedophile classifies himself as 'sexual level 5' then it does not mean, by the standards of the rest of society, that people who consider his actions evil are just easily shocked. It means that he has set up a system designed from the ground up to reinforce his prejudices and make his actions and choices seem less unreasonable."

But a paedophile is doing something immediately evil: rape. This action has an actual effect (as opposed to futurist say "hmm, I believe that this will happen and I want it to"). Sex Levels would just be a way to justify doing something evil. The Shock Levels seperate ideas based on their logical progression (one must accept nanotechnology before the Singularity, since the Singularity requires the existance of nanotech or some similar technology) and how much social impact they are expected to have. SL4 ideas are no more true than SL2 ideas, since none of them are manifest yet. All I can tell you is that I don't use the Shock Levels to put people down or make them look stupid. I have no idea what RMS's Shock Level is, but let's say it's 2. This by no means makes him stupid, because he is in fact a very smart man, but simply does not think that certain ideas will manifest in the future. I think no less of him for it. I even accept that there are very smart Luddites, even though I do not agree with them at all on many issues and often consider them oposition who might try to stop the Singularity.

"… show you that your classification system serves more to reassure you of the validity of your position that it does to 'evaluate' how much 'truth' a person can handle."

I have never claimed that it showed me to know the truth, and if I did it was an accident. Sorry. The SLs are a progression of ideas and I agree with them, more or less, so I use them as a tool in my discussions. I don't know what I can write to you that would make you understand how little importance they have, but if you choose to continue on your current line of reasoning I am not going to stop you (unless you actually attack me).

Well, I see the same things coming up as before, so my guess is that most of this discussion is just going to go around in cricles, wasting yours, mine, and everyone's time

Really, I thought we were engaging in robust debate. If you can't convince someone to totally agree with you in two or three exchanges, does that mean you give up? As I have said before, the "You're obviously not one of the Enlightened Ones, so I won't 'bother' to talk to you" syndrome is a classic element of religious thought. I do agree that it's best, in a forum like this, not to monopolise a given thread, but I am going to repeatedly make these claims in future. If you have no firm rebuttal, then that does not necessarily mean that I am wasting anyone's time, even yours.

The Singularity is not believed in blindly. There is the key difference. If I did not believe that sufficient proof existed to make me believe that the Singularity will happen, I would not. It is that simple.

People believe in the Rapture because they honestly feel that the information contained in the Bible is profoundly meaningful, and that the 'fact' of the resurrection of Jesus 'proves' the validity of their claims. What experimental evidence, or other falsifiable statements, do you base your belief upon?

It is only that I accept some concepts that things that will actually happen while others consider them day dreams or possibilities, as you seem to with the Singularity.

And, as I keep saying, your arbitrary level system serves merely to reinforce the belief that your 'acceptance' of these concepts is more 'advanced'. If I am Pixie Level 3 because I regularly talk to the tiny inhabitants of my garden, that does not mean that Pixie Level is a valid way of assessing someone's arguments against the existence of pixies.

Of course, some will view an idea as evil, because they have been shocked too much.

Or because it is evil. To use my initial 'sex level' metaphor: If a paedophile classifies himself as 'sexual level 5' then it does not mean, by the standards of the rest of society, that people who consider his actions evil are just easily shocked. It means that he has set up a system designed from the ground up to reinforce his prejudices and make his actions and choices seem less unreasonable.

Please note that I am in no way equating your views to something as abhorrent as child molestation. I am just attempting to show you that your classification system serves more to reassure you of the validity of your position that it does to 'evaluate' how much 'truth' a person can handle.

Well, I see the same things coming up as before, so my guess is that most of this discussion is just going to go around in cricles, wasting yours, mine, and everyone's time. There are two things I would like to address.

The Singularity is not believed in blindly. There is the key difference. If I did not believe that sufficient proof existed to make me believe that the Singularity will happen, I would not. It is that simple. You may not be satisfied with that postition, but I can respect that, so long as you do not interfer with what I want to do. Unless what I am doing constitutes an immediate threat to you that will have no way to avoid hurting you, you lack a really valid reason to stop me. I would hold the same standard for you.

The second issue I would like to address is the levels. First off, the link is http://sysopmind.com/sing/shocklevels.html, for anyone who didn't know. Secondly, I am absolutely sure. I don't know why you keep trying to provoke me when I have already given you an answer. There is nothing to be smug about. It is only that I accept some concepts that things that will actually happen while others consider them day dreams or possibilities, as you seem to with the Singularity. Of course, some will view an idea as evil, because they have been shocked too much. Again, it is just a tool for evaluating how much shock a person can take, not a way of creating a caste system for futurists.

The problem is more like worrying that someone is learning more than you and therefore might one day keep you from getting the job you want.

No, it's more like trying to convince someone that investing their life savings in junk bonds will very probably end in tears. Or like telling someone getting a garish tattoo that they can't just get it laser-removed later, that scars remain and they have to live with their choices for the rest of their life. Or like watching Heaven's Gate-filled body bags stuffing the morgue.

Bringing down the other person

Hmm. Your choice of language doesn't exactly disincline me away from my drug metaphor ;-P

hurts you and all of society (becasue you miss out on whatever the genuis might have done)

Or saves you from what is folly, not genius.

The Singularity is about the future.

The Singularity is about wishful thinking.

The difference between Rapture and the Singularity is that Rapture is based on something that doesn't exit.

Nor does the Singularity. Your faith in its immanence is based on little more scientific fact than Hal Lindsey's visions of suddenly teleported fundamentalists.

I don't know about you, but I plan on becoming an SI as soon as possible.

I do not feel insecure enough to want to devote appreciable periods of time fantasizing about becoming a supposed superbeing. I enjoy life quite enough as it is. I do not want to spend several decades of my life working myself up into an irrational state of romanticised wishful thinking that may blind me to the true implications of the choices I may eventually be presented with. Basically, I'm not in a hurry.

I don't think about what their level is and decide to treat them differently. Most of my friends are very low level compared to me

You obviously subject them to some form of assessment if you are capable of concluding that they are "lower level" than you. You may deny that this affects the way you react toward them, and this may even be true on a conscious level. But it's still a very simplistic, self-defined, elitist way to categorise people. Are you sure that on some level you aren't smug of your exalted status?

The gods are dead.

No. The gods have always been and continue to be here. Just look more closely at the person next to you.

I just wanted to write that, after having some time away from my post, I must admit that I was a little brash and not very careful in my choice of words. I guess I was excited and just wrote away. Happens to the best of us, I guess. Luckily, there were some other posters around to clarify my craziness. Thanks folks.

The heroin example is poor. The problem is more like worrying that someone is learning more than you and therefore might one day keep you from getting the job you want. The solution for you is obvious: learn more yourself. Bringing down the other person hurts you and all of society (becasue you miss out on whatever the genuis might have done) and you can be compacent and not do much and still earn a living.

The Singularity is about the future. It is theoretical. Theoretical physics is about the future of physics. Some physicists go down blind allies, others are laughed at, some are just plain wrong, and a few are right. Personally, I think that I'm right. The future will let us know who.

The difference between Rapture and the Singularity is that Rapture is based on something that doesn't exit. With the Singularity, all we are saying is that, in a world with super intelligence, it will be up to the SIs to figure out issues that they bring up by existing. If humans can do it on our own, we'll have it figured out before we seed SIs, but if not we'll need some SI help. Also, I don't know about you, but I plan on becoming an SI as soon as possible.

I will reiterate that the levels are only a tool. When I meet people, I don't think about what their level is and decide to treat them differently. Most of my friends are very low level compared to me, which just means that I don't talk about the Singularity to them.

Also, you seem to be implying that I am juvinal in thought. I assure you, I know the difference between actually classifying people and using tools to gain a view as to what they think, in general, on a specific topic. Again, this is just tool, nothing more, and nothing less. Stop reading so much into it. It's not like someone at SL4 is going to toast an SL2er with fog or something.

hypertext comes from the recognition of how everything is connected.