Eugenics and progress. Why I am a eugenicist

[Ixtab]

.................................

[Micaelis]

Science will become so complex that only a tiny fraction of it can be mastered by a single human brain. There will be fields within fields within fields of scientific and philosophic enquiry, and the innermost fields will contain in each of them informational content equivalent to the entire corpus of 21st century knowledge. The point will some day be reached when the human nervous and sensory system will only be effectual at retarding the growth of scientific knowledge. The average IQ will have to increase to 200 and beyond. At some point, billions of godlike brains, all in hive-like communion, and with the assistance of vast supercomputers, will probe the cosmos, in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. No human brain will be able to cope with the burgeoning complexity of scientific knowledge.

The eugenicist seeks to make all of this a reality. Ever the philanthropist, he seeks to release us from our oppressive cognitive mediocrity, conducing thereby to the pursuit of knowledge and the perpetuation of human life. In the end, he seeks to confer upon man that greatest of gifts, the gift of godhood, of immortality. God is not something which is or was, but something which is to be, and it is to be attained only through strict adherence to my practical morality by future generations and for the rest of time. Human progress is thus the process of God realising Himself.

This, at least, is one, one among many other reasons, why I am a eugenicist.

Good piece of fiction, Ix. :) You should write novels.

[Petr]

Human progress is thus the process of God realising Himself.
Behold occultic superstition hiding behind the facade of pseudo-science and "rationalism".

Following in the footsteps of Kabbalah and Hegelianism...


Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm


Petr

[Steppenwolf]

Behold occultic superstition hiding behind the facade of pseudo-science and "rationalism".
Why do you call that written piece, of all the things you believe, "occultic superstition"? If anything, no unfounded belief was postulated.

Following in the footsteps of Kabbalah and Hegelianism...
And?

[Micaelis]

Behold occultic superstition hiding behind the facade of pseudo-science and "rationalism".

Following in the footsteps of Kabbalah and Hegelianism...


Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm


Petr

Absolutely. The occult is at the root of eugenics.

PD. Ix is not a Marxist. :rolleyes: :D

[antibuddha]

Why do you call that written piece, of all the things you believe, "occultic superstition"? If anything, no unfounded belief was postulated.

From everything I've seen from him on here, Petr is extremely fond of constructing arbirtary dichotomies of extremes where (his) Christianity is, a priori, determined to be the "balance" between the two. Christianity is the middle ground between science and rationalism and faith. Christianity is the middle ground between anarchism and authoritarianism. Christianity is the middle ground between technological progress and primitive savagery. Christianity is the middle ground between "base" or "degenerate" superstitions and/or occultism and a wholly abstract and impersonal conceptions of deity. So on and so forth, endlessly. It does not matter if the things he lumps into one category or the other truly belong there either, if it's rhetorically useful. If you try to point out that Christianity has in fact been on all sides of these issues at some point or another, or a certain sect has, he pulls the "no true scotsman" bit about this not being "true" Christianity. Of course, there's also the question of how if it is supposedly the "middle ground" between the above points, it was not in reality simply a transition from one to the other.

It's precisely this type of (misuse of) dialectics which makes it suspect now. I'm sure he'll respond with a fine example of the Christian virtues of suffering and humility to this post however.

[Petr]

Christianity is the middle ground between science and rationalism and faith. Christianity is the middle ground between anarchism and authoritarianism. Christianity is the middle ground between technological progress and primitive savagery. Christianity is the middle ground between "base" or "degenerate" superstitions and/or occultism and a wholly abstract and impersonal conceptions of deity.
All pretty much true. The wonderful doctrine of Trinity allows us to find middle road between Unity and Particularity, to walk a straight and narrow path without falling into extremes.

See here:

THE TRINITARIAN PRINCIPLE - great Reformed Afrikaner theology

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15050&highlight=kreitzer

"Though this will be discussed thoroughly below, it is sufficient to illustrate this principle with the following. The act of speaking words to deny the fundamental biblical axiom, "equal ultimacy of the one and the many," is self-defeating because sentences are complex wholes built upon meaning (unity) conveyed by diversity (phonemes and morphemes). Logic is another example. Both the epistemological and ontological form of the law of non-contradiction are derived ultimately from the Trinitarian foundational axiom not Enlightenment philosophy, Descartes or Newton.

Thus any philosophy, not founded on Christ and his word, must make a basic, autonomous religious commitment to prioritize either the oneness of all things or the manyness. Rebellious men, who suppress the truth clearly seen through that which God has made, will not honor or glorify the Trinitarian principle found in the Godhead or of his creation (Rom 1:18-21; 1Co 3:18-20)."


I would even dare to suggest that Trinity is a golden mean between monotheism and polytheism.


Petr

[Micaelis]

...This a barrier to creativity, which often depends on a familiarity with a diversity of knowledge-spheres, and the ability to make associations between separate spheres of intellectual activity: it is the insight offered from one field of another field which has very often in the history of science and technology resulted in creative achievement.

That is, I believe, the place of philosophy in the scientific field, to fuse the knowledge of all scientific studies into one comprehensive outlook. Your worry is not really legitimate.

In any case, even if we assume that specialisation will not increase rapidly, in disregard of the trends of the last few hundred years, increasing human brain power will still be highly conducive to scientific progress. Someone with an IQ of about 115 could become a high achiever in mathematical physics, but it would require about 70 hours of intensive study per week for ten years, whereas someone with an IQ of 160 would have to expend vastly less mental energy, whilst having the time necessary to master other fields of enquiry. For people with higher cognitive capacity learn more quickly, usually have superior memories, make quicker associations, and are more efficient problem-solvers than people with lower cognitive capacity.

Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?

Specialisation and fragmentation within fields will require greater participation of members in the scientific pursuit of knowledge as well as philosophers that are able to cooperate in the fusion of said knowledge into sensible, comprehensive data. The conclusion of the necessity of screening for IQ might make things easier in that pursuit, sure, although there is a greater complexity to human existence than advancement in physics or biology per se. It's all very interesting. But given the various problems and conflicts humanity faces today, it has to be left to fiction novels.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

In any case, even if we assume that specialisation will not increase rapidly, in disregard of the trends of the last few hundred years, increasing human brain power will still be highly conducive to scientific progress. Someone with an IQ of about 115 could become a high achiever in mathematical physics, but it would require about 70 hours of intensive study per week for ten years, whereas someone with an IQ of 160 would have to expend vastly less mental energy, whilst having the time necessary to master other fields of enquiry. For people with higher cognitive capacity learn more quickly, usually have superior memories, make quicker associations, and are more efficient problem-solvers than people with lower cognitive capacity.

Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?
There's a difference between a capacity to master what is already known/believed and a motivation to do that. There's also a difference between mastering what is known/believed and making an original contribution. I suspect that the original and valuable contribution made by one person cannot be considered a capacity -- because we are not dealing with something of a routine nature -- and that we should instead speak of specific historical events.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

Specialisation and fragmentation within fields will require greater participation of members in the scientific pursuit of knowledge as well as philosophers that are able to cooperate in the fusion of said knowledge into sensible, comprehensive data. The conclusion of the necessity of screening for IQ might make things easier in that pursuit, sure, [...]
Aren't the actual demands of a given intellectual discipline an automatic screening device? If IQ screening had any effect, I suspect it would be a detrimental effect.

[Micaelis]

Aren't the actual demands of a given intellectual discipline an automatic screening device? If IQ screening had any effect, I suspect it would be a detrimental effect.

IQ screening within the given fields as is would detract from membership, sure. What Ix is referring to, though, is IQ enhancement through genetic tampering. He hasn't yet explained how he would accomplish it, exactly, the methods of genetic mutation, how IQ develops, proper IQ testing, etc.

[Ixtab]

Scientists will not get the creative insight given by one field of another field simply because philosophers can see the interrelatedness that exists between the fields. Of course, philosophy itself will probably be entirely eclipsed by the sciences, or undergo the same process of fragmentation, and when science reaches the level of complexity and fragmentation I speak of, I doubt that philosophers will be able to acquire the requisite scientific knowledge to be able to fuse the sciences together. So it is hard to believe that philosophy is the solution to specialisation/fragmentaiton, for that would be in utter disregard of the trends of the past few hundred years.

(I deleted my previous posts in this thread because I am using some of the material for a new post on a slightly different topic.)

[Sean]

Scientists will not get the creative insight given by one field of another field simply because philosophers can see the interrelatedness that exists between the fields. Of course, philosophy itself will probably be entirely eclipsed by the sciences, or undergo the same process of fragmentation, and when science reaches the level of complexity and fragmentation I speak of, I doubt that philosophers will be able to acquire the requisite scientific knowledge to be able to fuse the sciences together. So it is hard to believe that philosophy is the solution to specialisation/fragmentaiton, for that would be in utter disregard of the trends of the past few hundred years.

Indeed. Anyone who pays attention to contemporary philosophy can see that this same type of fragmentation is happening as we speak. This is generally what academics does--it creates a large body of knowledge or questions to which anyone can attempt to answer or learn from. If one wants to do, for instance, epistemology, then he would do it by first studying what other people in this field say on the subject. As the subfield grows, it becomes more and more difficult for one to be on the forefront of the field.

I believe that philosophy is becoming like science--analytic philosophy, of course, has its roots in logical positivism, which attempted formulate philosophical problems in scientific language with the precision of mathematical deduction. Though the epistemology and metaphysics of the positivists has been rejected, the same methods have been retained. Philosophy has become a set of doctrines, as science is (though it lacks, as a body, the coherency of science), as opposed to something that saw the individual's input as an intrinsic part of its nature.

[Helios Panoptes]

I believe that philosophy is becoming like science--analytic philosophy, of course, has its roots in logical positivism, which attempted formulate philosophical problems in scientific language with the precision of mathematical deduction. Though the epistemology and metaphysics of the positivists has been rejected, the same methods have been retained. Philosophy has become a set of doctrines, as science is (though it lacks, as a body, the coherency of science), as opposed to something that saw the individual's input as an intrinsic part of its nature.

I agree with this. Additionally, there is an explicit push to make philosophy more like science and in the process reject traditional ways of approaching problems. Naturalized epistemology is an example. Reliabilism, as opposed to evidentialism, is very popular nowadays. In a seminal paper, Alvin Goldman attempts to build his theory using non-epistemic terminology. You're probably familiar with this article, Scamander. Quine's version is more radical yet. I want to rein myself in and avoid a long digression, but the general idea is that epistemology ought not be seen as the foundation of the sciences; it should be integrated. An example used by Quine, which he took from elsewhere(I don't recall the reference at this time), is that of renovating or building a raft as one rides upon it.

[Ixtab]

And all of this is a good thing. Problems only arise because of the low cognitive capacity of human beings.