Difference between revisions of "Talk:Directives for after Point Omega"

Latest revision as of 20:34, 5 July 2017

Critical feedback based on Father's Day 2017 version

After repeated requests from User:Baby Boy for some critical notes on this article, I've picked Father's Day 2017 to start critically reading and responding. --BigSmoke (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC) This move is very much appreciated. (PP)

Father's Day feedback on: Introduction

The introduction is very long-winded. Twelve paragraphs are used to convey the following information:

• The article was written at the request of Victor Koekkoek.
• The article should be read after A guided tour through the Omega Research Wiki.
  • Or, at least, after having read Definitions of "Point Omega", or the same in Self-blindness in humans as prerequisite for the evolution of advanced intelligence.
• The information in this wiki is scattered about various islands of specialist knowledge,
  • and therefore not readily accessible to the general public.
  • Also, the general public—the ‘herd’—is, in your opinion, not capable of grasping this information.

(That may be the case indeed. But I think I did not advertise that here. I would rather leave that up to the reader. But there is a problem here. Even the well informed scientist in general is only familiar with one or at best 2 of the subject-fields involved here. But for the general basic conclusion some notion of all the parts is indipensable. So, ..... how to tackle that basic problem ?)

Too much time is spent to convince the reader of the uniqueness of the information compiled on this wiki, and the unique, elite combination of mentality and intelligence that is required to follow the argumentation.

(I don't think so. Without some early warning readers may waste their time reading stuff they really are not going to like. I would rather try to avoid that. Let's waste nobody's time. I'll think it over. Maybe I'll change the tone. But also maybe I'll prefer to formulate it even more blunt. Basically, I think that I should try to avoid that people are going to read this article before they have taken knowledge of most of the various isues dealt with in this Wiki. For that seems a waste of time to me.)

I got an idea to change this first paragraph "Introduction" in order to clarify what is the advantage of this whole article and what is its unavoidable weakness. That should inform the reader what they can expect and when they better could swap to another article first. That should make it easier to understand our position at this specific point and make it less offensive to the poor reader. I have put it on my "to do" list. (Thanks for the hint.)

Hand v.d.Sande, Willem's pa, is ook aan de slag gegaan met het in detail becommentariëren van dit artikel. Hij had er eerst een Word-file van gemaakt en was bezig dat uitgebreid te editen. Helaas moest hij de volgende dag met vakantie en zijn PC ging door zijn hoeven waar ik bij zat en toen kon hij de bewerkte file niet saven. Ben dus benieuwd naar wat er nog was te redden door zijn IT service persoon zodra hij van vakantie terug is. Ik denk dat ik jouw commentaar en zíjn commentaar tegelijk ga verwerken. ''''

Father's Day feedback on: Lost perspectives, . . . . . what next ?

This section is quite readable and does entice the reader—me, at least—to continue to the rest of the article. It feels more like an appetizer than the first section, because it makes less of an appeal to the reader to join the “exclusive, smart, original” tribe, which, frankly, comes across as narcissistic and childish.

I'll think over the style of the first section. Who knows ....

Father's Day feedback on: New facts we need to take into account

Although I disagree with (the factuality of) some of the basic premises, I like how they are summarized here. I've gone over the sources of disagreement with User:Baby Boy before, but not in this medium. Perhaps, next Father's Day, if I feel brave enough, I will provide some critical feedback on A guided tour through the Omega Research Wiki.

I would very much appreciate such critical feed back. Let's see what crumbles down under scrutiny and what stays upright.

Father's Day feedback on: From fact-finding to courses of action

The four paragraphs could easily be reduced to two, and the first 3 are too long anyway. You lose precision because you are trying to be accurate and exhaustive. What is it precisely that you are tring to convey at this point in the story?

You do have a point here. It should be clear by now. I think I should explain more clearly here what is the objective of the whole article. It is answering Victor's question.

Father's Day feedback on: Democratization of education (1st issue)

Most of your readers, including me, wouldn't object to the notion that the democratization of education leads to less talent going to waste, but I don't understand the point of this section.

• Are you claiming that education is being democratized world-wide? If so, I'm missing numbers.
• Are you merely stating that, following Point Omega, education will inevitably be democratized?

What I want to imply is that leaders of society do have an opportunity here to enhance the emergence of the changes leading to the Point Omega transition. It pays off to make good education available to all talented people and stop wasting those talents.

Father's Day feedback on: Transparency (2nd issue)

Again, there's a whole lot of talk, but it's not clear where you want to go (except by implication).

• Are you claiming that transparency is, on the whole, increasing?
• If so, can you substantiate this claim?
• Are you claiming that communication technology is making people freeer, rather than serving as an extra means of solidifying existing power structures?
• If (certain) power structures are becoming unstable, how do you know that this is due to increased transparency and not just to the built-in periodical cycles of upheaval that you later mention?

Father's Day feedback on: Procreating consciously (3rd issue)

Are you claiming that we currently have the knowledge to predict all possible genetic and birth defects, based on embryonic screening? Your case would be much stronger with at least a percentage of types of avoidable genetic conditions. Also, there's the case of general fitness: intelligence, physical stamina, strength, available energy, etc. are all influenced by a large number of genes, most of which are not readily recognizable. My point is that, without strong evolutionary pressures, you may very well have a gradual decline of qualities which would influence fitness in a harsher environment, even if everybody has access to genetic planning (and is encouraged by their culture to utilize this).

You do have a good point of criticism here. I agree with your doubts. However, even that being the case, it will just be a matter of time before the readily becoming available of eugenic techniques will end up being utilized by ever higher percentages of the population. For the time being your doubts are valid I think. But in the long run the eagerness of potential parents to shape their progeny themselves, will gradually exert its influence more and more. There is in principle no end to that change.

Father's Day feedback on Avoiding Good-Bad social reflexes (4th issue)

I think your notion that “good-bad” judgements are the driving force of increased docility in social structures is sufficiently far-fetched that it needs some stronger argumentation rather than a simple proclamation. You don't have to judge somebody as “bad” to not promote this person to a position of power.

You say that “this change [for increasing numbers of people to overcome these primordial reflexes of attraction and repulsion and to consciously choose more fruitful ways to interact] will also be subject to positive feed back mechanisms that will make it progressively easier for people to adopt novel ways to interact, once certain critical numbers have been reached.” Which specific positive feedback mechanisms are you referring to? I'm not aware of any such positive feedback mechanisms that would counter nepotism, xenophobia and tribalism.

I'll get some sleep now. More later on.

Father's Day feedback on Dealing with other aspects of Self-Blindness

For this section, I'll pick apart the following particularly troublesome paragraph:

“Since Self-Blindness is one of the main ingredients for the structures that keep humanity bound in slavery and neuroticism [1], it is of great importance [2], and very urgent at that [3], that we collectively try as quickly and as effectively as we can, to come to grips with this typically human behavioural bias. If we wish to create a more agreeable world, we do have to take this hurdle [4]. There is no escape from that necessity [5]. In the above mentioned chapter on this Wiki it is argued that we should start a research discipline that is fully dedicated to create clarity and scientific insight in these aspects of Self-Blindness. In that chapter it is suggested to label such a research discipline as "Amathology" or "the science of ignorance" [6].”

[1] Do you have any proof that humans that are less self-blind are in fact to a lesser degree bound by slavery and neutoricism? And do such individual in fact exist? How would you test/quantify this?

[2] Why is it important that we become more aware of our self-blindness?

[3] What is the urgency?

[4] Again, on which basis do you assume that a world with more awareness of our self-blindness is a more agreeable world?

[5] Nowhere (in this article) have I seen you do the work to flesh out various possible scenarios for a more agreeable future.

[6] How could I not be in favor of more research. All this leaves me with are questions. ;-)

Father's Day feedback on: What about Religion (6th issue)

You write:

‘"Seek ye the truth, and the truth will make you free", as the saying goes, a saying that can also already be found in the Bible. In that sense such philosophers mean to indicate science as juxtaposed to religious superstition, ignorance and belief-systems.’

How do you know what they mean by that? Besides, why does it matter? I wouldn't defer to the Bible's authority in a section in which you're setting out to predict the decline of religious thought.

Why do you predict that religious thinking and superstition will be replaced with secular thought? Is this prediction specific to after point Omega or is it something that is already happening now? If so, there surely must be some numbers on this somewhere. Even then, one point to consider is that even if the relative number of believers in some or many areas of the world is going down, has the absolute number of believers also fallen? (You could argue, for example, that the danger of fundamentalism is lies in the absolute number of fanatics, not in their proportion relative to moderates.)

Also, your claim that one of the functions of religion is to fortify self-blindness seems rather one-sided. I am even more surprised that you claim a role for religion in the maintenance of sufficient self-blindness for high intelligence to subsist. But, I guess I should direct my criticism to your Self-blindness in humans as prerequisite for the evolution of advanced intelligence article.

Father's Day feedback on: Co-evolution of High Intelligence and Self-Blindness, the example of the Jews

Your usage of the situation of the (intelligence of) Jews as an example of self-blindness is highly contentious, for a number of reasons:

• It is not a scientifically broadly accepted fact that jews are of above-average intelligence.
• If if one considers as true the hypothesis that jews are cleverer than non-jews, there are other possible genetic and cultural explanations for this, none of which involve self-blindness.

For an overview of these criticisms, see the Wikipedia:Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence Wikipedia article.

• Without some solid background information on the relationship between Pallistines and Israeli Jews, it is a matter of political opinion to stamp the Jews as racist opressors. Without facts, I might just as well believe a pro-Israel reading of the situation.
• You assume that the rest of the world is judging Israel as you do, but perhaps it's just the left-leaning media/propaganda that you consume that's making you blind to the reality of anti-semitism (even in your own judgement). I wouldn't know, since you don't provide proof either way.

Father's Day feedback on: Curbing destruction of the environment (7th issue)

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Evolutionary Jet-lag & (Un)Happiness (8th issue)

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Evolutionary Jet-lag before Point Omega

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Evolutionary Jet-lag after Point Omega

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself (9th issue)

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: How to deal with hopeless cases ? (10th issue)

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Assuming responsibility for every human being in existence (11th issue)

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Competition and Work; how to deal with it in a different way (12th issue)

[…]

Priorities for an action list

[…]

Father's Day feedback on: Relax .......... we can afford it now

You whole wiki is organized around the idea that a Point Omega is inevitable, yet this article, at many points, comes across as trying to preach action and instill urgency. Why? You say: “Relax .......... we can afford it now.” But, this is not the attitude that the rest of your article purveys. That attitude is rather: “Listen to me! It's important! We have to save the world!”