In other posts I've been claiming that the human condition is a crucial factor in existential risk calculations. In this post I'll attempt to dive more deeply in to exploring the nature of that condition. This will take more than one post, so a series will follow below.
Just as many members here are devoting themselves to studying the nature of various technologies which present existential risk, thinking holistically requires us to also study the nature of we who will invent and use such technologies. These two components, man and machine, are a single unified system, which is only as strong as the weakest link.
A place to start can be to think like architects, and study that which we are made of. Just as particular building materials define the limits of what a structure can and can not be, what we are made of will define who we are.
I'm referring here not to our bodies, but instead to our minds, our psychological existence. What we are made of psychologically is the electro-chemical information medium we call thought. Let's dig in to this just a bit.
When we say "me" what are we referring to exactly? Who is the "me" that effective altruism seeks to serve? "Me" is a collection of ideas, memories, opinions, personality traits and other symbolic abstractions, which are all made of thought. "Me" is made of thought.
As a quick thought experiment imagine that you have a terminal disease (sorry!) and the doctor says your body is a lost cause, but she can put your brain in another body. In this case, you would likely feel that "me" is being preserved, because you get to keep the content of thought.
If on the other hand the doctor said she can't save your mind, but she can put a new mind in to your body, you would likely feel that "me" is going to die.
In other words, by "me" we mean, a structure made of thought.
Given that this "me" which effective altruism is seeking to serve is made of thought, in the next post we might seek to understand what thought is. How does it work, what are it's properties?
Again, it is the premise of this series that reason dictates that we study we who are inventing and using technology with the same earnestness with which we study the technologies being used.
In my view, downvoting this post is a little harsh (the karma is -10 with 5 votes at the time I am writing this). I understand it could be more detailed, so it might not be worth upvoting (depending on one's bar). However, downvoting on this basis makes the people who write them feel unwelcome, and discourages quick posts, which could arguably still be useful as long as they are not counterproductive or ill-intentioned.
I may not have downvoted under normal conditions for the reasons you mentioned. Generally I upvote new posters who seem unfamiliar with EA, or leave comments to encourage further engagement. I definitely don't like to see the votes fall below 0 without explanation (unless its damaging to forum etiquette in some way). But three factors made me willing to discourage engagement in this present form:
As to why I am critical of this posts quality, I think its stating something already familiar to most people on this forum, and further I believe it can be summarized in a few sentences:
It is also not clearly relevant to EA, as it is currently written. Presumably further posts would cover that, but it wasn't delved into in this post, so I felt comfortable downvoting on those grounds.
My thoughts on the content of this post:
Personally I don't think it is clear we must study and know who we are, even though it is one of my favorite activities! It can be terribly useful, but it can also be not very influential on other domains. Its hard to tell if this will lead to something influential or something important but non-consequential.
Post script:
I will attempt to give similar feedback on the other posts, but I did not feel I had time to do so and was especially discouraged when there were three in a row to try to provide feedback on.
Hope this gives a face to the downvoters. I am also discouraged by lack of engagement and wonder why on earth I was downvoted. But I try to chalk it up to how it takes time to learn all the things involved in EA and I don't know what things are obvious to regulars who have worked on this for years. I understand they don't always have time to walk me through something that is already established elsewhere, even though I don't always know where the "elsewhere" is.
Try to approach disagreements with curiosity. ;)
I wish you the best in the development and refinement of your philosophy. And all your further conversations!
I found this quite helpful, thanks!
This post series would have become far more detailed if it had continued, which it will not. It's no biggie. I have the information involved, and others are free to find it on their own should they so choose.
Ok, you win. Eight down votes and no feedback of any kind. This series and perhaps any that might have followed are now concluded. Have fun clicking buttons.