Comment on Introduction: "Acrohumanity"

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:35:39 GMT

I see. Then I remain unable to resolve your provided definition with the items you assert to be applause lights.

Yes, neither were very good examples.

I am curious as to why you feel it is a good idea to so misrepresent my statements. Could you explain?

I sincerely apologise. I was not trying to misrepresent them, I think that what you say is not surprising (as in agree with most of it), so the bits I quoted were what I thought to be the relevant parts, and the rest was "obvious" (and I agree with it).

To my knowledge (and Google searching) my post is the first and only mention of the term "mnemotechnics" on LessWrong.

Thanks for introducing it to us. I believe that LW has considered memory-enhancement techniques even without using the term.

Providing a label to a specific memeplex can in and of itself be a useful activity.

Yes! Definitely! But you don't need a 750 word post to define a new word. Especially when the post is on a website where the memeplex is of its central tenets. For example (this is a rewrite/summary of your post):

I have been thinking about how to best explain the idea LW has that a person should try to be the best possible person they can (i.e. optimise every aspect of themselves). To do this, I have been using the word "acrohumanism"* (cf. "transhumanism", "posthuman"). I think that it is a useful way of encapsulating a person with (and committed to obtaining): high physical health, good memory, control and understanding of their emotions, etc.

*using "acro-" which approximately means "highest"

(And I would have some more detail on why inventing a new word was necessary (e.g. how it is different to "rationalist", or "transhumanist"))

Are you sure this is true?

Yep, the existence of at least one intelligent person who is also irrational was not under debate.

Discuss