Is being human enough in this changing world?

[Silas Thorne]

I am coming to believe that unassisted human abilities are no longer enough to deal with the constantly changing world. I believe that we should merge with the machines and embrace new technologies, if our present existence does not rely on them already. When advanced AI has been developed, rulers, or the vast majority of their decision making, should be governed by them.

Say if you currently use google on a desktop computer to search for information, and then go for a walk. While you are outside, you meet a friend and you and a friend are debating about the meaning of a particular word, or want to know a particular fact. It so happens that your friend has a cellphone on her, that she uses to search for information on the internet. As you don't have your cellphone on you, or your cellphone can't be used to search the internet, she in many areas (though not all of course, given the availability of this information on the internet and of your own specialities) has more access to human information than you at that particular time. Now imagine you have a new I-phone on you and you are one of few people that has access to the internet within miles. Now, say for example, in an indefined point in the future, maybe twenty years or thirty years or so, it is possible to directly link your mind to the computer and read information on the inside of contact lenses or glasses. Would you choose to upgrade to deal with the expectations of a new world?

And say you could take a drug or get something introduced into your body which enhances your normal capabilities, such as extends your lifespan dramatically, or allows you to detect magnetic fields through your fingertips, would you alter yourself?

....Yes, lots of points here. Just react to whatever you feel like, I've just put these down to provoke dialogue on these issues.:)

[Alexander III]

http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-serious-or-trolling-thumb.jpg

[Silas Thorne]

Serious, inviting discussion...

[Varenne Rodin]

Great topic, Mr. Thorne. These are the things I dream of. I don't want to be in a human body at all. Body replaced with something better, nanobots or something similar, consciousness intact forever. I wish it could happen in my lifetime, but I doubt it will.

If anyone knows of a think tank making progress toward such goals, let me know.

[Dodo25]

A huge collection of resources and links can be found here, mostly focusing on the utilitarian goal of minimizing suffering: http://www.hedweb.com/

[Silas Thorne]

:) Ah yes, thanks Dodo25! The virtual state I'm a member of is in strong support of David Pearce's Abolitionist project.

[ftil]

A huge collection of resources and links can be found here, mostly focusing on the utilitarian goal of minimizing suffering: http://www.hedweb.com/

I just can’t believe that you buy it. Is your goal to eliminate suffering by rewiring our brain and cutting us form our feelings and consequently from our souls. :eek6: Robots don’t suffer, indeed. :biggrin5:
Dr Manfred Doepp explains what is going on with our brains due to exposure to electro smoke and its far reaching consequences.

Dr. Manfred Doepp - Part 1 of 6 - Switching of Consciousness, Mind Control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ9i2oMcPMs
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cknPPEMb8pY&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ts-JdR7G3A&feature=related
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AE1kS0w_Rc&feature=related
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keuyYnIHi4A&feature=related
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uJg8xwaSKs&feature=related

[Delta40]

when I'm 98 I expect most of my body will have been replaced by titanium steel and that Broadband is more than just the strap holding my chest up....

[Paulclem]

I read a short article in the National Geographic today about a computer aided walker for paraplegics.

http://www.popsci.com/node/20689

I just found this picture of it - it isn't the article though.

I wonder if body piercing and body art will link into technology in the future. it would be conveniant to have phone connections linked into contact lenses. Power could be generated through walking, and with lots of people using small phone keyboards to text, i wonder if the traditional querty keyboard will lose out to the thumb texting small keyboard perhaps strapped to a wrist. It could get interesting.

http://www.hemmy.net/2007/08/06/mobile-phone-as-earring/

[billl]

What forces might try to move the world into a direction in which "being human" might not be enough?

[Silas Thorne]

I just can’t believe that you buy it. Is your goal to eliminate suffering by rewiring our brain and cutting us form our feelings and consequently from our souls. :eek6: Robots don’t suffer, indeed. :biggrin5:
Dr Manfred Doepp explains what is going on with our brains due to exposure to electro smoke and its far reaching consequences.


Holy Electro-smoke Batman! I'm sorry, I couldn't watch more than a minute of the first clip, I was worried about losing my sanity and joining a Neo-luddite crusade to destroy the machine. But seriously, inventing a concept like 'electro-smoke' is something someone does that doesn't have anything rational and coherent to say that is based on testable high-level science.

No one said anything about cutting people off from their feelings. And it is still perfectly possible for someone to believe in souls who is also an advocate of biological and technological enhancement.

[Paulclem]

The question is - does technical, and possibly bodily invasive tech reduce your human-ness? It comes down to a philosophical question about what makes a human. Are you saying that someone with an artificial heart is less than human, and how far does this go?

Is stuff like gene therapy not reducing your human-ness but enhancing it - possibly being an evolutionary factor in our development - which is why we're here (on a scientific level) anyway?

[iamnobody]

Yes I want a computer in my brain. (Provided my own is left unharmed)
And yes I want to live to be 1000. Where do I sign?

[Silas Thorne]

The question is - does technical, and possibly bodily invasive tech reduce your human-ness? It comes down to a philosophical question about what makes a human. Are you saying that someone with an artificial heart is less than human, and how far does this go?

Is stuff like gene therapy not reducing your human-ness but enhancing it - possibly being an evolutionary factor in our development - which is why we're here (on a scientific level) anyway?

Interesting points! :) I wouldn't believe that someone is less than human with artificial organs or limbs, particularly if they enable you to be human longer than you'd normally have the chance to. I believe that some point in the perhaps not too far off future some technological enhancement could change the human condition. Done well, it don't think it will make us less human, but transhuman, or even more human.

I'm in favour of any technology which enhances us and the lives of those around us.

billl: Perhaps when our present biological capabilities and the way we presently make use of them are not enough to cope with an increasing chaotic and information-rich world and to respond as effectively to the challenges of it.

iamnobody: The systems are not in place yet to live to 1000. ;) But it is hard to know what will happen with life extension technologies in our lifetimes. Maybe in the next thirty years, there will be technology to increase our lifespans another thirty. Maybe given more time, there will be the chance of some other technological lifespan extension, who knows? Technological development is accelerating pretty fast these days. :) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

Maybe it will be possible to increase memory capabilities or enhance our senses, without radically changing the way the human mind works. Or maybe we can improve the way the human mind works to avoid irrational bursts of violence and stupidity the human machine is sometimes prone to. ;)

Here's a link to something one of my friends wrote:
http://transhumanpraxis.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/the-new-century/

[billl]

billl: Perhaps when our present biological capabilities and the way we presently make use of them are not enough to cope with an increasing chaotic and information-rich world and to respond as effectively to the challenges of it.


People are playing major (if not decisive roles) in how technology develops and how it is used. It is up to us to decide what is OK, and what isn't. We can't control or predict everything, but it is a situation where we aren't completely helpless. Or it should be--Why not? Of course, the process can get warped:


Technology itself can be said to have imperatives of its own. Technology rewards conformity and valuation according to its current ability to measure and calculate. Of course this can be called anthropomorphism (the idea that technology "wants" something to happen), but the simple fact is that technology has always made certain things easier, and rewarded other things.


People who invest themselves in technological careers and innovation can become exaggerated boosters of the tech (Mark Zuckerberg has been a good example of this, in the way that increasing the sharing of info and decreasing privacy has been an absolute virtue in his eyes, and something that he actively sought in ways that were unfair to users of his tech--although it seems that he might be maturing in his outlook more recently...).


Corporations, of course, will end up involving themselves in technological development, and they have interests that are not at all in line with what (current...) humans might want. Media campaigns and selective release/retention of industry data are ways of gaining support, and one important goal would be the habituation of many to behaviors that profit or otherwise sustain the business.

Really, the topic "Is being human enough in this changing world" sounds more like a yell of surrender than some sort of brave pioneering stance towards a future where everything's great. I think it would be perfectly reasonable (for at least some of us, possessing just as much moral worth as others looking at the situation) to decide that we want to build a future that would be comfortable for people (and animals and plants), rather than simply going with medicating and modding everyone or else...

Anyhow. Want a computer in your brain? Who designed it, how will it respond to you and your thoughts? What if some other person or company or algorithm had designed it? Same result? Same future "you"? And might there be people (well-meaning or otherwise) that have certain notions about how you should be influenced by the tech, or certain ideas about what "neutral" tech would be? Would you understand their outlook completely before getting on board with their program/design? Could you? Who among us understands the algorithms written by Facebook's programmers, much less those written by the people writing code for Google. Is it wise to integrate these hypothetical designs ever more closely into our "thought-space" without a removable device serving as a buffer?

Want to be uploaded into a computer? Well that better be some computer. Would it provide us with a world exactly like this one? Maybe something "better"? Would we have different bodies/avatars? Limited or limitless abilities? How would it work--who would've designed it, and what ideas would they have had about what makes for a good/useful/safe/enjoyable/educational/comfortable/moral/fair/mentally healthy existence? Who would be the creators of this world that we'd be rushing into? And would it be as richly made up and detailed as this world we now live in (right down to having within it a computer that you could load yourself into and go on to experience some other richly constructed world for a day or two or for hundreds of years or whatever). Again, that'd be some computer, but I don't know if I could convince myself to get in there.

(Oh, and we'd be able to get out of it, right? The programmer wouldn't have any moral qualms about that, right? They would only design something we'd want to live in, right? Would a suicidal Us be a design failure?)

There's an interesting website called H+ Magazine which often (usually?) sounds like propaganda for Singularians and starry-eyed transhumanists--but not always, I've read *some* pretty interesting interviews there. Edge.org is a place where you can regularly expect to see serious essays and discussion of technology, science, and what the future could be like--written by some of the "big names" in science these days.

http://hplusmagazine.com/
(Again, this verges on propaganda, but it can allow the occasional skeptical voice in once in a while. I don't read it too much, personally, but I've found a few good things there.)

http://edge.org/
(There's a lot of stuff to look through, a lot of it very interesting. There can be a variety of stuff, though, and the interesting articles sometimes come in bursts, and then there might be a week or two where just one or two boring articles show up--and there's often a lot of repetition when they publicize a particularly 'famous'/discussed article getting mentioned in various international magazines/newspapers, etc.)

[Paulclem]

I think Billl's cautions are valid, but I also think that general speculations - not specifically Billl's - often presume that the brain really is a computer programme, and as such will be uploadable in the future. We're in sci fi territory, and 2 authors for whom this current fiction plays a key part is Iain M banks in his Culture novels and Neal Asher in his Polity novels.

Anyway, it is by no means certain that uploading the brain will ever be possible of course. Certainly there are experiments that are using direct brain/ computer interfaces, but it could very well be that whereas we assume the brain to be a bio computer, it may well just exhibit traits of computers. We certainly don't know enough about the brain, and certainly not about consciousness itself to say for certain.

[Silas Thorne]

Wow! I'm sure you're better on this topic than me actually, billl. I just know a little bit about the situation, but am always interested in future possibility and the potential for human development in positive directions. You have raised a lot of useful interesting questions that we could debate on this thread for a long time. :)
Of course, you are right that:
'the topic "Is being human enough in this changing world" sounds more like a yell of surrender than some sort of brave pioneering stance towards a future where everything's great. '
I don't think everything will be great at all, but could be. There are always problems associated with technology. Perhaps, if not handled carefully, we will destroy ourselves, or we will create technology or biological organisms which will do it for us. In any event technology will advance, but many people need to think carefully about these things. The situation and choices we will have to make, such as to kill Facebook or Google accounts due to growing loss of control over personal data, or to be aware that you need to keep changing your settings, will become more complex as technologies develop.

I would consider myself to be interested in transhumanism, but I don't think this is just good for humans, but also for the plants and animals we share the earth with, as well as the natural world we tend to harm so much overall as a species.

Thanks for the links too. I was aware of H+, but not the other site. :) There are also a number of links from the website in my signature you will probably also know about. Many of these are research groups.


Anyway, it is by no means certain that uploading the brain will ever be possible of course. Certainly there are experiments that are using direct brain/ computer interfaces, but it could very well be that whereas we assume the brain to be a bio computer, it may well just exhibit traits of computers. We certainly don't know enough about the brain, and certainly not about consciousness itself to say for certain.

I'm also not so sure about mind uploading. I think it probably won't happen in the next fifty years, at least. Yes, we just don't know enough about the way the brain works yet. Perhaps memory enhancements with drugs or through electronic means though...

Professor Kevin Warwick is one of many people who have already enhanced themselves cybernetically. http://www.kevinwarwick.com/

There is also a growing number of 'grinders' who do homemade experiments on themselves, placing technology in other areas of the body.

[Vonny]

This all seems a nightmare to me. I don't think there will be great improvements. If only we could get back the natural world we've lost... If only we had clean lakes.

[Varenne Rodin]

The scary aspects of this don't matter to me much. I have been called robotic on many occasions, it wouldn't offend any part of me to be robotic in actuality. If, in uploading my brain into a computer, I lost my "soul" or the essence of myself, that would also be of little importance to me. I do not feel attachment to this body or these emotions. They're dying anyway. For the same reason I sculpt (to leave an imprint of myself on the world), I would die to have a mere copy or clone of myself continuing on for eternity. Maybe someday we'll upload our "souls," our "selves" so completely that we'll feel the transition from human body to mechanical body, but even if we don't, I would love to know that a part of me is continuing on.

It could be like giving birth to an immortal child that is me - my thoughts, my memories, my goals, my ideals. She would be amazing. She would travel farther than any human could ever travel. She would stand for peace and the acquisition of knowledge. She might find the edges of the universe and the answers to eternal questions. One thing is for certain, with or without a physical form, she would have exquisite breasts, and she would use the confidence of exquisite breasts to influence galaxies. Worth tinkering around with my neurotransmitters for? Absolutely.

[Vonny]

The scary aspects of this don't matter to me much. I have been called robotic on many occasions, it wouldn't offend any part of me to be robotic in actuality. If, in uploading my brain into a computer, I lost my "soul" or the essence of myself, that would also be of little importance to me. I do not feel attachment to this body or these emotions. They're dying anyway. For the same reason I sculpt (to leave an imprint of myself on the world), I would die to have a mere copy or clone of myself continuing on for eternity. Maybe someday we'll upload our "souls," our "selves" so completely that we'll feel the transition from human body to mechanical body, but even if we don't, I would love to know that a part of me is continuing on.

It could be like giving birth to an immortal child that is me - my thoughts, my memories, my goals, my ideals. She would be amazing. She would travel farther than any human could ever travel. She would stand for peace and the acquisition of knowledge. She might find the edges of the universe and the answers to eternal questions. One thing is for certain, with or without a physical form, she would have exquisite breasts, and she would use the confidence of exquisite breasts to influence galaxies. Worth tinkering around with my neurotransmitters for? Absolutely.

Ew, not me. It isn't simply that it's scary. It's just that I don't like it. I hate unnatural things. I don't want to live forever. I hate the idea of reincarnation. I just hope I don't come back to this earth.

I won't say her name, but I like someone's signature which is a quote that says: "I hope death is joyful and I hope I never return."

[Varenne Rodin]

This all seems a nightmare to me. I don't think there will be great improvements. If only we could get back the natural world we've lost... If only we had clean lakes.

Vonny, fifty years ago the idea of cell phones and laptop computers would have been bizarre and maybe even scary. Right now, you and I are "talking" through wires and/or waves of information being bounced around by satellites. I'm not saying any of this stuff out loud at present, I doubt you are either. That's amazing! It's shocking! It is seemingly impossible, much like capturing someone's physical likeness in a photograph or video. Technology leaps forward. Some people will be left behind. It is inevitable. Google is already far more intelligent than I could hope to be in my human form. Technology exists for "mind link" texting, through which we will communicate almost entirely telepathically through electronics. Scientists have discovered possibilities for creating tiny black holes on earth and harvesting untold amounts of energy from them. We are on the verge of perfecting teleportation, I kid you not.

I think our mortality is an accident, a mistake, or something we haven't yet outgrown. Pioneers can't stay home, and well behaved women seldom make history. Rage against the dying of the light, and other such cliches. I had a lot of wine tonight. This is what happens.
:D

[Paulclem]

I hate the idea of reincarnation. I just hope I don't come back to this earth.



Then you must become a Buddhist - that's their aim. To stop reincarnating.

:biggrin5: I jest about what you must do - but it is their aim. :biggrin5:

[Lokasenna]

There are levels, and there are levels.

When I first read through the thread, I'll admit my initial response was one of revulsion to the idea, but then I thought that perhaps I am being a little hypocritical. My childhood partial-deafness was solved by the use of a synthetic eardrum, and I'm currently researching eye-correction surgery that involves replacing the eyes' lenses with synthetic ones, which has a 100% success rate for curing vision problems and prevents you from getting cataracts later in life. Now these are only minor things, but they are part of a greater thing. Neither deafness nor shortsightedness are damaging or hurtful - just inconvenient. Such procedures are done because they wanted rather than needed. Now, it's true that they are long way from massively augmenting the human body, but still...

I think my feeling of revulsion is still justified in regard to major changes - to artifically change the boundaries of what it means to be human. I certainly wouldn't want my brain to be wired up to the internet, and I'm satisfied with my body, despite its flaws.

As for death, it is as necessary to being human as birth is. I honestly cannot think of anything more horrific than living forever, both in personal terms and the rammifications for our species as a whole.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I want a computer in my brain. (Provided my own is left unharmed)
And yes I want to live to be 1000. Where do I sign?

Yes put me down as well. I can just imagine a future where this happens though. The cost for such an operation would be millions so only the super-rich could apply. However, I'm sure that they would have daytime TV phone-in competitions where you too could win a chance to live to be a 1000 courtesy of the new computer implant. All you have to do is to phone in an answer one simple question, answers A, B, C, calls cost the usual rate and calls from mobiles considerably higher...

Also what happens when the computer crashes or gets a virus, or the Adobe update won't install probably with your version of IE? Go back to the shop and get another head?

Plus, would not the population of the earth explode beyond imagination? What happens then?

[G L Wilson]

The posthuman world is indeed fascinating, but it is no world that I would like to live in.

[Mr Endon]

I'm fine with shortcomings of all varieties, such as physical feebleness, shortsightedness, and metaphysical incompetence. Unfortunately, what we seriously lack and most desperately need - common sense - cannot as of yet be afforded by gadgets of any sort.

(But maybe there's an iPhone app for it? I've been told there's an app for everything.)


Then you must become a Buddhist - that's their aim. To stop reincarnating.

Is it? I didn't know this. The things you learn!

[Emil Miller]

Yes Also what happens when the computer crashes or gets a virus, or the Adobe update won't install probably with your version of IE? Go back to the shop and get another head?

Yes that is the problem, the belief in the infallibilty of the machine. I was intending to write a review of E.M. Forster's short story 'The Machine Stops', amazingly prescient as it was written in 1909, but as it fits so neatly into this thread, here it is for anyone who cares to read it.

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

[Scheherazade]

My first reaction was in the same lines as Paul's:
The question is - does technical, and possibly bodily invasive tech reduce your human-ness? It comes down to a philosophical question about what makes a human. Are you saying that someone with an artificial heart is less than human, and how far does this go?

If and when such developments happen, are we still going to define "human" in the same terms? How do we define now?

And, most importantly, do androids dream of electric sheep?

[G L Wilson]

Identity in humanity is essential to being human.

[Paulclem]

The whole question goes back to Blake's dehumanising Dark Satanic Mills and Luddites, referring to the negative effects of technology in general on through our time to speculative science fiction.

I remember the phrase "square eyes" referring to the negative effects of watching too much TV, as it was considered to be in the 60s and 70s. The hippies seemed to reject industrial modernity - if they in fact rejected anything at all - but it is funny that their generation has pushed forward with the technological advances we have today.

The debate goes on, but is essentially the same - about man's relationship with machines and the industrial world. Now it's becoming more personal with the possibilities offered by future body enhancements, of which cosmetic surgery is merely the bio equivalent. They have already brought cosmetic surgery and machines together with medical advances - lungs, hearts etc. That's just the tip of the iceburg really: gene therapy can potentially change our evolutionary progress.

[Emil Miller]

I have just remembered that this has already been discussed on this forum.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55338

[Dodo25]

Several posts ask whether we'd not loose 'what makes us human'. I have used that phrased in essays in school several times I think. But recently I realized that it is an 'appeal to intuition' fallacy, an unjustified placeholder sounding like an actual arguement.

Seriously, what is so great about being human?

We are not created in God's image. We are the product of a blind, indifferent processes called evolution by natural selection. In this regard, we do not differ from other animals. Within us, we harbor destructive drives, in-group vs. out-group mentality, xenophobia, greed... All because our faculties evolved to promote as many genes as possible. We did not evolve to be 'good' or 'happy'.

Take sexuality. On the one hand, we have love, a wonderful feeling that evolved so two partners stay together for a period of time to raise a child together. On the other hand, we have jealousy, because unconditional love would be bad for genes. We also have lust to encourage cheating. Our motivational emotions are a huge mess, almost preprogrammed to lead to suffering.

Some people are born with a genetic predisposition to 'being unhappy'. Environmental factors have actually a smaller influence on our happiness than we might guess. And a very small fraction of people are actually born with a genetic predisposition for happiness. They're just smiling and cheerful all the time! And it's not like they'd be unmotivated, they're actually more productive even. Is there a reason to keep up the genetic roulette and risky gene selection (by selecting mates, we select genes already), or should we not rather make sure that children get the genes that make them and world happiest?

We have a huge 'status-quo bias'. But if one thinks about it, there is really no justification that 'this' would be the ideal way to be. In fact, given the way evolution works, we should expect that this is not at all the ideal way to be!

Richard Dawkins once said:
"During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying from starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so."

[My emphasis]
That is 'nature'! That's where 'being human' comes from!

Must it really be so?

http://www.hedweb.com/

[G L Wilson]

Several posts ask whether we'd not loose 'what makes us human'. I have used that phrased in essays in school several times I think. But recently I realized that it is an 'appeal to intuition' fallacy, an unjustified placeholder sounding like an actual arguement.

Seriously, what is so great about being human?

We are not created in God's image. We are the product of a blind, indifferent processes called evolution by natural selection. In this regard, we do not differ from other animals. Within us, we harbor destructive drives, in-group vs. out-group mentality, xenophobia, greed... All because our faculties evolved to promote as many genes as possible. We did not evolve to be 'good' or 'happy'.

Take sexuality. On the one hand, we have love, a wonderful feeling that evolved so two partners stay together for a period of time to raise a child together. On the other hand, we have jealousy, because unconditional love would be bad for genes. We also have lust to encourage cheating. Our motivational emotions are a huge mess, almost preprogrammed to lead to suffering.

Some people are born with a genetic predisposition to 'being unhappy'. Environmental factors have actually a smaller influence on our happiness than we might guess. And a very small fraction of people are actually born with a genetic predisposition for happiness. They're just smiling and cheerful all the time! And it's not like they'd be unmotivated, they're actually more productive even. Is there a reason to keep up the genetic roulette and risky gene selection (by selecting mates, we select genes already), or should we not rather make sure that children get the genes that make them and world happiest?

We have a huge 'status-quo bias'. But if one thinks about it, there is really no justification that 'this' would be the ideal way to be. In fact, given the way evolution works, we should expect that this is not at all the ideal way to be!

Richard Dawkins once said:
"During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying from starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so."

[My emphasis]
That is 'nature'! That's where 'being human' comes from!

Must it really be so?

http://www.hedweb.com/

It must be so. If you don't ****, you die.

[Varenne Rodin]

I can understand disliking this life so much that you want yourself to be finite, but it's not like having changes made to yourself to extend your life indefinitely would keep you from ending your life, if that's what you wished to do.

What I don't understand is the idea that immortality is "disgusting" or "gross" or "sick." Why? The problems of the mortal world would seem much much less. Certainly, we would still have problems to solve, but think of the knowledge we would amass to be able to deal with them. There might still be people breeding in large numbers, but there would be a lot of people who would stop. Also, without the confines and weaknesses of the human form, it should be possible for us to extend space travel, probably to the point of populating other planets.

I don't think death defines life. It wrecks it. It's the end of a person learning and growing. It's punctuated by horror and unimaginable pain. It breaks the hearts of loved ones. It's disgusting to me to just be gone. I really like myself. I really don't want this self to be gone. I really like other people, and I don't want them to be gone. There is nothing gross about it.

[G L Wilson]

I can understand disliking this life so much that you want yourself to be finite, but it's not like having changes made to yourself to extend your life indefinitely would keep you from ending your life, if that's what you wished to do.

What I don't understand is the idea that immortality is "disgusting" or "gross" or "sick." Why? The problems of the mortal world would seem much much less. Certainly, we would still have problems to solve, but think of the knowledge we would amass to be able to deal with them. There might still be people breeding in large numbers, but there would be a lot of people who would stop. Also, without the confines and weaknesses of the human form, it should be possible for us to extend space travel, probably to the point of populating other planets.

I don't think death defines life. It wrecks it. It's the end of a person learning and growing. It's punctuated by horror and unimaginable pain. It breaks the hearts of loved ones. It's disgusting to me to just be gone. I really like myself. I really don't want this self to be gone. I really like other people, and I don't want them to be gone. There is nothing gross about it.

It is a choice between a lesser horror, death, and the greater horror of immortality.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes put me down as well. I can just imagine a future where this happens though. The cost for such an operation would be millions so only the super-rich could apply. However, I'm sure that they would have daytime TV phone-in competitions where you too could win a chance to live to be a 1000 courtesy of the new computer implant. All you have to do is to phone in an answer one simple question, answers A, B, C, calls cost the usual rate and calls from mobiles considerably higher...

Also what happens when the computer crashes or gets a virus, or the Adobe update won't install probably with your version of IE? Go back to the shop and get another head?

Plus, would not the population of the earth explode beyond imagination? What happens then?

Great points, and this is why discussion and debate are so important. I think these are all problems that can be either prevented, or solved later. As for the computer crashing or getting a virus... We are able to store unbelievable amounts of information in teeny tiny particles. If we ever get to a point at which we are able to successfully upload a human mind into an artificial or semi-artificial form, I see no reason why we couldn't then back up the data a billion times over if we wanted to. I'm not saying that we would never get viruses, or go insane, or be murdered, but all of those things happen now. What do humans do? We attempt to treat illnesses, we come up with cures and vaccines.


It is a choice between a lesser horror, death, and the greater horror of immortality.

You're still not telling me what is horrific about immortality, or how it could possibly be worse than death. What you're saying just sounds like irrational fear of change, to me.

Tell you what, G L, the people who want to die at the end of their 60-100 year lives can do that. No one is going to force these people to go on. That solves the overpopulation problem too! So thanks. ;)

[Dodo25]

Also what happens when the computer crashes or gets a virus, [...]

Virus? I think thoughts (memes) are viruses of some sort anyway. And they can happen to be counterproductive to the 'you', i.e. when people have deluded beliefs. We already have that.

[YesNo]

I have just remembered that this has already been discussed on this forum.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55338
As was mentioned in that thread a lot of this discussion is more fantasy than reality.

I think the research is useful. Who knows what it will turn up? If nothing else, it will show us what we can't do as well as what we can.

Based on general out-of-body experiences that people have reported, I don't think our consciousness is constrained to our particular bodies or even our brains. These physical organs are more like tuning devices to consciousness.

However, I am ambivalent about the concern to eliminate suffering. I suppose we have the technology now, although I'm not sure, to eliminate suffering in select individuals. We could lobotomize them and then place them in institutions where they can be happy. When their medical funds run out they would be given a painless lethal injection. We, of course, wouldn't tell them this was going to happen because we don't want them to suffer.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't see what prolonging human life, and improving quality of life, has to do with lobotomies and lethal injection.

[YesNo]

I don't see what prolonging human life, and improving quality of life, has to do with lobotomies and lethal injection.
It depends on what one means by "improving quality of life".

If that is determined by removing suffering, then I think the lobotomy and institutionalization until one's funds run out would be a reasonable path. If there is more to life than removing suffering, we might want to consider what that is.

[Varenne Rodin]

I would never consider a lobotomy to be a removal of suffering.

[Silas Thorne]

However, I am ambivalent about the concern to eliminate suffering. I suppose we have the technology now, although I'm not sure, to eliminate suffering in select individuals.

There is research being done right now to eliminate suffering in animals that we currently use as meat sources. Maybe it is not too far in the future that we can think about eating non-sentient meat, a lab-grown protein that seems like steak, but which we don't need to kill a living breathing animal for.

[Emil Miller]

There is research being done right now to eliminate suffering in animals that we currently use as meat sources. Maybe it is not too far in the future that we can think about eating non-sentient meat, a lab-grown protein that seems like steak, but which we don't need to kill a living breathing animal for.

There are already a number of substitute meats on the market, but if sheep and cattle were no longer to graze, the landscape of many countries would be adversely affected. Particularly those in temperate climates.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think I'm with Verenne as I suggested, I would take the 1000 years of life as opposed to that 'undiscovered country', though the hypothetical situation is obviously complex, with lots of spin-off considerations.


Virus? I think thoughts (memes) are viruses of some sort anyway. And they can happen to be counterproductive to the 'you', i.e. when people have deluded beliefs. We already have that.

Yes but as someone else suggested (I think) the technology we are so proud of is not always as good as we think it is.


Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
There is research being done right now to eliminate suffering in animals that we currently use as meat sources. Maybe it is not too far in the future that we can think about eating non-sentient meat, a lab-grown protein that seems like steak, but which we don't need to kill a living breathing animal for.


There are already a number of substitute meats on the market, but if sheep and cattle were no longer to graze, the landscape of many countries would be adversely affected. Particularly those in temperate climates.

I'm afraid that I would not eat synthetic meat produced in a laboratory. I won't even eat those other substitute meats as they make me feel ill. I can certainly sympathise with wanting to reduce intensive animal production, but all the same I wouldn't touch it and I think that many others would feel the same way.

[The Atheist]

I believe that we should merge with the machines and embrace new technologies, if our present existence does not rely on them already.


Anyhow. Want a computer in your brain? Who designed it, how will it respond to you and your thoughts?

I think there two different subjects here:

1 AI. A machine which has a brain that operates the same as a human brain.
2 Immortality/extreme longevity of the "human consciousness", for which I'd be happy to accept as the brain.

In the case of 2, billl's worries don't really arise, because there is nobody to program the brain - just the bits that support it. 1 doesn't bother me at all; I think we're still centuries off that, if we ever manage it.

Would I be happy to know I had another 200 years to live? Hell yes.

That appears to be where we're headed, but it'll be too late for me to save my abused body.

If only it were a case of the body living forever and replacing the brain electrinically.

As simple one should suffice.

[Alexander III]

Several posts ask whether we'd not loose 'what makes us human'. I have used that phrased in essays in school several times I think. But recently I realized that it is an 'appeal to intuition' fallacy, an unjustified placeholder sounding like an actual arguement.

Seriously, what is so great about being human?

We are not created in God's image. We are the product of a blind, indifferent processes called evolution by natural selection. In this regard, we do not differ from other animals. Within us, we harbor destructive drives, in-group vs. out-group mentality, xenophobia, greed... All because our faculties evolved to promote as many genes as possible. We did not evolve to be 'good' or 'happy'.

Take sexuality. On the one hand, we have love, a wonderful feeling that evolved so two partners stay together for a period of time to raise a child together. On the other hand, we have jealousy, because unconditional love would be bad for genes. We also have lust to encourage cheating. Our motivational emotions are a huge mess, almost preprogrammed to lead to suffering.

Some people are born with a genetic predisposition to 'being unhappy'. Environmental factors have actually a smaller influence on our happiness than we might guess. And a very small fraction of people are actually born with a genetic predisposition for happiness. They're just smiling and cheerful all the time! And it's not like they'd be unmotivated, they're actually more productive even. Is there a reason to keep up the genetic roulette and risky gene selection (by selecting mates, we select genes already), or should we not rather make sure that children get the genes that make them and world happiest?

We have a huge 'status-quo bias'. But if one thinks about it, there is really no justification that 'this' would be the ideal way to be. In fact, given the way evolution works, we should expect that this is not at all the ideal way to be!

Richard Dawkins once said:
"During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying from starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so."

[My emphasis]
That is 'nature'! That's where 'being human' comes from!

Must it really be so?

http://www.hedweb.com/


Here is my problem with everything you said, and most of what Dawkins says too. You seem to follow the ideals of the enlightenment. That man should be guided by reason, logic and progress - that these are his tools to truth.

A philosopher once said what separates men from beasts is reason. I disagree. Animals are the pinnacle of reason and logic. Everything they do makes sense, their every action is logical and rationally beneficial to them.

I believe what separates men from beasts, is our ability to go beyond reason.

Reason is a perfectly valid tool, but I protest when men say it is The tool. Is sensation not as fine a tool as reason? Let us look at the 20th century. So many of the things done in this last century were done because it was logical, and necessary for progress, and it made perfect rational sense. Yet when I look at the world, I am not a beast, I do not limit myself to such things. That is why I shudder at many of the "great" acts of the last century. Because I have more than reason, I can feel - and thus I shall not lower myself to the standards of beasts just because it is simpler. With logic and reason one can get a yes or a no, a 1 or a 0. It can never go beyond that, it can never capture the true essence of being a human.

From the reason point of view, you are right there is nothing special about being human. It makes perfect sense to progress forward and become more human. More life, better life, more children - it is in perfect accordance with our evolutionary impulses.

Yet I shudder at such a thought of becoming more than human. Why do I prize my humanity? It makes no sense, it is not logical - yet I prize it more than anything else despite all reason and logic. I value it so unrationaly, because I am human. Because that is what makes me human.

[Varenne Rodin]

We're just talking about human 2.0. The whole point, for me, would be to avoid losing myself.

[Varenne Rodin]

I mean, the humanity you prize will be obliterated by death. We might as well continue to try to beat death.

[Paulclem]

To refer back to bodies - we could conceivably live a rewarding lfe in our difficult old age if we inhabited a virtual world of the mind whilst our bodies were sustained. This is the cryogenic head model of the revived brain, except that the body could be kept alive until medical progress could solve some of the bodily afflictions cause by extreme old age.

During that time we might mainly live in a virtual world - perhaps an enhanced kind of second life - or a world with other's minds where we could interact, talk about books, download stuff from the internet etc etc, or go for virtual holidays on realistically rendered beaches. Perhaps facebook would have generated into Bodybook - a more realistic virtual world of social interaction.

It would certainly liven up the old folks home!

[G L Wilson]

You're still not telling me what is horrific about immortality, or how it could possibly be worse than death. What you're saying just sounds like irrational fear of change, to me.

Tell you what, G L, the people who want to die at the end of their 60-100 year lives can do that. No one is going to force these people to go on.

Have you seen Burt Reynolds lately? He looks like a burns victim.

[Varenne Rodin]

Have you seen Burt Reynolds lately? He looks like a burns victim.

I think about too much, I get ahead of myself. Some of it is fantasy, some isn't. We don't know the full capabilities of nanotechnology. It's conceivable that nanobots could repair parts of us effected by aging. My other favorite innovation is the synthetic cell. Scientists have successfully grown biological material from synthetic cells identical to natural cells. To me, this carries with it endless possibilities for what we may be able to replace - organs, muscle, tissue, eyes, skin. With synth cells replacing soft bits, and nanobots shoring up hard bits, we could solve a lot of problems associated with aging.

Paul's post about virtual realms and ideas like "Bodybook" have excellent potential too. I don't think any problem is unsolvable. It wouldn't make sense in a world where creatures evolve and problems are solved all the time.

[Emil Miller]

I mean, the humanity you prize will be obliterated by death. We might as well continue to try to beat death.

It is difficult to deny the idea that death is the best avoided, if this were not so, we wouldn't spend so much time trying to keep people alive. Obviously there are situations where death might be preferable to life but, in a general sense, life is paramount. That being the case, it is logical to use all means possible to defeat death by prolonging life indefinitely. For many centuries man has posited the question ' What is the purpose of human existence?" It seems to be increasingly clear that the defeat of death is the answer. There is absolutely no purpose in species being created solely for them to repeat themselves and die. For those who think that humans should accept that as an unalterable fact of life, it is well to recall that we were once basic life forms living in the sea but, here we are now, thanks to evolution, no longer completely at nature's behest and able increasingly to control our environment and, more importantly, ourselves. Anyone in reasonable mental and physical health hates death but, instead of raging against the dying of the light, we are beginning to see the way ahead to becoming masters of life and death. Despite certain misgivings, I see little alternative to pressing ahead with the link between cybernetics and human physiology in pursuit of the idea that Death Shall Have no Dominum.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well said, Emil.

[Paulclem]

Have you seen Burt Reynolds lately? He looks like a burns victim.

We'll all look like that when we enter extreme old age. I bet he still wants to live a fulfilling life and be happy though. He hasn't died has he? I'm not sure now.

No I just checked. I see what you mean about the burns victim bit. Presumably that's plastic surgery, and that shows that he's still up for it despite his age. I take my earlier comment back though - we will be unlikely to look as good as him at his age.

I have an inkling about this - my Dad was the same age to the day as Cliff Richards - who's still going strong. My Dad always looked 20 years older - at least. I look a bit like my dad...

[Alexander III]

I mean, the humanity you prize will be obliterated by death. We might as well continue to try to beat death.

Death is the conclusion of human life. Not it's obliteration. Think of it as a poem, a poem's ending is what makes the poem, without an ending there is no poem.

And sorry Emil, but I find the concept that the meaning of life is to defeat death, I find that disgusting. Death is merely the conclusion, it is as beautiful as life in it's own way. A man far wiser and more renown than myself once said - He who has lived does not fear death.

I think it very applicable with to huge fear of death many display.

But then again I am not a parent, I know that many mothers fear death so immensely, not because of themselves, but the fear of leaving their children alone, almost abandoning them is too terrifying for them to bear.

[YesNo]

I look at death as a transition to another phase of reality and perhaps another lifetime. So the idea of an immortal human life seems irrelevant and actually rather restricting. I guess I would like to move on and let the next generation experience this human adventure.

Of course, those who think that they are their bodies and this life is it -- well, I can see why they might be afraid of death.

At the moment, I think I agree with the ideas expressed by Alexander III and G L Wilson.

[Alexander III]

I look at death as a transition to another phase of reality and perhaps another lifetime. So the idea of an immortal human life seems irrelevant and actually rather restricting. I guess I would like to move on and let the next generation experience this human adventure.

Of course, those who think that they are their bodies and this life is it -- well, I can see why they might be afraid of death.

At the moment, I think I agree with the ideas expressed by Alexander III and G L Wilson.

But I do think this life is it, I believe that after death there is solely nothingness.

[Silas Thorne]

But I do think this life is it, I believe that after death there is solely nothingness.

But you could debate that point until Godot arrives, Alexander III! :biggrin5:
There really isn't any way of telling for sure without personal experience.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I look at death as a transition to another phase of reality and perhaps another lifetime. So the idea of an immortal human life seems irrelevant and actually rather restricting. I guess I would like to move on and let the next generation experience this human adventure.

Of course, those who think that they are their bodies and this life is it -- well, I can see why they might be afraid of death.

At the moment, I think I agree with the ideas expressed by Alexander III and G L Wilson.


But you could debate that point until Godot arrives, Alexander III! :biggrin5:
There really isn't any way of telling for sure without personal experience.

All the same, I think I would take the 1000 years if the science was there and I had a spare billion dollars.

[Emil Miller]

Another facet of his discussion is the topic of sperm counts. There is some evidence that they are diminishing world wide to causes that have yet to be ascertained although some scientists have disputed this.
If it is true, it may be that a self-regulating process is in motion to pre empt the problems that will arise when the world population reaches optimum level.
In this scenario, there could be a need for humans to resort to the methods mentioned above if they are not to go the way of other species that have declined and disappeared.
I was recently reading a report on the declining birth rate in Germany and the consequences it is having for the economy. Germany's population is declining noticeably faster than countries in a similar situation because the large numbers of men lost in WW11 has not been replaced and many German women have opted not to have children. The government has launched an initiative to encourage people to become more active in sport and other forms of physical activity. It is going to raise the retirement age with the main aim of keeping industry in production and in order not to have to rely on increasing immigration. Factories are being ergonomically redesigned for an older workforce and cycling instead of car use is being strongly promoted.
Currently there are limits to physical endurance and an alternative will eventually have to be found. It would seem that what is being proposed in this thread is a way out of this particular predicament.

[Dodo25]

There really isn't any way of telling for sure without personal experience.


If it is true, it may be that a self-regulating process is in motion to pre empt the problems that will arise when the world population reaches optimum level.


Maybe, mushrooms are in fact alien space-ships spying on us! We can't know for sure, so maybe I'm right. I'm not going to eat any mushrooms anymore or else they might get mad.

What's missing here is EVIDENCE.

[stlukesguild]

Say if you currently use google on a desktop computer to search for information, and then go for a walk. While you are outside, you meet a friend and you and a friend are debating about the meaning of a particular word, or want to know a particular fact. It so happens that your friend has a cellphone on her, that she uses to search for information on the internet. As you don't have your cellphone on you, or your cellphone can't be used to search the internet, she in many areas (though not all of course, given the availability of this information on the internet and of your own specialities) has more access to human information than you at that particular time. Now imagine you have a new I-phone on you and you are one of few people that has access to the internet within miles. Now, say for example, in an indefined point in the future, maybe twenty years or thirty years or so, it is possible to directly link your mind to the computer and read information on the inside of contact lenses or glasses. Would you choose to upgrade to deal with the expectations of a new world?

I am reminded of this post I read some time ago:

About 400 years ago, before the discovery of electricity and only 150 years after the invention of the printing press, a barely literate German cobbler came up with the idea that God was a binary, fractal, self-replicating algorithm and that the universe was a genetic matrix resulting from the existential tension created by His desire for self-knowledge.

You are sitting in front of a computer that would have filled a skyscraper had it been built in 1956. You have terabytes of the world's accumulated wisdom at your fingertips via Google. You have a college education in your pocket via your i-Phone and immediate access to the oeuvres of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Stravinsky, and Duke Ellington via your i-pod. Einstein, Feynman, Gödel, Jung, the Wachowski Brothers, Turing, Fermi, Kant, Nietzsche, Shakespeare, and Leonardo da Vinci have all blazed an intellectual trail for you to follow. With all this going for you, your major contribution to society so far consists of a message board post proving conclusively that The Lord of the Rings kicks Harry Potter's ***.



Clearly, someone's been slacking off.

:frown2::eek::biggrin5:

We're just talking about human 2.0. The whole point, for me, would be to avoid losing myself.

This makes several assumptions. The first being that YOU are not as much the product of your physical being (even leaving the question of the concept of a "soul" out of the equation) as you are of your brain. You experience the world the world through your physical being... your senses and all the endless miles of nerve endings sending a continual stream of information to your brain to sort out. You are assuming that YOU are only your brain and that if we could merely replicate your brain... or keep it alive indefinitely through whatever mechanical/artificial means the result would be that YOU... your consciousness would continue on. This is highly debatable.

The second assumption you seem to be making is that YOU... your consciousness... all that you are now is something that hasn't changed... hasn't "lost itself" even in the brief span of your human life. Our cells are continually dying and being replaced... those of our body and our brain. Our experiences... all that is conveyed through our senses and our endless miles of nerves... continually changes who we are. I am not now what I was when I was 5... 12... 22... and I will not be what I am now when I am 50... 70... WE all fear death... yet each of us is continually undergoing death... dying and being reborn.

perhaps some should read Montaigne and Lucretius' De rerum natura.

[Paulclem]

The second assumption you seem to be making is that YOU... your consciousness... all that you are now is something that hasn't changed... hasn't "lost itself" even in the brief span of your human life. Our cells are continually dying and being replaced... those of our body and our brain. Our experiences... all that is conveyed through our senses and our endless miles of nerves... continually changes who we are. I am not now what I was when I was 5... 12... 22... and I will not be what I am now when I am 50... 70... WE all fear death... yet each of us is continually undergoing death... dying and being reborn.

It is similar to Buddhist thought too - though the proces happens every moment - apparently observed through meditation.

[Varenne Rodin]

We're just talking about human 2.0. The whole point, for me, would be to avoid losing myself.

This makes several assumptions. The first being that YOU are not as much the product of your physical being (even leaving the question of the concept of a "soul" out of the equation) as you are of your brain. You experience the world the world through your physical being... your senses and all the endless miles of nerve endings sending a continual stream of information to your brain to sort out. You are assuming that YOU are only your brain and that if we could merely replicate your brain... or keep it alive indefinitely through whatever mechanical/artificial means the result would be that YOU... your consciousness would continue on. This is highly debatable.

The second assumption you seem to be making is that YOU... your consciousness... all that you are now is something that hasn't changed... hasn't "lost itself" even in the brief span of your human life. Our cells are continually dying and being replaced... those of our body and our brain. Our experiences... all that is conveyed through our senses and our endless miles of nerves... continually changes who we are. I am not now what I was when I was 5... 12... 22... and I will not be what I am now when I am 50... 70... WE all fear death... yet each of us is continually undergoing death... dying and being reborn.

perhaps some should read Montaigne and Lucretius' De rerum natura.

You are brilliant, but you mistake me. I expect to lose my consciousness. I would love to be able to replace my body with various upgrades over time until my body is no longer physiologically human. I don't think it's impossible.

The stuff about uploading one's brain, however, one's self, into one body after another and so on, is an idea primarily supported in my mind by the fanciful works of Harlan Ellison; regarding human beings as complex machinery. When I spoke of going on in that fashion, I meant to convey that a memory of myself would be continuing throughout time. Not THE Varenne, but a being quite like her, with far greater abilities. I understand if people don't embrace this idea for themselves. I am of science, my death is inevitable, I would give my body to science quite freely. It's not, I realize, a typical point of view. The Battlestar Galactica style transfer of consciousness from body to body sure would be fun. It's fantasy, I'm a fantasy girl.

There's something else that is in support of consciousness merging with machine, something I haven't clearly explained. Scientists and doctors have successfully linked neurons in the human brain directly to computer electrodes, thereby allowing the person's brain to send signals directly to the computer. The goal, though still decades away, is for people to be able to communicate fully with their minds, wirelessly. People in comas, people who have lost motor function or have sensory impairments. It's telepathy. Thinking about what Paul said, about a body being in stasis while the mind is in a virtual world, this is very possible.

Consider cell phones, text messaging, game apps. Now imagine a cell phone that's a walking, talking, bionic device resembling a human or whatever you wish. With the new technology it's likely that a brain with a body in stasis will be able to command and control their android self, as easily as we control our existing portable devices. We have come a long way in neural mapping. There's still a lot to work out. It's going to take a really long time. It's happening though. This part isn't fantasy.

What you said about continually undergoing death, that's like "Waking Life." I'm quite fond of the movie. Have you seen it? I will read Montaigne and Lucretius. Thank you for the suggestion. Your posts are amazing. I envy your ability to manipulate language so beautifully. It's true that I am quite addicted to the "senses" racing about in my miles and miles of nerve strands. I know I will lose them. It's heart breaking, but I am thoroughly enjoying my physical experience. I still maintain that I would forfeit the physical senses to remain conscious, to see more human creativity. To experience history like no one ever has. I'm not so afraid of death anymore. I just don't want to go. It feels like a waste to go.

[The Atheist]

If it is true, it may be that a self-regulating process is in motion to pre empt the problems that will arise when the world population reaches optimum level.

Yet, it'd be far more likely it's caused by the type of food we eat, obesity and lack of exercise.

[Alexander III]

Yet, it'd be far more likely it's caused by the type of food we eat, obesity and lack of exercise.

Could also be cellphones, many people speculate that they realize a harmful radiation, which if the phone is in your pocket all day, can cause infertility. Unfortunately not much research has been done in to this, as it doesn't behoove anyone to find out.

[Emil Miller]

Yet, it'd be far more likely it's caused by the type of food we eat, obesity and lack of exercise.

Yes that is also a possibility, I have even read that low fertility rates in men could be due to wearing tight underpants, the possibilities seem endless.

[stlukesguild]

I have even read that low fertility rates in men could be due to wearing tight underpants, the possibilities seem endless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c3hzLMYIZM&feature=player_embedded#!

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6088732747_d70497e61b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/6089277066_a7f0e75ee8.jpg


Brian... it's called "poetic justice"... proof that God does have a sense of humor.:biggrin5::skep::eek::nod:

[Emil Miller]

Wow! I'll have to get one of those that the guy with the glasses is wearing, the only problem is that I wouldn't know what to ask for.

[Paulclem]

Wow! I'll have to get one of those that the guy with the glasses is wearing, the only problem is that I wouldn't know what to ask for.

:biggrin5:
It'll be like those bras they used to sell that lift and separates.

[Emil Miller]

Wow! I'll have to get one of those that the guy with the glasses is wearing, the only problem is that I wouldn't know what to ask for.

:biggrin5:
It'll be like those bras they used to sell that lift and separates.

I used to love those ads.

[ftil]

You are brilliant, but you mistake me. I expect to lose my consciousness. I would love to be able to replace my body with various upgrades over time until my body is no longer physiologically human. I don't think it's impossible.

The stuff about uploading one's brain, however, one's self, into one body after another and so on, is an idea primarily supported in my mind by the fanciful works of Harlan Ellison; regarding human beings as complex machinery. When I spoke of going on in that fashion, I meant to convey that a memory of myself would be continuing throughout time. Not THE Varenne, but a being quite like her, with far greater abilities. I understand if people don't embrace this idea for themselves. I am of science, my death is inevitable, I would give my body to science quite freely. It's not, I realize, a typical point of view. The Battlestar Galactica style transfer of consciousness from body to body sure would be fun. It's fantasy, I'm a fantasy girl.

There's something else that is in support of consciousness merging with machine, something I haven't clearly explained. Scientists and doctors have successfully linked neurons in the human brain directly to computer electrodes, thereby allowing the person's brain to send signals directly to the computer. The goal, though still decades away, is for people to be able to communicate fully with their minds, wirelessly. People in comas, people who have lost motor function or have sensory impairments. It's telepathy. Thinking about what Paul said, about a body being in stasis while the mind is in a virtual world, this is very possible.

Consider cell phones, text messaging, game apps. Now imagine a cell phone that's a walking, talking, bionic device resembling a human or whatever you wish. With the new technology it's likely that a brain with a body in stasis will be able to command and control their android self, as easily as we control our existing portable devices. We have come a long way in neural mapping. There's still a lot to work out. It's going to take a really long time. It's happening though. This part isn't fantasy.

What you said about continually undergoing death, that's like "Waking Life." I'm quite fond of the movie. Have you seen it? I will read Montaigne and Lucretius. Thank you for the suggestion. Your posts are amazing. I envy your ability to manipulate language so beautifully. It's true that I am quite addicted to the "senses" racing about in my miles and miles of nerve strands. I know I will lose them. It's heart breaking, but I am thoroughly enjoying my physical experience. I still maintain that I would forfeit the physical senses to remain conscious, to see more human creativity. To experience history like no one ever has. I'm not so afraid of death anymore. I just don't want to go. It feels like a waste to go.

I felt a chill in my spine when I read your post. To be human means to live passionately, passionately create, and passionately love. Life without feeling deep passions is not worth living. Secondly people don’t need technology to communicate with each others. It is called emotional literacy or emotional awareness. Some psychologists call it a six sense as people can intuit all subtlety of emotions and feelings in others. Robots don’t create or love and don't have any insight. What a horrifying prospect. :eek:

[Paulclem]

The idea that you need to live passionately is only one view. There are lots of character types who don't live life in this way for whatever reason.

[G L Wilson]

Life isn't fair and then you die.

[Paulclem]

And as you get older it gets less and less fair.

[G L Wilson]

And as you get older it gets less and less fair.

Where would we be without wisdom?

[ftil]

The idea that you need to live passionately is only one view. There are lots of character types who don't live life in this way for whatever reason.

I agree that there are people who don’t live life in this way. I can argue that there are lots of them. More and more are waking up. I have noticed emotional zombies on another forum who have been deeply involved in Eastern religion that fosters detachment from life. Sadly, they experienced considerable pain in their life and turned into Eastern spirituality to release pain. It was not happiness that led them into a spiritual path. Unfortunately they have paid a big price of loosing their feelings and emotions, and as such, passion to live and create. Well, they are not happy now, either. Happy and fulfilled people don’t go there. They are inner directed and principle-oriented and their life is full.

[G L Wilson]

I agree that there are people who don’t live life in this way. I can argue that there are lots of them. More and more are waking up. I have noticed emotional zombies on another forum who have been deeply involved in Eastern religion that fosters detachment from life. Sadly, they experienced considerable pain in their life and turned into Eastern spirituality to release pain. It was not happiness that led them into a spiritual path. Unfortunately they have paid a big price of loosing their feelings and emotions, and as such, passion to live and create. Well, they are not happy now, either. Happy and fulfilled people don’t go there. They are inner directed and principle-oriented and their life is full.

Those Tibetan sand mandalas are good though.

[ftil]

Those Tibetan sand mandalas are good though.

I know the better way to put our creativity in full use that enriches our emotional and mental states. :biggrin5: Any spirituality is useless if it takes our happiness, feelings, and fulfillment away. Secondly, only people who feel all feelings can reach primal creativity whether they write a mathematical formula, design experiment, or write poetry. Interestingly enough those people not only have deep and fulfilling relationships but also are successful in all areas of their life. They don’t bother to follow Buddhist or Hindu religion. :brow:

[The Atheist]

Could also be cellphones, many people speculate that they realize a harmful radiation, which if the phone is in your pocket all day, can cause infertility. Unfortunately not much research has been done in to this, as it doesn't behoove anyone to find out.

Almost certainly not that. Fertility rates have been dropping since before cellphones became ubiquitous.

You're wrong about research - there has been huge investment in research of possible problems from cellphone usage. The jury is still out, but the National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones) says:


Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck.

[ftil]

Almost certainly not that. Fertility rates have been dropping since before cellphones became ubiquitous.

You're wrong about research - there has been huge investment in research of possible problems from cellphone usage. The jury is still out, but the National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones) says:

If you spend some time and research, you would find how many researches were suppressed that have shown the link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain. :biggrin5:

[Varenne Rodin]

I felt a chill in my spine when I read your post. To be human means to live passionately, passionately create, and passionately love. Life without feeling deep passions is not worth living. Secondly people don’t need technology to communicate with each others. It is called emotional literacy or emotional awareness. Some psychologists call it a six sense as people can intuit all subtlety of emotions and feelings in others. Robots don’t create or love and don't have any insight. What a horrifying prospect. :eek:

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. I do live a very passionate life. Passion will be lost from my life most certainly when I am dead, at the end of my life. Instead of just being content to die and be gone, if I can stick around, I will.

Some people DO need technology to communicate with one another. Imagine how different the life of a blind, deaf, mute could be if he/she could speak to us here on these forums, for example, and read what we're saying. To have a chance to read books, and watch movies, and view paintings, and write poems, and express love and emotions...what is sick, chilling, or disgusting about it? You want people to live their lives in the silent dark? You want me to embrace death? Would that not be more disgusting than wanting to live?

[Varenne Rodin]

If you spend some time and research, you would find how many researches were suppressed that have shown the link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain. :biggrin5:

Nope!

[ftil]

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. I do live a very passionate life. Passion will be lost from my life most certainly when I am dead, at the end of my life. Instead of just being content to die and be gone, if I can stick around, I will.

Some people DO need technology to communicate with one another. Imagine how different the life of a blind, deaf, mute could be if he/she could speak to us here on these forums, for example, and read what we're saying. To have a chance to read books, and watch movies, and view paintings, and write poems, and express love and emotions...what is sick, chilling, or disgusting about it? You want people to live their lives in the silent dark? You want me to embrace death? Would that not be more disgusting than wanting to live?

Well, I was not talking about people who may benefit from using technology. I was talking about ordinary people who see and hear. You didn’t talked about blind and mute people, either. Therefore, I felt a chill in my spine. I am afraid that you don’t live passionate life. Otherwise, you would never even think about replacing our humanness with technology. People who feel joy that is experienced on a bodily level would never ever want to give it up. :yikes:

Would I want to live like a robot rather than facing death? :biggrin5:Absolutely not! I love being fully human.


BTW, why don't you spend time and research about cell phones before making your comments. :biggrin5: There is a vast research about negative impact of cell phones. Well, it is your life and health.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, I was not talking about people who may benefit from using technology. I was talking about ordinary people who see and hear. You didn’t talked about blind and mute people, either. Therefore, I felt a chill in my spine. I am afraid that you don’t live passionate life. Otherwise, you would never even think about replacing our humanness with technology. People who feel joy that is experienced on a bodily level would never ever want to give it up. :yikes:

Would I want to live like a robot rather than facing death? :biggrin5:Absolutely not! I love being fully human.


BTW, why don't you spend time and research about cell phones before making your comments. :biggrin5: There is a vast research about negative impact of cell phones. Well, it is your life and health.

I talked about disabled and comatose people in this thread, and the strides doctors and scientists have made. I've said nothing about taking passion from anyone. Instead of trolling, maybe you should read the thread. I enjoy all of the pleasures of a human life. Learning is the most important thing in the world to me. If I have a chance to go on learning while your dead rotten husk gets eaten by maggots, score!

No passion? You're ugly.

[iamnobody]

Enhancement is not the same thing as replacement.
Making ourselves better, in whatever way, does not mean "replacing our humanness." It is still just an enhancement.

[ftil]

I talked about disabled and comatose people in this thread, and the strides doctors and scientists have made. I've said nothing about taking passion from anyone. Instead of trolling, maybe you should read the thread. I enjoy all of the pleasures of a human life. Learning is the most important thing in the world to me. If I have a chance to go on learning while your dead rotten husk gets eaten by maggots, score!

No passion? You're ugly.

LOL! Talk about projection. :biggrin5: I have read this tread and I responded to your ridicules post. Interestingly enough, I can’t find a tread about merging with technology where you also spoke for becoming a robot. I guess your memory is impaired.
Yes, I believe that you don’t have a clue what a passionate life means. Your two posts have clearly indicted that. :rofl:

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, microwave ovens emit about 5,000% more radiation than current cellular phones. Televisions also much more. Electric can openers? Similar to cell phones in radiation levels. So you go ahead and cut cell phones from your life in your radioactive hotbed house. You had better make sure your neighbors don't have electrical appliances either. In addition, tell the governments of the world to bring down all the satellites so that you don't accidentally get hit with the rays. Make sure there are no cell phone or radio towers within 50 miles of you. Don't drive your car. Don't use headphones. Avoid electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, curling irons, DVD players, remote controls for ANYTHING. Thank you for highlighting how horrible technology is...on your radioactive computing device. Glad you're thinkin' about your health and mine, sugarplum!

[ftil]

Enhancement is not the same thing as replacement.
Making ourselves better, in whatever way, does not mean "replacing our humanness." It is still just an enhancement.

What do you lack that you want to enhance? If you have a soul, feelings, and fully functioning cognitive abilities, you don’t need to enhance anything. :biggrin5:

[The Atheist]

If you spend some time and research, you would find how many researches were suppressed that have shown the link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain. :biggrin5:

Yeah, Alex Jones has all the details, so I hear.

It's filed between "Moon Hoax" and "911 was carried out by the NWO".

[Varenne Rodin]

Enhancement is not the same thing as replacement.
Making ourselves better, in whatever way, does not mean "replacing our humanness." It is still just an enhancement.

This makes perfect sense. ftil is either trolling, or completely bonkers.

[ftil]

This makes perfect sense. ftil is either trolling, or completely bonkers.

You know very well that I don't troll. I don't agree with your ridicules assumptions that it is a good idea to become a robot.:biggrin5: You need to understand that not everybody is like you. :brow:

For your convince I re-post my post.


LOL! Talk about projection. I have read this tread and I responded to your ridicules post. Interestingly enough, I can’t find a tread about merging with technology where you also spoke for becoming a robot. I guess your memory is impaired.
Yes, I believe that you don’t have a clue what a passionate life means. Your two posts have clearly indicted that.

[Varenne Rodin]

You know very well that I don't troll. I don't agree with your ridicules assumptions that it is a good idea to become a robot.:biggrin5: You need to understand that not everybody is like you. :brow:

For your convince I re-post my post.

Alright, ftil. I would like for people to someday be able to live for thousands of years. I must have no passion for life, to want it to last so long. You are obviously ultra passionate about life as you happily look forward to dying. Congrats.

[iamnobody]

I don't understand ftil. Why do assume making ourselves smarter, stronger, healthier etc. would turn us into robots?

[ftil]

Alright, ftil. I would like for people to someday be able to live for thousands of years. I must have no passion for life, to want it to last so long. You are obviously ultra passionate about life as you happily look forward to dying. Congrats.

Yes, I am passionate about life. I am not ultra passionate. :biggrin5: I am human and I love being human. But if you have never experienced passions and creativity, you are not going to understand what I am talking about. I wouldn’t want to live for thousands of years and having life void of feelings and passions. You may fool yourself that technology may enhance life. We are born with intelligence or not. :biggrin5: Technology can’t do anything about it. Everybody is unique with unique talents and strengths. I would rather die than become a drone with hive mind. I may say congrats to you. :brow:

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes, I am passionate about life. I am not ultra passionate. :biggrin5: I am human and I love being human. But if you have never experienced passions and creativity, you are not going to understand what I am talking about. I wouldn’t want to live for thousands of years and having life void of feelings and passions. You may fool yourself that technology may enhance life. We are born with intelligence or not. :biggrin5: Technology can’t do anything about it. Everybody is unique with unique talents and strengths. I would rather die than become a drone with hive mind. I may say congrats to you. :brow:

Now I have no creativity? Give your sick personal attacks to someone else, crazy. You don't know me.

[ftil]

Now I have no creativity? Give your sick personal attacks to someone else, crazy. You don't know me.

It is getting interesting. You were the one who used name calling not I. :biggrin5: You are full of projections. I read your posts and have discussion with you and it is enough to make up my mind who you are. You may fool yourself that you know about creativity and passions. I understand why you want to be…………… enhanced. :rofl:
BTW, you bored me to tears. :rolleyes5:

[G L Wilson]

It is getting interesting. You were the one who used name calling not I. :biggrin5: You are full of projections. I read your posts and have discussion with you and it is enough to make up my mind who you are. You may fool yourself that you know about creativity and passions. I understand why you want to be…………… enhanced. :rofl:
BTW, you bored me to tears. :rolleyes5:

Human beings have been modifying their bodies since forever. I don't see how calling them all freaks is going to change anything.

[Varenne Rodin]

Human beings have been modifying their bodies since forever. I don't see how calling them all freaks is going to change anything.

It's like saying people with pacemakers are freaks, or people with prosthetic limbs. We're not talking about botox injections or chin implants here.

[ftil]

Human beings have been modifying their bodies since forever. I don't see how calling them all freaks is going to change anything.

I don’t know what you mean by saying that humans have been modifying their bodies. We have minds and feelings and you can’t modify that. You may try to suppress your feelings. But we have to ask what the consequences of such actions are. Secondly, even if we suppress our feelings our limbic brain still produces peptides that goes to the blood and affect our immune system. The best solution is to feel all feelings and deal with them. The research has shown that people who are happy are very healthy. They don’t need……enhancement. :biggrin5: I don’t know anybody who is happy and fulfilled wanting to give it up to become a drone. :ihih:
You are calling them freaks not I. I see it as a serious psychological problem.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yeah, Alex Jones has all the details, so I hear.

It's filed between "Moon Hoax" and "911 was carried out by the NWO".

I should have just stopped engaging him/her/it after you said this. I had a Larry David moment. :)

[billl]

I think that

I can’t find a tread about merging with technology where you also spoke for becoming a robot. I guess your memory is impaired.
is where the insanity (or misunderstanding... or 'projecting'...) bloomed into an undeniable obviousness.

[ftil]

I think that

is where the insanity (or misunderstanding... or 'projecting'...) bloomed into an undeniable obviousness.

Hey, you have a ….unique way of using words without saying anything. Or you perhaps think that you are funny LOL!

I can’t find a tread where I made my post about the negative consequences of electro smoke. Would it help? :biggrin5:

[Paulclem]

I agree that there are people who don’t live life in this way. I can argue that there are lots of them. More and more are waking up. I have noticed emotional zombies on another forum who have been deeply involved in Eastern religion that fosters detachment from life. Sadly, they experienced considerable pain in their life and turned into Eastern spirituality to release pain. It was not happiness that led them into a spiritual path. Unfortunately they have paid a big price of loosing their feelings and emotions, and as such, passion to live and create. Well, they are not happy now, either. Happy and fulfilled people don’t go there. They are inner directed and principle-oriented and their life is full.

This is nothing to do with the thread we're talking about but a pointed comment at me. Ok. Point taken. A bit unsubtle though.

[Silas Thorne]

I'll ignore these adhominems that one individual is making as they are thoroughly unproductive, and based on flawed science.

Technology will develop, whether some of us like it or not. I believe it is up to all of us as individuals to help push the development of technology in ways that will benefit humanity.
If merely accept certain changes in technology and don't think about them though, some corporations or other groups will take advantage of our ignorance, and then they are in control of our information. Take Facebook for example. It is important for many people to use social networking, but Facebook has a habit of making changes which affect peoples' control of their own information. There are however settings which are safer, and which people who write about the tech and are aware of that can share with you in order for you to protect your data more easily. If you don't try to keep yourself aware when using new technology, and regularly modify your settings, you leave yourself open to numerous perils.
Just thinking- Science-fiction stuff here probably. Call me pessimistic, but I believe that certain important technologies in the future may largely be developed for the military, and for wealthy individuals and corporations. As things progress, it may be more and more necessary for people to fight to take control of their own lives and to seize and distribute important technologies and information, unless things radically change. I'm thinking about world politics, economics, the education system etc. I don't think Capitalism is working. I don't think the world economy is working. Education could become more online and freely available. Why is it that there are people starving while people die of obesity in 'developed' countries? How can we fix the economy? I think one answer may be to develop an advanced AI system for decision-making, since it may be able to solve a lot of our problems, and may be better equipped than many of today's leaders to deal with certain interrelated world problems, such as the economy, population, the climate, and the world food problems.
Just a bit of a rant for today, thoughts going out in a bundle. Perhaps I threw the chicken out with the bathwater, and then raided the henhouse for needles. :)

[Revolte]

Alright, ftil. I would like for people to someday be able to live for thousands of years. I must have no passion for life, to want it to last so long. You are obviously ultra passionate about life as you happily look forward to dying. Congrats.

There isn't anything wrong with looking forward to death. I have my death all planned out and I think it's a beautiful way to go. Well, not so much my death but what happens with my body after I die.

Besides death is just a part of life, and it doesn't necessarily mean we vanish for good right after either, and I'm not talking spiritually.

[YesNo]

Call me pessimistic, but I believe that certain important technologies in the future may largely be developed for the military, and for wealthy individuals and corporations. As things progress, it may be more and more necessary for people to fight to take control of their own lives and to seize and distribute important technologies and information, unless things radically change.

I suspect if the new technologies can be made profitable, they will be dispersed to everyone who is able to purchase them, and if they are health related they may be made available through government subsidy--provided the economy can support that.

What sort of "fight" do you see being needed, outside of say getting the government to subsidize the initial adoption of the technology?

[Varenne Rodin]

There isn't anything wrong with looking forward to death. I have my death all planned out and I think it's a beautiful way to go. Well, not so much my death but what happens with my body after I die.

Besides death is just a part of life, and it doesn't necessarily mean we vanish for good right after either, and I'm not talking spiritually.

I hope you'll notice that I wasn't picking on her death wish, although I can't share it. She was attacking me, obviously. To say I have no passion for life because I want to go on living, not only is that idiotic, it's scornful. I'm not upset with anyone though. It's tough knowing how to respond to wild ravings. I tried with a joke or two. Like trying to find out whose vomit killed the drummer from Spinal Tap, the police knew best when they decided to just leave it be - that's what I should have done.

As for planning things out for my body after I'm dead, I'm really not interested in having my loved ones shell out money for a squashed bug. I've seen enough dead bodies to know that it's best not to dress them up and put them into fancy boxes. I want my ashes to be scattered under trees. I love trees. Or they can be dumped in a trash bin. No matter.

I understand that death is a part of life, but if you ever lose a father, two grandfathers, two grandmothers, a brother, a sister, and three friends all in the span of five years, and then watch your mother and remaining sister go completely insane with no hope of helping them, maybe you won't be so quick to trivialize dying. My mother has witnessed the deaths of two of her husbands and two of her children. I saw all of their dead bodies in morgues. I saw more dead bodies when I was training to go into law enforcement, some of them horribly mangled children. I saw one of my friends set himself on fire and burn to death.

I get that a lot of people have not been so traumatized by death. It's good that you can be on good terms with it. I'm fine with its inevitability, but it's not fun having my point of view demeaned for not thinking it's a beautiful closure event on a "complete" life. Most people die too soon to realize their full potential.

[Paulclem]

Yes, I am passionate about life. I am not ultra passionate. :biggrin5: I am human and I love being human. But if you have never experienced passions and creativity, you are not going to understand what I am talking about. I wouldn’t want to live for thousands of years and having life void of feelings and passions. You may fool yourself that technology may enhance life. We are born with intelligence or not. :biggrin5: Technology can’t do anything about it. Everybody is unique with unique talents and strengths. I would rather die than become a drone with hive mind. I may say congrats to you. :brow:

Don't take it personally - there's yourself, me and the other pro- tech posters on this forum, 350 million Buddhists worldwide, the greater proportion of the Hindu Indian subcontinent and all the other Eastern religions that turn people into passionless zombies that have no creativity either.

Don't make assumptions about them though. :biggrin5:

Do you think if I put in some smilies it will mitigate the sarcasm?


I hope you'll notice that I wasn't picking on her death wish, although I can't share it. She was attacking me, obviously. To say I have no passion for life because I want to go on living, not only is that idiotic, it's scornful. I'm not upset with anyone though. It's tough knowing how to respond to wild ravings. I tried with a joke or two. Like trying to find out whose vomit killed the drummer from Spinal Tap, the police knew best when they decided to just leave it be - that's what I should have done.

As for planning things out for my body after I'm dead, I'm really not interested in having my loved ones shell out money for a squashed bug. I've seen enough dead bodies to know that it's best not to dress them up and put them into fancy boxes. I want my ashes to be scattered under trees. I love trees. Or they can be dumped in a trash bin. No matter.

I understand that death is a part of life, but if you ever lose a father, two grandfathers, two grandmothers, a brother, a sister, and three friends all in the span of five years, and then watch your mother and remaining sister go completely insane with no hope of helping them, maybe you won't be so quick to trivialize dying. My mother has witnessed the deaths of two of her husbands and two of her children. I saw all of their dead bodies in morgues. I saw more dead bodies when I was training to go into law enforcement, some of them horribly mangled children. I saw one of my friends set himself on fire and burn to death.

I get that a lot of people have not been so traumatized by death. It's good that you can be on good terms with it. I'm fine with its inevitability, but it's not fun having my point of view demeaned for not thinking it's a beautiful closure event on a "complete" life. Most people die too soon to realize their full potential.

I think that death is easily rationalised when the reality of it is hidden - as it clearly hasn't been hidden for you and your family. I'm not referring to Revolte's post as I don't know their situation, but it is easy to be blaze about it.

We do use tech to help with the death process, and anything that stops the pain and anxiety has to be a good thing.


I'll ignore these adhominems that one individual is making as they are thoroughly unproductive, and based on flawed science.

Technology will develop, whether some of us like it or not. I believe it is up to all of us as individuals to help push the development of technology in ways that will benefit humanity.
If merely accept certain changes in technology and don't think about them though, some corporations or other groups will take advantage of our ignorance, and then they are in control of our information. Take Facebook for example. It is important for many people to use social networking, but Facebook has a habit of making changes which affect peoples' control of their own information. There are however settings which are safer, and which people who write about the tech and are aware of that can share with you in order for you to protect your data more easily. If you don't try to keep yourself aware when using new technology, and regularly modify your settings, you leave yourself open to numerous perils.
Just thinking- Science-fiction stuff here probably. Call me pessimistic, but I believe that certain important technologies in the future may largely be developed for the military, and for wealthy individuals and corporations. As things progress, it may be more and more necessary for people to fight to take control of their own lives and to seize and distribute important technologies and information, unless things radically change. I'm thinking about world politics, economics, the education system etc. I don't think Capitalism is working. I don't think the world economy is working. Education could become more online and freely available. Why is it that there are people starving while people die of obesity in 'developed' countries? How can we fix the economy? I think one answer may be to develop an advanced AI system for decision-making, since it may be able to solve a lot of our problems, and may be better equipped than many of today's leaders to deal with certain interrelated world problems, such as the economy, population, the climate, and the world food problems.
Just a bit of a rant for today, thoughts going out in a bundle. Perhaps I threw the chicken out with the bathwater, and then raided the henhouse for needles. :)

There's a lot of open source alternatives for computer programmes these days - it would be good to have a kind of open source alternative to technologies too. It is beginning t happen. We bought a rubbish fridge 5 years ago that started playing up. Some kind engineer fellow put the whole instructions for how to fix it online - and a novie like myself was able to fix it. The internet does give options like this to peple who are willing to go the extras mile.

By the way, the fridge gave up the ghost not too long after, but at least it delayed us having to get another.

[Dodo25]

I don't think there's anything wrong with death, except for the fact that we have an evolved aversion to it. I've been dead all the 13.7 billion years before my birth, and frankly, I hadn't had anything to complain about.

Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with living ultra-long lives, as long as they're happy and that's what's wanted.

Also, to get this back on track, I ask again, what's so great about being 'human'? Why should that be the standard?


Several posts ask whether we'd not loose 'what makes us human'. I have used that phrased in essays in school several times I think. But recently I realized that it is an 'appeal to intuition' fallacy, an unjustified placeholder sounding like an actual arguement.

Seriously, what is so great about being human?

We are not created in God's image. We are the product of a blind, indifferent processes called evolution by natural selection. In this regard, we do not differ from other animals. Within us, we harbor destructive drives, in-group vs. out-group mentality, xenophobia, greed... All because our faculties evolved to promote as many genes as possible. We did not evolve to be 'good' or 'happy'.

Take sexuality. On the one hand, we have love, a wonderful feeling that evolved so two partners stay together for a period of time to raise a child together. On the other hand, we have jealousy, because unconditional love would be bad for genes. We also have lust to encourage cheating. Our motivational emotions are a huge mess, almost preprogrammed to lead to suffering.

Some people are born with a genetic predisposition to 'being unhappy'. Environmental factors have actually a smaller influence on our happiness than we might guess. And a very small fraction of people are actually born with a genetic predisposition for happiness. They're just smiling and cheerful all the time! And it's not like they'd be unmotivated, they're actually more productive even. Is there a reason to keep up the genetic roulette and risky gene selection (by selecting mates, we select genes already), or should we not rather make sure that children get the genes that make them and world happiest?

We have a huge 'status-quo bias'. But if one thinks about it, there is really no justification that 'this' would be the ideal way to be. In fact, given the way evolution works, we should expect that this is not at all the ideal way to be!

Richard Dawkins once said:
"During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying from starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so."

[My emphasis]
That is 'nature'! That's where 'being human' comes from!

Must it really be so?

http://www.hedweb.com/

[ftil]

Don't take it personally - there's yourself, me and the other pro- tech posters on this forum, 350 million Buddhists worldwide, the greater proportion of the Hindu Indian subcontinent and all the other Eastern religions that turn people into passionless zombies that have no creativity either.

Don't make assumptions about them though. :biggrin5:

Do you think if I put in some smilies it will mitigate the sarcasm?

Well, I don’t make assumptions and I don’t take it personally. :brow: I have noticed that it is you who jump to quick conclusions without thoroughly researching a subject. I have done a deep research about Eastern religions and new age version and its impact on emotional and mental well being. Emotional healing is my passion and I wanted to know what has happened to a number of people who has become emotional zombies. I am not the only one who has noticed it. There is a number of psychologists and therapists who share this concerns.



This is nothing to do with the thread we're talking about but a pointed comment at me. Ok. Point taken. A bit unsubtle though.

It has everything to do with this topic. Please don’t make assumptions that if it doesn’t fit to your view of reality.....it is against this tread. You may have a very different idea what being a human means. You are free to express it but don’t try to control others. :biggrin5:

[Varenne Rodin]

"Help help! I'm being repressed."

[YesNo]

I don't think there's anything wrong with death, except for the fact that we have an evolved aversion to it. I've been dead all the 13.7 billion years before my birth, and frankly, I hadn't had anything to complain about.

Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with living ultra-long lives, as long as they're happy and that's what's wanted.

Also, to get this back on track, I ask again, what's so great about being 'human'? Why should that be the standard?
I like to think whatever I get reincarnated into is "great" -- and so are all the other species that share the same time with me.

So I guess the question is irrelevant from my perspective.

[ftil]

We are not created in God's image. We are the product of a blind, indifferent processes called evolution by natural selection. In this regard, we do not differ from other animals. Within us, we harbor destructive drives, in-group vs. out-group mentality, xenophobia, greed... All because our faculties evolved to promote as many genes as possible. We did not evolve to be 'good' or 'happy'.

Take sexuality. On the one hand, we have love, a wonderful feeling that evolved so two partners stay together for a period of time to raise a child together. On the other hand, we have jealousy, because unconditional love would be bad for genes. We also have lust to encourage cheating. Our motivational emotions are a huge mess, almost preprogrammed to lead to suffering.

Some people are born with a genetic predisposition to 'being unhappy'. Environmental factors have actually a smaller influence on our happiness than we might guess. And a very small fraction of people are actually born with a genetic predisposition for happiness. They're just smiling and cheerful all the time! And it's not like they'd be unmotivated, they're actually more productive even. Is there a reason to keep up the genetic roulette and risky gene selection (by selecting mates, we select genes already), or should we not rather make sure that children get the genes that make them and world happiest?


I felt sad reading your post. We don’t differ from other animlas……..Is that so?
I think that it is a big difference between humans and animals. Or perhaps, you are talking about pre Adamic people that Rudolf Steiner talked about. :biggrin5: We have minds, feelings, and souls. We have also responsibility to grow. You may give many example of people who are immature and who refused to become an adult. Sadly, there is majority of them. But there is a small percentage of people who live their lives to the fullest and it is a pure delight to be around them.They not only have deep and intimate relationship with a partner and children but they are also highly successful and happy.

I don’t know where you got the idea about genetic predisposition for happiness. :brow: There is no such a thing. Life is about personal growth. Some people have to work harder then others and I don’t have the answer why. It is a matter of taking charge of our lives and freeing our minds from our programming. We have been brained washed, expecting instant gratification and instant happiness. If we don’t get it and we are not happy…we look for technology to make us happy and fulfilled. Nothing can be further from truth than that.:reddevil:
BTW, there are many forums where people discuss the technology and nanotechnology, and to my delight, I heard a strong voices against it that have came from people who based their opinions on solid research.

[Varenne Rodin]

I felt sad reading your post. We don’t differ from other animlas……..Is that so?
I think that it is a big difference between humans and animals. Or perhaps, you are talking about pre Adamic people that Rudolf Steiner talked about. :biggrin5: We have minds, feelings, and souls. We have also responsibility to grow. You may give many example of people who are immature and who refused to become an adult. Sadly, there is majority of them. But there is a small percentage of people who live their lives to the fullest and it is a pure delight to be around them.They not only have deep and intimate relationship with a partner and children but they are also highly successful and happy.

I don’t know where you got the idea about genetic predisposition for happiness. :brow: There is no such a thing. Life is about personal growth. Some people have to work harder then others and I don’t have the answer why. It is a matter of taking charge of our lives and freeing our minds from our programming. We have been brained washed, expecting instant gratification and instant happiness. If we don’t get it and we are not happy…we look for technology to make us happy and fulfilled. Nothing can be further from truth than that.:reddevil:
BTW, there are many forums where people discuss the technology and nanotechnology, and to my delight, I heard a strong voices against it that have came from people who based their opinions on solid research.

If you have no need for technology, if you get no enjoyment from it, why are you communicating electronically through these forums?

[ftil]

If you have no need for technology, if you get no enjoyment from it, why are you communicating electronically through these forums?

I think that we are talking about different technology than internet. :biggrin5: Can’t you get that?
Hey, why don’t you find others who will enjoy conversation with you. :devil:

[OrphanPip]

I agree with Varenne, Thomas had it right: "rage, rage against the dying of the light."

As long as life can be comfortable and productive, then I'd like it to be as long as possible.

[G L Wilson]

I don’t know what you mean by saying that humans have been modifying their bodies. We have minds and feelings and you can’t modify that. You may try to suppress your feelings. But we have to ask what the consequences of such actions are. Secondly, even if we suppress our feelings our limbic brain still produces peptides that goes to the blood and affect our immune system. The best solution is to feel all feelings and deal with them. The research has shown that people who are happy are very healthy. They don’t need……enhancement. :biggrin5: I don’t know anybody who is happy and fulfilled wanting to give it up to become a drone. :ihih:
You are calling them freaks not I. I see it as a serious psychological problem.

I want a new drug.

[Paulclem]

I have noticed that it is you who jump to quick conclusions without thoroughly researching a subject.

You evidence that and an apology will be forthcoming.

I have done a deep research about Eastern religions and new age version and its impact on emotional and mental well being.

I see no evidence of this from your posts in this and other threads. After I enquired about your knowledge you were a bit evasive.

Emotional healing is my passion and I wanted to know what has happened to a number of people who has become emotional zombies. I am not the only one who has noticed it. There is a number of psychologists and therapists who share this concerns.

Evidence/examples. From your previous post you implied that all the Eastern religions do this.

It has everything to do with this topic. Please don’t make assumptions that if it doesn’t fit to your view of reality.....it is against this tread. You may have a very different idea what being a human means. You are free to express it but don’t try to control others.

Control? This is a discussion.

May I ask what this presumption:

More and more are waking up. I have noticed emotional zombies on another forum who have been deeply involved in Eastern religion that fosters detachment from life. Sadly, they experienced considerable pain in their life and turned into Eastern spirituality to release pain. It was not happiness that led them into a spiritual path. Unfortunately they have paid a big price of loosing their feelings and emotions, and as such, passion to live and create. Well, they are not happy now, either. Happy and fulfilled people don’t go there. They are inner directed and principle-oriented and their life is full.


has to do with this tech thread? We've discussed Buddhism before, so I feel this is pointed and not relevant here.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread is now littered with inflammatory and personal comments,

it will now be closed.