41 replies to this topic

[Shannon Vyff]

you can know about things that don't make sense--such as atrocities in this world that I'm not sure we can ever understand...

other than that I'm all for the knowledge of understanding all we can through reason, logic, the scientific method--etc.

[DJS]

omnido: To each his own

Naturally.

The ultimate objective intention

Your terminology is peculiar and I find myself guessing at how exactly you define your terms. Does your use of the term “objective” indicate a particular stance in regards to external realism? Does “intention”, a formal term within philosophy of the mind, signify some sort of omniscient mind dependent reality? Anyway…

Reductionism certainly has its usefulness, and it is more or less a necessity while we operate from within the constraints of our present neurobiological substrate, but it can also sometimes lead us significantly astray. I imagine, based on my own feeble intuitions and the current state of affairs in cosmology, that a reasonable “answer” would be that Reality is infinite possibility. However, similar to Deep Thought’s ultimate answer of 42, without providing any context the statement is totally vacuous.

Providing context requires the exploration of all that is logically possible. The theoretical constructs and perceptual apparatus available to human beings are useful in this regard, but hopefully only the tip of the iceberg compared to the capacities of post-human modes of being. Even so, we are, and by definition always will be, finite beings faced with a task infinite in scope. (unless my intuitions prove false)

Knowledge is power

If it is useful in the exercising of one’s will, then yes.

[DJS]

Ageist: Knowledge...true knowledge IS power. But true knowledge isn't really possible. So its academic anyway.

Look at my current signature. "Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do."

Pragmatic truth ("truth is what works") satisfies my needs, at least for now. Knowledge that is used to produce desirable results is power. Technology, which is a particular manifestation of knowledge, is the most easily comprehensible example of this.

Try telling someone who just had a smart bomb dropped on their head that knowledge isn't power. [sfty]

[DJS]

Ageist: the best counter-immortality argument: "death imposes a limit which motivates you into action, without death, we are less motivated to acheive anything worthwhile." I think this is the most true argument against immortality

I view the argument from boredom as the most sound objection to Immortalism. The common Immortalist response is to fall back on the principle of freedom - "all we are advocating is that people be given the freedom to choose the length of their lifespan rather than having it imposed on them by their biological legacy. If someone is bored and no longer desires to live, then s/he should be free to self-terminate." Unfortunately, such a response doesn't actually address the challenge made to the quest for immortality by boredom and, in a more general sense, the current parameters of human psychology.

The other response is to simply counter that there will always be new areas of interest to occupy our attention. I do not find this a satisfactory solution to the problem. Perhaps I could exist in my present human form for a few hundred years and become the ultimate renaissance man, but eventually the limitations of my human level cognition would probably stymie my will to life. Can one truly imagine living for a million years in human form?

This is why I do not view "Immortalism" as a full fledged philosophy, but instead a carefully crafted activist agenda. Follow the implications of indefinite life spans to their natural conclusion and what you find waiting at the end of the tunnel is the philosophy of Transhumanism.

[DJS]

A possible solution would be for Immortalism to become a standard-bearer for the cause of psychological well-being in relation to indefinite lifespans. As of yet this has not happened, and there is good reason why it hasn't. Such advocacy would require highly abstract philosophizing, offer no immediate payoff (as the problem is way down the road) and potentially negatively impact the effectiveness of our message (by adding future shock and confusing marginally interested parties). Immortalism is a memeplex that has been optimizing for action now, which makes sense because, as I said, it is an activist endeavor.

Besides from this, like Omnido, my motivation for an indefinite extension of life span is not "for its own sake". So even if said alterations to the platform were made I wouldn't find such a value set preferable to the one I currently maintain.

[Omnido]

Can one truly imagine living for a million years in human form?

Absolutely.
The Sun is going to keep shining for another 4.6 Billion or so, therefore 1 million is a drop in the bucket.

Personally, I'd love to live long enough to watch our Sun commit its death throes, and burn itself out in an expanded bubble of cooling plasma.
Unfortunately, thats a few billion away.
Could I imagine living 1 million years in human form? Quite assuredly.
I now easily shrug off 2-5 years without blinking, and from what I have been told by my elder collegues, the age associated time dialation crunch becomes increasingly prominent as one gets older.

This is why I do not view "Immortalism" as a full fledged philosophy, but instead a carefully crafted activist agenda.  Follow the implications of indefinite life spans to their natural conclusion and what you find waiting at the end of the tunnel is the philosophy of Transhumanism.

Transhumanism to me doesnt automatically imply transfiguration, as augmentation of oneself mentally or physically isnt tantamount to current biological human obsolescence.

But to each, their own.

[DJS]

But to each, their own.

Yes, yes, to each hir own. This is often what two agents who embrace rationality say to one another when intuitions differ. If you think for some reason that I am trying to convince you of something, then you’re mistaken.

Rationality as I conceive of it comes in gradations, and the more advanced levels require an individual to rise above (or at least be consciously aware of) the influences of human group dynamics on psychology. Also, a realistic appraisal of one’s control on the world around hir usually leads to a negative assessment for most forms of proselytizing (and for that matter, just plain committed action). The exception being when the desired predisposition is present, in which case the possible gains of making an effort to refine and “cultivate” can occasionally offer an attractive incentive. As a consequence of this, when interacting with crude perspectives the dictum of “live and let live” is, for myself at least, based not on principle but on pragmatics.

At higher levels of discourse involving established and uber-rational perspectives most of the above considerations are implicit, with quid pro quo arrangements being given for the exchange of perspectives.*

Could I imagine living 1 million years in human form? Quite assuredly.

Intuitions will differ.

Transhumanism to me doesnt automatically imply transfiguration, as augmentation of oneself mentally or physically isnt tantamount to current biological human obsolescence.

Regarding transconfiguration (by which I take it you mean some type of transcendence), again, intuitions will differ.

In terms of agenthood, declaring something “obsolete” or “not obsolete” is a value judgment. Are chimpanzees obsolete? I don’t see this question as relevant. Chimpanzees constitute a particular “mode of Being” that possesses subhuman cognitive capabilities - nothing more, nothing less. Ultimately however, the lopsided power dynamic between chimps and humanity can not be denied. This disparity means humanity holds the trump card if and when interests conflict. Applicable analogy? Debatable.

Out of curiosity, do you find radical cognitive augmentation by technological means desirable/possible? If not, why?


* Edit

[Omnido]

This is often what two agents who embrace rationality say to one another when intuitions differ.  If you think for some reason that I am trying to convince you of something, then you’re mistaken.

Not at all.
I was merely expressing my respect for individual justifications.
While we could spend pages and pages on pragmatical discussion, evaluation, justification via logical coherence, productivity, or their antitheses, this would ultimately result in what you mentioned as some misconstrued form of proselytizing.
Nice use of words, although I have no need to utilize that extensive a degree of semantics for a discussion.

...a realistic appraisal of one’s control on the world around hir usually leads to a negative assessment for most forms of proselytizing (and for that matter, just plain committed action).

Well if by that you are implying a condition where intelligent and highly-cognitive individuals come to the realization that incredible claims require incredible proof, or incredible concepts require incredible constructs or efforts to materalize them, then I agree.
If that wasnt what you meant, then please clarify.

At higher levels of discourse involving established and uber-rational perspectives most of the above considerations are implicit, with quid pro quo arrangements being given for the exchange of perspectives.*

Id have to agree, to some extent.
Im more of a "Sympathetic Donor" to the less "uber-rational", as achieving said status or capability (depending on perspective) can still be desired, partially comprehended, and envisioned by said individuals.

Out of curiosity, do you find radical cognitive augmentation by technological means desirable/possible?  If not, why?

If you are referring to any artifical system which can ultimately replace all of the biological functions which are currently required to sustain a conscious human mind, then yes.
That seems a general reference to said system(s), but I have no qualms about abandoning my human biological makeup, so long as my consciousness, collection of experiences, and fundamental rules by which they operate; be they simulated or nano-mechanically/electrically duplcated on a smaller scale, is safely transferred to an equivalent artificial system of comparable capabilities.

For some, this could be as simple as a total nano-fabricated mind and body.
For others, it is tantamount to "uploading" ones mind into a system capable of handling it.
I stress continuity of consciousness, but that is a personal perrogative justified and established via logical proofs.
Some have no interest in maintaining continuity, and that is their choice, no doubt justified (to them) with what you referred to as "Differring intuitions."

As for "Radical", well...
That gets into gray areas of definition, as I have been referred to by many as a "Radical Thinker", yet such thoughts, opinions, and ideas are not soley mine.
Many have demonstrated similar if not identical models of thought within this institution, one of which is the current Chair.
If aforementioned hypothetical "Augmentation" serves to increase my existing capabilities, boundaries, capacity, and the sheer speed at which those elements to my consciousness function, whilst simultainously maintaining my current perception(s) and regard for what makes me "Human" (that gets into real gray areas, I know) then yes.
If not, then no.

[Rational Madman]

Judging by the IMDB ratings alone, Fight Club is immensely popular, but I doubt that's owing to its social anarchist and emasculation themes. Rather, its popularity is probably due to it's inspired dialogue and ceaselessly entertaining plot.

Edited by Rol82, 25 September 2010 - 05:26 PM.

[hotamali]

Judging by the IMDB ratings alone, Fight Club is immensely popular, but I doubt that's owing to its social anarchist and emasculation themes. Rather, its popularity is probably due to it's inspired dialogue and ceaselessly entertaining plot.

Holy thread revival Batman!

[wawee]

While I am strongly against CS Lewis' theology, i do like this

HI,
I agree with you..

[Aegist]

I was just thinking about this topic the other day, and coincidentally you post in this thread

I still absolutely love the concepts in this movie!