12 replies to this topic

[mentatpsi]

I have a question that's been bothering me for some time with transhumanism. I will state first that i'm not against, but greatly support, the increasing of intelligence and rationality through any means necessary. As well as stating I'm not basing my argument on any dogma based moral objection.

However, there remains a concern about some of the methods with which we base our dreams of. Has anyone thought, as far as the Brain Chips and nanotech that Kurzweil keeps mentioning, that these things can be used as a means of control, rather than a tool of enlightenment.

We have now reached an age in which progress is of the utmost importance no matter the consequences that our actions present. One only needs to look at the pharmaceuticals (once again i'm not saying I'm against them all). Antidepressants now serve the same function as religion. That stimulants such as coffee or the prescribed kind, now function as chivalry and honor in order to compel people to take on higher workloads no matter the consequences that will unfold upon the body.

So who is to say that the technologies we have such high hopes won't be surrounded and influenced by the politics that went into their invention. I would really like to hear people's opinions because even to this day no one can say science and progress isn't influenced by politics.

[Cyberbrain]

This is why I also advocate a Secular Democratic Liberal/Libertarian Technocracy to go along with the Singularity and other Transhumanist prospects such as Immortality. The current corrupted system we have now will surely lead us to more chaos and war.

[niner]

We already have mind control in the form of Fox News etc. Technologies that increase intelligence should help more than hurt. I think that to equate antidepressants with religion kind of undermines the rest of your arguments. It's reasonable to be wary about the possible uses that new technology might be put to, but I'm not worried about it unless someone tells me that I *have to* get a certain implant, manufactured by, say, Diebold.

[Shannon Vyff]

Antidepressants don't fill in for Scientology

[mentatpsi]

This is why I also advocate a Secular Democratic Liberal/Libertarian Technocracy to go along with the Singularity and other Transhumanist prospects such as Immortality. The current corrupted system we have now will surely lead us to more chaos and war.

I'm completely with you as far as a secular government, the last thing we need are false moralities to influence societal norms based on a reality that takes precedence over our own. We need scientific presidents and officials, people who actually can form an argument based on conclusive evidence, be able to hold their grounds using reason and logic, and at least be able to show their knowledge of physics, just for the fun . As far as Immortality, if you've ever read Dune (my userpic is one of the books), it talks of this spice that allows one to increase intelligence/awareness, and also prolong life, it is the cash crop within this book, and those who control it are the ones that control power. So it would be interesting to see how this immortality pursuit plays out economically. Regardless, as far as democratic, i assume you mean people based rather than political affiliation. I still don't see how Bush got into office, he seems to go against most of the population right now, and if that was democratic then... well i think you know where i'm going with this... basically restating Voltaire's opinion of democracy.

Your last sentence is great, but how, there is no form of government that works, this one allows for economic flexibility and really gives a lot of opportunities, as long as you're not dealt cards of poverty or any other low quality conditions within the homes and/or neighborhoods. It allows for mass control over knowledge by realizing that most people get their knowledge from tv, and occasional glances at some News articles, but there's a generic indifference. Most intelligent people might care, but there's so much progress to be made within their domain of interest and expertise that there's no one left to make a decent argument nor provide a framework of change that would grant mass population appeal. People get rewarded for their progress, but any changes desired within a political scheme gets punished... it's simple conditioning, you can't change conditioning so easily on people who have little awareness of the mind storms that awake within the silence . I value the ability to find a market and to work my ass off, hopefully not all of it, to attain my goals, especially considering I'm going to make money by doing something i enjoy doing, maybe going to grad school or just going directly to work. How can we change this mode of existence and ensure the same return rate for education. How do we ensure a quality of life to all people while maintaining economic strength...

We already have mind control in the form of Fox News etc.

Lol, that's a pretty good example. Though, there's a way to abort that form of mind control and it's called gaining a good secular scientific education, this really allows people to pursue knowledge from multiple perspectives. Maybe alongside a philosophy course that would insist on questioning peoples beliefs, I might be wrong on this, we don't need another Unibomber (not sure the impacts of those experiments).

I think that to equate antidepressants with religion kind of undermines the rest of your arguments.

My apologies about the antidepressant thing, i do at times attack antidepressants mainly because i see them as a means of numbing that is being over prescribed in situations where it's not necessary. Having myself been on them (mainly for OCD), i have seen more progress, within the conception of self, without it then ever with it. More control over emotions as well, still training of course.

But i didn't say religion and antidepressants equate, i said they are designed for the same purposes. Religion allows for multiple interpretations that can go in most people's favor, especially the producer of the religion as well as the holders of power. Religion is one of the most easiest means of control, it's bound too much on faith and too little on reason. Some savor dying for your sins, wait... there is an absolute morality? Strange, i could have swore it changes with time... so you say my sins are part of my natural design... someone made a flawed design and i'm paying for it? So I'll become version 2.0 if i follow what you say... hmm does sound compelling. Now antidepressants don't always favor the producer, but the market for them... they gain money which equates to power. The main thing that antidepressants can say is that they don't lead to as many deaths, but then you can look at cults, which are just religions in beta stages without the appeal in them yet. Perhaps my argument is weak but it wasn't my main point.

It's reasonable to be wary about the possible uses that new technology might be put to, but I'm not worried about it unless someone tells me that I *have to* get a certain implant, manufactured by, say, Diebold.

I have also thought about the example of a competitive market for such technologies being the real solution, and a government that ensure economic freedom. However, the idea of any form of altering in neurotransmitters and dynamics within the brain frightens me, if we are to consider that in order to integrate bio chips, which if in accordance with the 20 year prediction of ~100% knowledge of the brain being the cause of this, then we are to consider that there will be abilities to alter both perception, consciousness, and emotion very easily by modifying the right areas. One only needs to look at stimulants and see that the feeling of being capable of such progressiveness within the amount of time of the medication is overwhelming and quite enjoyable. It is not all that difficult to make someone enjoy something he might not originally enjoy. There is way too much ability to gradually make people lean towards certain behaviors, and enforce societal norms in this regard. Do you really believe there will be nothing coming from a desire for crime control?

Though i must say a chip from Diebold ensures the highest quality standard and won't result in a tumor, plus it's Food Drug and Computing Administration approved... so i think you should get one from them .

Technologies that increase intelligence should help more than hurt.

I would love to see this as a pure technology, ooh how i would love to think billions of times quicker and engage in thoughts within theoretical physics that would put Einstein to shame while taking a shower, but i worry about the costs of such desires.

Antidepressants don't fill in for Scientology

Scientology cannot be beaten, Tom Cruise with his maniacal laugh and i'm already praising... hmm well I don't really know who I'm praising, but if he's an alien then i suspect we'll be getting some of this technology soon... mwhahahaha

Edited by mysticpsi, 14 March 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

As far as Immortality, if you've ever read Dune (my userpic is one of the books), it talks of this spice that allows one to increase intelligence/awareness, and also prolong life, it is the cash crop within this book, and those who control it are the ones that control power. So it would be interesting to see how this immortality pursuit plays out economically.

Dune is a great story (I've watched the movies and played the video game)

As time passes we'll soon be able to not only stop and reverse aging, but we'll also be able to augment our intelligence to become smarter. I can only hope that we'll find a cheap way to manufacture and distribute the cure to aging so everyone can have an equal chance. However, overpopulation could become a problem which is why I advocate that we reduce the worlds population. As it is today, I don't think we have enough resources to medically cover everyone equally nor do I think we have enough resources to give everyone a chance to an upper middle class life. Not to mention that its hard to control and educate so many people. War, poverty, disease, famine and corruption are bound to be products of overpopulation.

Regardless, as far as democratic, i assume you mean people based rather than political affiliation. I still don't see how Bush got into office, he seems to go against most of the population right now, and if that was democratic then... well i think you know where i'm going with this... basically restating Voltaire's opinion of democracy.

As it is now, I don't think democracy works. The only reason Bush was elected was that 1) about 30% of Americans only voted and 2) most of those who voted were red necks and ultraconservatives. In my view democracy can only work if we have two things:

1. Every is intellectually educated (this means everyone has a secular high school and college education, preferably in a field of science).

2. Every single citizen votes (this way it would be more fair).

Sparta is also an interesting model. It would be interesting to have two presidents or parties in power at the same time in order to balance out power. But overall I think we definitely need a technocracy where there is no influence of religion. I also advocate small government and little government intervention in order to protect our liberties (libertarianism). However, on the subject of health care, to me this is not a privilege but a humanitarian right. I believe that regardless of what the policy is, every human on earth deserves equal health care of the highest quality (I'm also against the death penalty)

Edited by Kostas, 13 March 2008 - 03:37 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Dune is a great story (I've watched the movies and played the video game)

I need to play the games but i find my system probably wouldn't be able to run them, perhaps dune 2000?

As time passes we'll soon be able to not only stop and reverse aging, but we'll also be able to augment our intelligence to become smarter. I can only hope that we'll find a cheap way to manufacture and distribute the cure to aging so everyone can have an equal chance. However, overpopulation could become a problem which is why I advocate that we reduce the worlds population. As it is today, I don't think we have enough resources to medically cover everyone equally nor do I think we have enough resources to give everyone a chance to an upper middle class life. Not to mention that its hard to control and educate so many people. War, poverty, disease, famine and corruption are bound to be products of overpopulation.

I'm wondering if this cure for aging will come with a big price, manufacturing costs isn't the issue, and probably won't be since it'll probably be something that a lot of people and corporations will spend a lot of time to invent and research to make a more refined product over time. Even if the manufacturing and research costs will be high, with something as valuable as life, it's very easy to modify the price tag on these things, how much would anyone pay for life over death? There's bound to be a huge amount of profit made on this, and this price tag would give a lot of power to certain people and agencies as well as cut certain people away from this.

Resources limitations and overpopulation are exactly the issue, I'm just going to hope we one day see plans on making a suitable habitat out of other planets and colonizing them to ensure a level of higher resources. I think this would allow us to use solar energy much more efficiently, as well as building more nuclear power plants. We need to be able to build buildings that (kind of like starcraft) can be launched from the ground and serve as floating independent islands that could be directed to any location as long as the drop would be calm or just remain in orbit and have some form of transportation to carry the stored energy in another form. I do mean when we're colonized, not sure the energy ratio consumption/production as well as the costs of transportation to such an "island of energy" would justify production. Perhaps i'm being idealistic with this... but we are supposed to become a type 1 civilization within this century...

As it is now, I don't think democracy works. The only reason Bush was elected was that 1) about 30% of Americans only voted and 2) most of those who voted were red necks and ultraconservatives. In my view democracy can only work if we have two things:

1. Every is intellectually educated (this means everyone has a secular high school and college education, preferably in a field of science).

2. Every single citizen votes (this way it would be more fair).

Sparta is also an interesting model. It would be interesting to have two presidents or parties in power at the same time in order to balance out power. But overall I think we definitely need a technocracy where there is no influence of religion. I also advocate small government and little government intervention in order to protect our liberties (libertarianism).

aah, secular high school education and college, what a utopia. I'm still surprised we don't spend money on a universal education plan, we just spent enough money to ensure one child to a relatively good university, talk about the potential... There isn't really such a thing as democratic government, our original model of free enterprise and a Laissez-faire government (especially what happened after the civil war and the technicalities) ensured a great deal of power within the hands of those who had money allowing corporations to gain more power than individuals. Over time, it becomes impossible to maintain a non corrupt form of government that don't act like puppets. Just look at marketing strategies, or the way people maintain economic power, or manipulate people's opinions. Our herd animal instincts allows many to be easily manipulated, mainstream culture is deteriorating (in respects to certain things) making marketing all the easier. Power is maintained through people's ignorance/indifference. Also when this power seems invisible to most, people don't really care as long as they can maintain a high quality of life and allow them that flexibility. False impressions go a long way to maintain the status quo.

I would enjoy two presidents in office though, could prove to be interesting, at least in a simulation for the time being .

However, on the subject of health care, to me this is not a privilege but a humanitarian right. I believe that regardless of what the policy is, every human on earth deserves equal health care of the highest quality

I'm kind of neutral on the health care thing, we don't have the economic power right now to ensure great quality health care without making it a market. Perhaps when the singularity happens, which is also bothersome as far as an economic and political scope, all people will be capable of the same quality health care that we have now in high priced health care plans. This will happen because global intelligence will go up, as well as rises in nanotechnology.

(I'm also against the death penalty)

lol, death penalty, my god, how are we so content with bringing people to death when we have no idea what's on the other side.



Gah, we need an intelligent secular president, who prefers the progression of science and would put our tax dollars to good use. Increasing the quality and availability of education is one of the most important thing you can do to ensure a higher quality of living.

Edited by mysticpsi, 14 March 2008 - 05:58 PM.

[mentatpsi]

Hmm, perhaps i should ask a more defined question. How do we as an educated population, ensure that these technologies be met with the desire for the progression of our species rather than for the ambitions of few? I can go into various assumptions about religion, but it doesn't hit the point i'm trying to cover, with more penetrating technologies, freedom becomes something that can be more easily taken away. How can we prevent this?

[ntenhue]

Hmm, perhaps i should ask a more defined question. How do we as an educated population, ensure that these technologies be met with the desire for the progression of our species rather than for the ambitions of few? I can go into various assumptions about religion, but it doesn't hit the point i'm trying to cover, with more penetrating technologies, freedom becomes something that can be more easily taken away. How can we prevent this?

I can envision a number of Utopian schemes that would prevent this, however none of them could be deemed unassailable due to the sad and simple truth that humans are a corrupt and praetorian species.

[mentatpsi]

Hmm, perhaps i should ask a more defined question. How do we as an educated population, ensure that these technologies be met with the desire for the progression of our species rather than for the ambitions of few? I can go into various assumptions about religion, but it doesn't hit the point i'm trying to cover, with more penetrating technologies, freedom becomes something that can be more easily taken away. How can we prevent this?

I can envision a number of Utopian schemes that would prevent this, however none of them could be deemed unassailable due to the sad and simple truth that humans are a corrupt and praetorian species.

It's not exactly "corrupt" that humans are... we're just way too capable of narrow mindedness... soaking in a lot of the societal norms without question... I'm assuming though you somewhat agree this bleak fate is a possibility eh ntenhue?

People need to wake up, we've no need for primitive assumptions of the world. This isn't a critic on the people here, since most i have noticed are quite able of defending themselves... just most of the people that live without questioning and die without really taking it in.

I am kind of shocked that people aren't more ready to defend the ideals that transhumanism is supposed to embrace, though. Perhaps i went off topic too much throughout the post, to which i apologize.

But how much faith do you have that the technology will increase your capacity when everything that went into building that technology was entirely out of your hands.

Are you willing to make a leap of faith for installation?
Ready to sacrifice personal freedoms, individual thoughts and identity just in case? (perhaps you consider these things illusions)
Will it bring you closer to your ideals?
How does this separate anyone from religion if it involves a relatively blind faith?

Perhaps most people will wait until other people have it installed to see how it works... I most certainly will not invite this technology in my brain with open arms (or skull lol). The higher the rewards the higher the price. I want to hear what people believe, why you guys embrace these radical alterations (not that i'm against radical alterations lol), but more importantly why does anyone think they'll be the ones profiting from these technologies.

I can understand longevity research... personally even if i am technically a slave to a system of constant work and low return in this corporate world, i wouldn't mind continuing being a slave for another 200 years or whatever we reach, if it means i can pursue happiness and explore avenues of life in my own time in my own way . I want my freedoms and i want my thoughts. Can the future guarantee them?

Edited by mysticpsi, 22 March 2008 - 08:02 AM.

[abolitionist]

Increasing technological powers without changing our inherent nature is a big problem.

IMO, we should make genetic engineering a priority.

Edited by abolitionist, 22 March 2008 - 09:43 AM.

[Mewtwo]

You cannot change society from within when your numbers are so small.

Transhumanists, Technocrats, and other ultra-progressive groups need to band together into at least a large minority and create a sort of EPCOT of progressive ideals. In this way, the possibility and desirability of progress (as we tend to define it) will gain a more physical and publicly noticeable form.

Again, lots of money. ($2 billion+ for a "city" of ~5,000 to be self-sufficient)




(Note: I am a Transhumanist and a Technocrat)

[mentatpsi]

You cannot change society from within when your numbers are so small.

Transhumanists, Technocrats, and other ultra-progressive groups need to band together into at least a large minority and create a sort of EPCOT of progressive ideals. In this way, the possibility and desirability of progress (as we tend to define it) will gain a more physical and publicly noticeable form.

Again, lots of money. ($2 billion+ for a "city" of ~5,000 to be self-sufficient)




(Note: I am a Transhumanist and a Technocrat)

People willing to invest a lot of money often times have their own agendas... i agree with your direction though, there should be some form of moderation and "constitution" if you will, that protects the general interests of the people and the desire to advance into our potentials. Constitutions, however, require an ability to enforce them, and if those funding the project are those breaking these interests/ideals... well lets just say you have to wonder how the enforcing will be funded...

it's just an extremely difficult and risky endeavor... many layers to be considered