43 replies to this topic

[Kolos]

scattered across several billion computer "cells" indeed it does. We could turn the planet to computronium and if the sun exploded, we'd still all die when our "body" dissociated into atoms


Changing the substrate allows us to improve our bodies, it doesn't "eliminate them" Not until we can figure out how to upload ourselves into a "superstring matrix" the "quantum vacuum" or some other unknown tech.

Well I didn't suggest that we would be something complitely independent to the physical world but after becoming information things like "body" would probably have a different meaning for us.
Anyway I don't think that sun would be much of a problem since we wouldn't need oxygen or food anymore in other words we wouldn't need earth and we could explore space even without any warp drive, basically we could just stay in the vacuum of space for a long, long time so in terms of survival this option seems to be the most effective one, at least till we find something better like this superstring matrix thing.

[JJN]

Hmmm good question. It will remain for the future to tell, if abolition of suffering comes to pass. I'm sure it will be possible. The question is, will people choose to pursue it? Personally, if I had a choice right now, I would like to keep my organic nature, except for the ageing/disease/horrible suffering death that awaits me now.

This topic has been discussed many times in philosophy, some say that all life is suffering, and that is our lot in life. As with all in philosophy, you kind of have to take it with a grain of salt... Would life be as interesting without ups and downs(suffering)? I don't think so.

Jeff

[abolitionist]

I think that increasing the intelligence of our reward system would go a long way towards reducing the suffering inherent in our design.

Chronic pain is over-redundant.

Humans have poor, short sighted motivational systems.

We really can't separate intelligence from the pain/pleasure system except through abstract symbolism.

Edited by abolitionist, 22 September 2010 - 05:42 AM.

[bacopa]

I think that increasing the intelligence of our reward system would go a long way towards reducing the suffering inherent in our design.

Chronic pain is over-redundant.

Humans have poor, short sighted motivational systems.

We really can't separate intelligence from the pain/pleasure system except through abstract symbolism.

I've been thinking about this for a week or so now, the reward system problem. The "gradients of bliss" idea, if I have it right would be that along with motivated actuated goals we would experience, somehow, relational gradients of well being, so if we felt the reward of solving a complex problem, we would feel an "appropriate" amount of well being, such, that we were not "blissed out," silly like the way an opiate makes people feel.

This seems all well and good, but can it be done? If the pleasure/pain axis is what has kept us alive all of these years, and if we remove pain, with some kind of meter telling us if we were experiencing some kind of damage, would we simply start taking any pleasure for granted, growing bored, and bored of life too quickly? Or is it just that I cannot fathom what our future selves would be able to experience, and perhaps our future selves would experience such a complexity of emotions and cognitive processes, that I simply am too "dumb" to understand it now, and therefore, can't really imagine what life would be like without our evolved emotions and cognitive functions that we are all, unfortunately, presently stuck with.

I did not read all of the Hedonist Imperative, but those ideas are just too sexy for me! Yes I consider myself to be an abolitionist, but the proof will be if I ever survive long enough to experience what David, and the OP, proposes.

[abolitionist]

Boredom.

Would we be bored without pain to reset our homeostatic mechanisms?

Certainly is true now. I love to exercise hard and get high.

Severe pain though can make us depressed and lack motivation.

It's hard not to think in terms of our present design.

[bacopa]

Boredom.

Would we be bored without pain to reset our homeostatic mechanisms?

Certainly is true now. I love to exercise hard and get high.

Severe pain though can make us depressed and lack motivation.

It's hard not to think in terms of our present design.

I always argue to idiots who say, "without pain there is no joy," that try living with chronic pain, either physical or mental, and then see if when you do experience joy, you think it has been worth all the effort.

I am not saying you are one of these people, obviously you think the opposite of most people. But I do really think some pain is manageable and maybe, at this point in our evolution, is necessary to experience the highs, but too much pain, is nothing but detrimental, a stifling burden that is NOT necessary to experience for anyone. For instance does ANYONE NEED to experience what Holocaust survivors experienced? Of course not! No one needs to be traumatized for life, and unfortunately many chronic sufferers are.

I really hate the expression, "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." We have this innate instinct to think that when we struggle, some nirvana awaits us, or better put, "it will be worth the effort, and pain, because things will get better." I know from suffering with a debilitating mental illness that, in this case although I have got stronger, and it's made me a richer person in some ways, if I had a choice I would obviously choose not to have had this experience. I'm a firm believer that without serious pain, of any form, we can still learn to empathize with other people's pain, and even appreciate, fully, our fortune, and obviously go on to live a better quality of life. So, yes, the abolition of human suffering is necessary. And even if the first trials of hedonic engineering were to put me in an opiate like blissful state, I would still go for that over how I normally feel!

Depression itself, as you said, usually leads to apathy, avolition, anhedonia, and a very low low quality of existence. In fact depression kills. One study said serious depression may be as harmful to max life span as chronic smoking. I hope this is not true, but it can kill. I want to get off the hedonic treadmill, pleasure reward/ pain, suffering axis, and experience states of mental being, that I could only aspire to imagine at this point.

Edited by dfowler, 22 September 2010 - 08:23 AM.

[bacopa]

On a side note, it's interesting how so few Transhumanists are interested in David and your message about abolition of suffering, but on Facebook Mr. Pierce generates the most discussion of anyone in the meme! Clearly people are interested, or he would not be so popular. I hope I'm not overstepping boundaries by talking about him on Facebook, but I know him somewhat, and I don't think he'd mind.

Edited by dfowler, 22 September 2010 - 08:27 AM.

[abolitionist]

I believe there's a stigma about identifying one's self as an Abolitionist.

It stems from tribal Darwinian nature.

We'd rather portray ourselves as tough, dominant, and in charge - rather than suffering and in need of biological modifications.

Transhumanism in general can be an extension of the drive to portray one's self as dominant in the social scene - taking smart drugs and being on the cutting edge make one appear more dominant in some ways. Thus it's cool to be a technogeek.

Not loving pain, makes one appear weak.

If you want to Abolish suffering then you are shallow and short sighted, so the image goes...

However, why does one want to be dominant if not to feel better? - however ineffective that approach is...

Edited by abolitionist, 22 September 2010 - 08:35 AM.

[abolitionist]

Many don't like to make a public announcement of their support, but their numbers are legion.

Dave's popularity and icon status is an indication.

I'm sure he doesn't mind you talking about his facebook account.

[bacopa]

I believe there's a stigma about identifying one's self as an Abolitionist.

It stems from tribal Darwinian nature.

We'd rather portray ourselves as tough, dominant, and in charge - rather than suffering and in need of biological modifications.

Transhumanism in general can be an extension of the drive to portray one's self as dominant in the social scene - taking smart drugs and being on the cutting edge make one appear more dominant in some ways. Thus it's cool to be a technogeek.

Not loving pain, makes one appear weak.

If you want to Abolish suffering then you are shallow and short sighted, so the image goes...

However, why does one want to be dominant if not to feel better? - however ineffective that approach is...

Yes, the dominant alpha male kind of thing is very routed in our ancestral evolved brains. That is just too obvious to me...heh. But I notice some sympathetic characters in movies, like A Beautiful Mind, where Russel Crowe, plays a schizophrenic, who is both a genius, and alpha male at first, but then becomes a beta male, and a sympathetic hero, suffering through the harrows of the mental disease. I think, our culture is weird, and i"m not sure if this is just Americans or other countries, but, we seem to love the tough guys, but also the vulnerable.

The very fact that audiences will go out to see a film on the Holocaust, (sorry same example,) shows me that there is something within our tough primal brain, that still appreciates and even loves vulnerable people. What I don't fully understand, is why some people seem to be so much better at dealing with those who are vulnerable people, while others simply cannot tolerate. For example, my friend Adam, could not handle me when I was at my worst, but other friends, seemed to embrace me, and wanted to help me, through the worst.

I remember David linked an article on Facebook, that tried to explain how some people are simply born more predisposed to growing up and choosing to be Republicans, or conservatives, and this may relate to IQ levels, or at least "different ways of thinking", in that people who naturally liked to think outside the box, tended to be liberals. I thought, gee, it's funny how the very name conservative connotes a stringent way of doing things, and it's true that all my conservative friends don't seem to like to think around things, (and I don't claim to say all conservatives are like this, just my experience is this way.)

[bacopa]

I think that increasing the intelligence of our reward system would go a long way towards reducing the suffering inherent in our design.

Chronic pain is over-redundant.

Humans have poor, short sighted motivational systems.

We really can't separate intelligence from the pain/pleasure system except through abstract symbolism.

Can you explain your last point here? It sounds intriguing but I don't follow fully.

Yes, if we could only increase the intelligence of our reward system, whilst, also increasing the types of intelligence that would make us see the big picture, including being able to still relate to people suffering in the world, or any world.

Chronic pain, as I talked about is very redundant, and it's even more sad how much more pain there is then joy, as of now. I would argue the biggest source of pain, for people who DON'T have serious physical/mental health problems, would be the knowledge that we have an expiration date on us, (as one imminst poster said,) and how that expiration date comes so f'ing soon.

[abolitionist]

I think that increasing the intelligence of our reward system would go a long way towards reducing the suffering inherent in our design.

Chronic pain is over-redundant.

Humans have poor, short sighted motivational systems.

We really can't separate intelligence from the pain/pleasure system except through abstract symbolism.

Can you explain your last point here? It sounds intriguing but I don't follow fully.

Yes, if we could only increase the intelligence of our reward system, whilst, also increasing the types of intelligence that would make us see the big picture, including being able to still relate to people suffering in the world, or any world.

Chronic pain, as I talked about is very redundant, and it's even more sad how much more pain there is then joy, as of now. I would argue the biggest source of pain, for people who DON'T have serious physical/mental health problems, would be the knowledge that we have an expiration date on us, (as one imminst poster said,) and how that expiration date comes so f'ing soon.

I think you have it, I'll post more for the forum;

What is intelligence but a means to an end? Epistemology is not devoid of underlying values.

Our educational system likes to have clear demarcations between disciplines but epistemology is not separate from ethics.

How valuable is a mental function if it does not makes us happier or increase that which we value?

Our symbolism is also verified and validated according to underlying ethics.

[bacopa]

I think that increasing the intelligence of our reward system would go a long way towards reducing the suffering inherent in our design.

Chronic pain is over-redundant.

Humans have poor, short sighted motivational systems.

We really can't separate intelligence from the pain/pleasure system except through abstract symbolism.

Can you explain your last point here? It sounds intriguing but I don't follow fully.

Yes, if we could only increase the intelligence of our reward system, whilst, also increasing the types of intelligence that would make us see the big picture, including being able to still relate to people suffering in the world, or any world.

Chronic pain, as I talked about is very redundant, and it's even more sad how much more pain there is then joy, as of now. I would argue the biggest source of pain, for people who DON'T have serious physical/mental health problems, would be the knowledge that we have an expiration date on us, (as one imminst poster said,) and how that expiration date comes so f'ing soon.

I think you have it, I'll post more for the forum;

What is intelligence but a means to an end? Epistemology is not devoid of underlying values.

Our educational system likes to have clear demarcations between disciplines but epistemology is not separate from ethics.

How valuable is a mental function if it does not makes us happier or increase that which we value?

Our symbolism is also verified and validated according to underlying ethics.

If Epistemology is the study of knowledge, you're saying ethical behavior, or the study of ethics, is part of epistemology? Which one are you referring to?

I agree with your third statement, and obviously for humans, presently, most of us enjoy using our intellect, if not all the time. Obviously there are many mental tasks, we find rote and monotonous. But I think you'd agree even in all pleasurable activities, we are still using our intelligence, albeit at a much lower level.

Can you explain the last statement? I guess I don't know what you mean by symbolism...do you mean symbolic language? Or things like mathematical equations? Or do you mean cultural symbolic language, like subtle facial expressions and so forth?

[abolitionist]

Everything is symbolism.

for example we've created an abstract system of knowledge whereby we determine a-priori
that 1 + 1 = 2

however, being as all things are interactive
nothing is this universe exists in a perfect timeless bubble

there is no such thing as a separate distinct and perfect '1' - only in abstract symbolism do we have these perfect distinctions

these distinctions are all symbolism

--------------------------------------------

Value determines how we create our symbolism, for example we think it's valuable to have universal symbolism

(like science that can be universally understood and observed)

why do we think it should be universal?

because it's useful

what makes it useful?

It is purported to be for the greater good.

so what is the greater good?

the hedonic calculus?

Edited by abolitionist, 22 September 2010 - 09:41 AM.