Do you agree with the transhumanist "Manifesto"

Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

11 Apr 2014, 8:28 pm

salamandaqwerty wrote:
There is a VERY big difference between the feeling of pleasure and the 'desire' to experience pleasure. From what I understand of Buddhism, it is the 'desire' to experience pleasure that causes suffering and enlightenment is the absence of desire.
Kinda fundamental to the belief system really


But can one feel pleasure without the desire first? Isn't the desire intrinsic to humans? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, do you mean that pleasure is something good and thus should not be eliminated by making ourselves into cyborgs? Like, that we loose our humanity or something



salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

11 Apr 2014, 8:57 pm

Sorry, I have derailed this thread by challenging cantthinkoff's understanding of Buddhism. In one of cantthinkoff's posts I took his meaning to be that non Buddhists were somehow 'primative' and it bugged me.

I for one wouldn't mind having some cyber improvements, it would be cool, kinda like the big blue guy from watchmen.


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2014, 1:19 pm

I don't think suffering is intrinsically bad, and I think the notion of "good suffering" or "good pain" is plausible and exists. So, sadness is in many ways a form of pain, in fact, I believe similar neural structures are used such that physical pain can crowd out psychological pains like sadness. At the same time though, a sad movie, while it brings about some of this psychological pain, is in some ways a good thing. Tragedy at somebody's death is often considered good, your suffering because they died is often considered a tribute to honor that person, and a reflection on what it means to be a person. Even the pain from a bit of rough play can add to the excitement of the situation. (And... we could get into masochism, but I'm not sure how much that really matters to any party involved here)

So, out of the 3, that's the one I have most opposition to. I don't see the necessity of removing suffering, only reducing meaningless suffering, of which death *may* actually be considered meaningless(not to say tragedy is meaningless, only death). I'm not sure what argument you could or will create that meaningful suffering is *actually* pointless, as the closest possibility I see is that meaningful suffering as desirable is really a matter of status quo bias. However, I think the opposition to all suffering is more of an incompletely thought out disposition, than it is the thoughtful reflection on suffering.



binaryodes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 610
Location: England

12 Apr 2014, 2:34 pm

Does anyone object to the extension of biological limitations? I think reengineering the pleasure centres/pain centres is a very personal thing. Anyone who has gone through the mourning and grieving process for example will be predisposed to fall in with the meaningful suffering group. Someone like me who has endured chronic depression for years is more likely to fall in with the meaningless suffering group. Almost irreconcilable imo

What about extending our biological capacities:
Extending vision into other parts of the spectrum
Installing long term memory brain modules
VR Implants
Augmented reality implants
Genetic engineering
Extrasensory: Increased proprioception etc
Enhanced physical capabilities speed strength etc
Long lifespans


_________________
http://superstringbean.wordpress.com/ My Repository Of the Arcane the Esoteric and the Sublime
http://sybourgian.wordpress.com/ Neuroprotection, Neurogenesis Strategies for Long Term Cognitive Enhancement


Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

12 Apr 2014, 3:19 pm

I believe that neural augmentation could be beautiful. I also believe that fascists and capitalists will turn it into something obscene. There is no way that a technology which drastically improves the IQ, for example, is going to reach the masses with no strings attached. Would you like the augmentation with or without ads? With or without turning you into a zombified worker drone? How does the prospect of planned obsolescence in implants which you require to live suit you? Capitalists all but control the software of our minds through the PR industry, and now they are poised to take over the hardware. Trans-humanists are child like in their optimism.



Last edited by Stannis on 12 Apr 2014, 4:45 pm, edited 10 times in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2014, 3:45 pm

Totally in favor of biological extension. I do not see the difference between corrective medicine(like gene therapy to prevent disease, limb replacement, braces, etc) to be separated in some deeper sense from biological improvements. In both cases, we are altering the base state to make it better. Why not continually make corrections?



binaryodes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 610
Location: England

13 Apr 2014, 8:48 am

Stannis wrote:
I believe that neural augmentation could be beautiful. I also believe that fascists and capitalists will turn it into something obscene. There is no way that a technology which drastically improves the IQ, for example, is going to reach the masses with no strings attached. Would you like the augmentation with or without ads? With or without turning you into a zombified worker drone? How does the prospect of planned obsolescence in implants which you require to live suit you? Capitalists all but control the software of our minds through the PR industry, and now they are poised to take over the hardware. Trans-humanists are child like in their optimism.


But that assumes the same sociopolitical paradigm existing in the future.


_________________
http://superstringbean.wordpress.com/ My Repository Of the Arcane the Esoteric and the Sublime
http://sybourgian.wordpress.com/ Neuroprotection, Neurogenesis Strategies for Long Term Cognitive Enhancement


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

13 Apr 2014, 11:17 am

Stannis wrote:
I believe that neural augmentation could be beautiful. I also believe that fascists and capitalists will turn it into something obscene. There is no way that a technology which drastically improves the IQ, for example, is going to reach the masses with no strings attached. Would you like the augmentation with or without ads? With or without turning you into a zombified worker drone? How does the prospect of planned obsolescence in implants which you require to live suit you? Capitalists all but control the software of our minds through the PR industry, and now they are poised to take over the hardware. Trans-humanists are child like in their optimism.


Science fiction writers get scoffed at by the literati but they are the ones who tackle these questions. The entire genre of cyberpunk fiction deals with the potential downsides as well as upsides of transhumanism. William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, Neal Stephenson and many more. A technotopia where suddenly people stop trying to screw over other people because..technology! is pretty unlikely. When aspiring transhumanists ask 'what could possibly go wrong?', science fiction writers give an extensive list of what could. Of course some things may be worth the trade-off anyway. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and all that. But my enthiasism for augments and techno-upgrades is tempered by the understanding that there is always a price to pay and we have to figure out which things are worth the price,



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

13 Apr 2014, 12:53 pm

salamandaqwerty wrote:
cannotthinkoff wrote:
salamandaqwerty wrote:
Didn't Buddha mean the desire for pleasure leads to suffering?

well people have nothing but desires for pleasure, it's what normally drives them. I am not sure this separation makes some significant difference here. Or did you mean physiological aspect that one needs pain receptors in order to feel, for instance, pleasure.

well I think life is suffering. you don't have to take it literally. true happiness can be achieved only by giving up short term pleasures and trivial human fuss


There is a VERY big difference between the feeling of pleasure and the 'desire' to experience pleasure. From what I understand of Buddhism, it is the 'desire' to experience pleasure that causes suffering and enlightenment is the absence of desire.
Kinda fundamental to the belief system really


Just to add to your thoughts....according to the Buddha, the source of suffering is two-fold, ie. desire and ignorance



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,775
Location: USA

13 Apr 2014, 1:38 pm

No, I do not, it rather creeps me out. I think suffering should be relived, but eliminating it entirely would destroy meaning in life. The second goal has some good parts, but may bring some negative parts. The third goal is interesting, but has some clear ethical concerns, and there is no reason for it to be a priority.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


binaryodes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 610
Location: England

14 Apr 2014, 3:40 pm

I dont believe that we'll have a choice in the matter. What will inevitably happen is that the substrates of suffering will be very gradually phased out. That is what we consider to be a tolerable level of emotional discomfort will steadily change. Perhaps it may take centuries but it may be that with each incremental step towards total intolerance of emotional pain our definition of what constitutes depression will widen slightly. Eventually the inevitable end becomes quite clear.

:D :D :D 500th post ! !


_________________
http://superstringbean.wordpress.com/ My Repository Of the Arcane the Esoteric and the Sublime
http://sybourgian.wordpress.com/ Neuroprotection, Neurogenesis Strategies for Long Term Cognitive Enhancement