> BC Cougar wrote:

> i think that the problem is that with our enlightenment, we have un-evolved as well.
meaning that our fore fathers had the right idea of a free democratic nation, but the enlightenment of the greedy of how to take advantage of those less motivated by it has turned it upside down.
and the pursuit of happiness has been taken over by the power hungry, money mongers.
they seem to believe that you shouldn't be happy unless you can afford it, which is basically just evil.
_________________________________________________________---

the problem with that statement is that the reality is, you can be happy no matter what you can't afford.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> I'll try to be ONLY specific content orientied--without the asshole quality I usually use in high doses.

I still say you've been terrible in your responses. You've got to qualify your statements. When people question them, the least you can do is explain why you believe/stated what you stated. That gives us more understanding of your posted statements and something to work with. Maybe only having a biochemistry education and engaging and bringing in so many other fields of study has you ill-prepared. In any case, this is why, if I ever engage you in here in the future (god knows I'm staying out of this quack thread, lol), I'll keep it specific only content questions (to start, that is). You'll have no excuses.

I'm sure your field will bring you much reward. I doubt there will be a better time to be in your field than our lifetimes. (just in case I don't use them enough, )

........................................................................................................................

Again,  my responses were spot on.   The fact you don't like them just goes to show how truly great they really are

haha,  but nah, you're not such a bad guy kemp.   The only problem I have with you is that you're about as much of an asshole as I am,  and I can't stand people who match my level of dickishness.

> avogadro wrote:

> lol, Inviltrist, how about you address my points?

hmm, you addressed part of 2 of my points and i made 6 pts; is this Inviltrist admitting defeat?

What points are you talking about?

Do me a favor and lay them out in order of importance.  I promise you I'll address any points you bring up.     This thread got a little chaotic when kemp got in it,  and much of my focus was on him.  So I must have missed your points?

Before you bring up any points,  please note for the millionth time,  I did not say eliminate every single emotion.   Merely fine tuning them so we are better adapted.  So any argument that is along the lines of "ha! see! you need emotion to do that!" is invalid.

I can't really find any valid points you brought up that I haven't already addressed?

Be more specific, please?

I'm not saying they aren't there,  I'm just saying they must have gotten lost in the flame-fest that this thread turned into.

So,  if you'd be kind enough to copy/paste or write down a few of your points I will be more than glad to respond to them.

> Smiof wrote:

> Wow, post-humanism is your goal, Inviltrist? You better be careful though. Here is one example:

"Why can't we use our intelligence to decide the right course for humanity?   and emotions are merely chemical reactions in our brains,   they all are rooted in instinct.  Maybe crack open a science text book?  Study up a bit on neuroscience,  it will do you wonders."

Notice the distinction that you make between 'Intelligence' and 'Emotions.' Hmm, are you sure, because I am afraid to do that distinction? What I have covered includes some of Antonio Damasio's books. He explains some of the problems associated with a purely non-emotional people. His conclusion: emotions are a necessery level of intelligence. And I do think he referred to the whole plead of emotions.

Well, it is possible that an artificial intelligence would not work without some 'emotions' in-built in them, in addition to the logic that goes with it.
.........................................................................................................................

I think it all depends on how the society is set up.   However, I never meant for emotions to be destroyed completely.  I agree that they play an important part in intelligence,  they are like the gasoline for the intellect,   however our intellect is advancing to the point where we can decide what type of gasoline(emotions) we'd like to use.

We aren't going to get rid of emotions entirely.  We just have to eliminate and tweak those that are counter-productive.

im not saying all emotions. im saying some emotions. if  you dont want to address my points, then be like that, admit defeat. if you're to stupid to differentiate between when im saying all emotions and when im not, a forum isnt the right place for you.

most my responses was just repeating exactly what you said earlier, so i dont get how you can claim im the one thats saying all emotions.

"Why can't intellect assign value for humans?  Intellect fueled by the instinct of survival and advancement of our species.  Not all instincts are bad,  they just need to be modified by our intellect".

I do not agree.

Intellect cannot form itself on the basis of another Intellect alone. Intellect takes form in humans during their upbringing, when they subject their brain to their worldly experience and the collective of their instincts.
Thus, a higher awareness-level ("upgraded instincts", as you choose to call them) and the "higher intellect"-theory is an impossibility. Humans need their basic instincts and experiences thereof in order to evolve their intellect and their general knowledge.

Argue all you want, but fact of the matter is that the human intellect is not a static. It grows with the individual as the individual experiences and utilizes emotions and instincts. No instinct or emotion is expendable.

If you can prove to me (theoretically, of course), that a being of higher intelligence, unguided by basic instincts and emotions could reproduce and evolve, please be my guest.

I apologize for any misunderstandings, misspellings or otherwise incohesive use of language. English is not my mother tongue.

/ Ithaca

"I'm beginning to see weaknesses in you arguments here."

you better be, i've be punching holes for awhile

> Wraith - Ithaca wrote:

> "Why can't intellect assign value for humans?  Intellect fueled by the instinct of survival and advancement of our species.  Not all instincts are bad,  they just need to be modified by our intellect".

I do not agree.

Intellect cannot form itself on the basis of another Intellect alone. Intellect takes form in humans during their upbringing, when they subject their brain to their worldly experience and the collective of their instincts.
Thus, a higher awareness-level ("upgraded instincts", as you choose to call them) and the "higher intellect"-theory is an impossibility. Humans need their basic instincts and experiences thereof in order to evolve their intellect and their general knowledge.

Argue all you want, but fact of the matter is that the human intellect is not a static. It grows with the individual as the individual experiences and utilizes emotions and instincts. No instinct or emotion is expendable.

If you can prove to me (theoretically, of course), that a being of higher intelligence, unguided by basic instincts and emotions could reproduce and evolve, please be my guest.

I apologize for any misunderstandings, misspellings or otherwise incohesive use of language. English is not my mother tongue.

/ Ithaca

....................................................................................................................

Great post!   See people,  this is why I started the thread.

Of course human intelligence NOW is based on experiences, up-bringing, environmental factors,  ect.

What I suggest isn't possible now.  It's not even plausible now.

What will make it the case?

Biotechnology.    The ability to design at conception the human animal.   To tweak and modify at the dna level.   Within twenty years I believe this will be possible. 

So,  in saying that as of TODAY what I have laid out can't work is obvious.   I'm not arguing for now,  I'm arguing for decades from now.

When we get to the point of designer children.   

I firmly believe that once we understand a little bit more about neuroscience, once we have a complete and complex simulation of the human brain,  and biotechnologies advance further,   we will have the ability to pick and choose how our offspring will think, what instincts and emotions they will feel, and how their brain processes various experiences and emotion.

So you are absolutely right about the human animal as of today,  but in the future we will be able to alter the way our offspring will learn.   We can make it far more efficient than the human model.

For example,

Suicide.  Depression.   Why do we have these issues?   Yes,  at the very base it's chemical reactions in the brain.   rapidly firing neurons.    However,  what gets our brain in this chemical state?

It's because the human brain tends to focus on one thing at a time.   Say something makes you depressed,  you feel horrible.  Why do you feel so shitty?  It's because your brain is only focusing on one experience, not processing information correctly.

We could prevent these type of issues in our children before they are even born.

Now,  on to the question of meaning.   We have no meaning.   Who's to say what is right or wrong?  Evidence.    It's obvious there isn't an imaginary sky friend, aka god.   It's an assertion without any evidence backing it.   It's the job of those making an assertion to prove it.   This has never been done.   Thus, "God" or some "supernatural" being doesn't even really deserve consideration.

Everything I've stated is based on looking at science, technology, and then looking deep inside human nature.

Once technology gets to the level I'm talking about,  the issues discussed in this thread will be heavy on the general populations mind.

I don't believe in "morals".  I don't believe in good or evil.  I believe in actions and reaction.  Stimuli and stimulus.  Everything we do is determined by our brain chemistry.  Alter the brain chemistry, you alter the human.    All I'm saying is the day will come when we have the technology to change entirely what it means to be "human".

Now, what I've stated is just my opinion.    I find it a far better alternative than worshipping a corpse on a stick.

In the end though,  there is no meaning.   Which is why I believe we need to alter brain chemistry so that nihilism doesn't become a destructive force.

but why even bother at all?  why not just let the race die off?

...  it's a good question.

I see a lot of potential in technology.   I believe it will give us the ability to become the gods we always imagined.   Truth is,  I'm in love with science.  I'm a post-humanist.   I believe the philosophy I've laid out is the best path for mankind to take, and as technology progresses we will be left to decide what to do with it.

You can't stop the technology,  in fact my entire career will be working to make sure all these technologies are available.

The biggest hurdle to advancement are trivial morals from people who are too scared of technology.   Which is why sadly I'll likely be forced to move to a more research friendly nation after I finish getting my doctorite.

I think there is a big misunderstanding in this thread.   I don't believe any of the things I laid out are possible TODAY,  I'm just confident we will be faced with these types of decisions in the not so distant future.

Is that clear for everyone?

> avogadro wrote:

> im not saying all emotions. im saying some emotions. if  you dont want to address my points, then be like that, admit defeat. if you're to stupid to differentiate between when im saying all emotions and when im not, a forum isnt the right place for you.

most my responses was just repeating exactly what you said earlier, so i dont get how you can claim im the one thats saying all emotions.
.........................................................................................................................

Let me make this simple for you.

Emotions do not need to be eliminated.

I believe they just need to be altered. Altered to a point where they no longer apply simply to one person or one group of people, but to society as a whole.   Meaning, making humans more of a collective organism,  not just individuals out for themselves.

Altered to a point where a system like communism might actually be capable of working.    Right now,  human nature makes true communism impossible.   It also makes true democracy a disaster.     no political philosophy or theory will actually work in the long run unless you alter the human being to fit that environment.

My dream world?  A global, post-human,  communistic society fueled by science and technology.  This is impossible right now.   However, genetic engineering will make it practical.

... and I don't think it's really all that different from what a capitalist society already does.   From birth it seems we are socially conditioned to be consumers.   Why just use social conditioning?  Why not use technology to engineer an ideal society?

Now I'm certain the majority of you disagree with me on that.   It's understandable.   I just honestly wanted intelligent criticism of my idea's and philosophy so that as my career progresses, I can learn from it, and learn to disarm such criticisms before they can even be raised.

I'm actually quite thankful for all of your responses.

Please understand though that I'm not some deluded dreamer.    There isn't a chance in hell any of the things I've laid out could happen today.  The technology just isn't available, and not only that....   the social and political environment is very hostile to any type of genetic engineering.

Lucky for me,  there still are quite a few countries that have very liberal research laws.

Mmm... interesting argument. I'm going to address OP as towards the end here it's a getting a bit he-said-you-said-she-said

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is:

The root of our impending destruction is greed (I mean, hey, it's the root of all this economic shizzle). The only way to eliminate greed is to have infinite resources. Oops.

But we will never out-evolve this trait, as it is a very deeply-ingrained instinct which is for the assurance one's personal survival. Also oops.

I believe all resultant destructive behaviours (Religious extremism, wars, for example) are rooted in this ambitious desire.

But then again, without it, one wonders if the human race would've died out long ago