Transhumanism

[Ostroeuropa]

Out of interest, do you think a person blind and deaf from birth thinks in a fundamentally different manner from you.

To a degree. There are certainly aspects that they would think in a fundamentally different manner than I would by virtue of lacking two significant senses.

And expanding on that, does that effect the way you view them at all.

I would still view them as having human thought patterns, and that's what's important. It's like growing up in a radically different environment.

And yet you deny that someone who undergoes a body change the same leniency?

[Conserative Morality]

And yet you deny that someone who undergoes a body change the same leniency?

Precisely because they have chosen to reject themselves in order to 'surpass' humanity.

[Vetalia]

It depends. If you have an adamant Transhumanist for a CEO, chances are it'd be cheaper. It just would depend on who developed the technology- corporations or government scientists.

Or they'd just pay for the upgrades for a handful of select workers and shitcan everyone else.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Death gives meaning to life, gives it poignancy, a sense of finite being that has clearly had a hand in philosophy from the earliest days of religion to Nietzsche and Sartre and beyond.

People who found themselves in the desert and built a religion around thirstiness.

I only ever write and play humans, because being human is the ultimate form of being.

Meh. All sapient species have the same worth. Humans are no better or worse than AIs, aliens, sentient pure energy, or magical elves from four dimensions over.

We're going to have to learn that lesson eventually just like we did with racism and nationalism. Why not get an early start?

[Olivaero]

You have proof a philosopher couldn't philosophize if they were able to live a long, potentially indefinite period of time? Note, there would be no life without end, there would only be a life that hadn't ended yet. Since eternity is a long time.

Death gives meaning to life, gives it poignancy, a sense of finite being that has clearly had a hand in philosophy from the earliest days of religion to Nietzsche and Sartre and beyond.

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

[AETEN II]

And yet you deny that someone who undergoes a body change the same leniency?

Precisely because they have chosen to reject themselves in order to 'surpass' humanity.

Which they would, because humans are weak. Technological augmentation or full-blown assimilation would improve you beyond what evolution could offer.

[Vetalia]

Which they would, because humans are weak. Technological augmentation or full-blown assimilation would improve you beyond what evolution could offer.

Humanity has expanded to every continent on Earth (as well as space) and can thrive in conditions that would kill any other remotely comparable species on this planet. I'd say we're pretty damn tough.

[Conserative Morality]

People who found themselves in the desert and built a religion around thirstiness.

Generally, one would build a religion around water. Their thirst drives them to appreciate water. It's not the other way around.

Meh. All sapient species have the same worth. Humans are no better or worse than AIs, aliens, sentient pure energy, or magical elves from four dimensions over.

We're going to have to learn that lesson eventually just like we did with racism and nationalism. Why not get an early start?

No better or worse?

Tell me, if it came down to the matter of the survival of humankind or the survival of 'magical elves from four dimensions over', and you had to pick which species survived, which would it be?

[Talonis]

And yet you deny that someone who undergoes a body change the same leniency?

Precisely because they have chosen to reject themselves in order to 'surpass' humanity.

How so? A mechanical arm would be similar to working out, so is excersizing also bad? Is that rejecting my humanity?

[Ostroeuropa]

People who found themselves in the desert and built a religion around thirstiness.

Generally, one would build a religion around water. Their thirst drives them to appreciate water. It's not the other way around.

Meh. All sapient species have the same worth. Humans are no better or worse than AIs, aliens, sentient pure energy, or magical elves from four dimensions over.

We're going to have to learn that lesson eventually just like we did with racism and nationalism. Why not get an early start?

No better or worse?

Tell me, if it came down to the matter of the survival of humankind or the survival of 'magical elves from four dimensions over', and you had to pick which species survived, which would it be?

Entirely dependent on the nature of the choice, why it has arisen, the number of sentients involved, and the societies etc.

[AETEN II]

Which they would, because humans are weak. Technological augmentation or full-blown assimilation would improve you beyond what evolution could offer.

Humanity has expanded to every continent on Earth (as well as space) and can thrive in conditions that would kill any other remotely comparable species on this planet. I'd say we're pretty damn tough.

We have, but still are relatively weak. Augmentation or assimilation would make us goddamned unstoppable.

Also, a fair amount of those achievements (especially space), were done with technology.

[Conserative Morality]

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

That's a terrible analogy.

It is only lack that drives us to appreciate what we have. While we are content to fulfill our needs so that we do not experience lack for many things precisely because there is also lack of other things we find valuable, if there is no shortage of life, no lack, then what value is placed on it? In terms of supply and demand, if supply is infinite, what matters demand when deciding value?

[Olivaero]

How could you possibly know this never having conversed or even observed a mind disconnected from a body?

Do you deny that the way we react to external stimuli shapes our way of thinking?

Mm in our early stages of development, but I doubt anyone is suggesting augmenting new borns here...

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

That's a terrible analogy.

It is only lack that drives us to appreciate what we have. While we are content to fulfill our needs so that we do not experience lack for many things precisely because there is also lack of other things we find valuable, if there is no shortage of life, no lack, then what value is placed on it? In terms of supply and demand, if supply is infinite, what matters demand when deciding value?

We cannot experience a lack of life.
Thus, we can't appreciate life because of the lack.
We appreciate it for other reasons, that it affords us opportunities etc.

[Conserative Morality]

How so? A mechanical arm would be similar to working out, so is excersizing also bad? Is that rejecting my humanity?

When one exercises, do you reject you arm? All you do is use your biological processes in order to reinforce what you have.

[Seperates]

Their body doesn't matter.

Body and mind are absolutely inseparable. The body defines how we experience and react to the external stimuli that make up life, which, in turn, shapes our way of thinking.

Oh ever so much. Any Comm major worth their salt understands this

[Conserative Morality]

Mm in our early stages of development, but I doubt anyone is suggesting augmenting new borns here...

When you are hit, that does not affect the way you think? When you starve, when you are exhausted, that does not affect your thoughts?

Boot camp must be useless then.

[Britannic Realms]

Humanity has expanded to every continent on Earth (as well as space) and can thrive in conditions that would kill any other remotely comparable species on this planet. I'd say we're pretty damn tough.

We have, but still are relatively weak. Augmentation or assimilation would make us goddamned unstoppable.

Also, a fair amount of those achievements (especially space), were done with technology.

If we have gone so far without augmenting ourselves, then there is no need to. One does not need to augment oneself in order to make progress.

[Talonis]

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

That's a terrible analogy.

It is only lack that drives us to appreciate what we have. While we are content to fulfill our needs so that we do not experience lack for many things precisely because there is also lack of other things we find valuable, if there is no shortage of life, no lack, then what value is placed on it? In terms of supply and demand, if supply is infinite, what matters demand when deciding value?

"Society creates problems, and business solves them"
- Ben Franklin
There will always be one stupid challenge out there fo us to pit ourselves against.
Demand matters not whence supply is infinite.
But more demand for a finite supply will then be created.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll leave the rest of your post to TP to respond to you but for this particular point I have a hypothetical for you, Imagine a society where without fail once every month, you didn't know which day, but without fail you get hit on the head with a very large stick. this happens to every single person within the society and they all find it very painful. Imagine in such a society their were philosophers who waxed lyrical about how the whacking upon the head once a month taught every one valuable lessons in life and lent perspective. This is exactly the current attitude to death. And what we think about the head whacking society right now would be how a post death society would see us. It is nothing more than a horrible limit placed upon us by our biology.

That's a terrible analogy.

It is only lack that drives us to appreciate what we have. While we are content to fulfill our needs so that we do not experience lack for many things precisely because there is also lack of other things we find valuable, if there is no shortage of life, no lack, then what value is placed on it? In terms of supply and demand, if supply is infinite, what matters demand when deciding value?

Increasing supply to meet demand is precisely what we are proposing.

[Conserative Morality]

We cannot experience a lack of life.
Thus, we can't appreciate life because of the lack.
We appreciate it for other reasons, that it affords us opportunities etc.

We, as thinking human beings, can understand that life is limited. We can understand the lack, even if we don't experience it.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Earth is as finite as we are, it'll just live for longer. Any number of cosmic events could render it uninhabitable, bad news if we are still clinging to it like a security blanket when they come. Even if we have moved on the suns going to bake to as dead as Mars in less than 2 billions years, and then the suns going to swallow it a couple of billions later.

That's no reason to place no value on it.

Indeed, but no reason to treat it like a sacred artifact we need to build little shrines to. If we one day escape the solar system I'd be bemused at people wasting resources and life making pilgrimages back here. Much like I know my families tree and where I come from, but I don't feel a special attachment to the particular plot of land that housed my great, great, great, great, great grand pappy.

Now I'm something of an environmentalist, but that would apply to any planet or ecosystem. I'd like earth preserved, like any potentially habitable planet.

An answer to a scenario of "if you lived forever how would you cope with people who you love choosing to die" - I definitely don't agree with the first (though the sainted humans you talk of do it all the time, keeping people on life support, guilting the cancer ridden into undergoing treatments they don't want). The second - eh, it is you choice. You should be able to control your memories, just like you should be able to control your body.

Again, that doesn't strike you as infinitely infantile? "I don't like this, I'm just going to forget it ever happened."

Doesn't really matter. Not my cup of tea to be sure, but people handle things differently.

You have proof a philosopher couldn't philosophize if they were able to live a long, potentially indefinite period of time? Note, there would be no life without end, there would only be a life that hadn't ended yet. Since eternity is a long time.

Death gives meaning to life, gives it poignancy, a sense of finite being that has clearly had a hand in philosophy from the earliest days of religion to Nietzsche and Sartre and beyond.

So - "they way things are are the only way things can be"? I'm still not seeing why a potentially very long lived philosopher wont be able to philosophize. The philosophy might well be different, but still philosophy.

So does a shorter life have more meaning or poignancy? How much shorter?

So we aren't really that much different then the people that have gone before who thought they were the bee's knees, and a few centuries from now when human thought likely follows different cultural and social paradigms, as ours does from people hundreds of years did before us, they'll think the same.

This has nothing to do with culture or society.

It does, since body alone is not solely responsible for how we think or perceive things, it is an interplay between our hardware, and the software built by our experiences.

No real reason there for chilled blood at the thought of humans, though scientific processes, thinking vastly differently or any reason why their thoughts would be inferior or of less value.

Because it wouldn't be human.

I've failed to see any real argument from you as to the real relevance of that as to the potential value or quality of thought. Oh yes, why it troubles you, but not really why it is a problem or reflects poorly on people who'd pursue it.

Being a human is all I know, and I enjoy it. But I don't think it is all there necessarily is or has to be (in the fullness of time). I'd find it exciting to try something different. I enjoy trying to write truly alien when writing fiction, I enjoy playing non-humans in games. I don't think the baseline human of today is the pinnacle of anything either, as much as I like being one. I would be intrigued by something significantly different from us that still descended from us, and I would understand where people would be coming from going down that path.

I only ever write and play humans, because being human is the ultimate form of being.

Do you have anything quantifiable to back that up?

Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.

And?

[Ostroeuropa]

We cannot experience a lack of life.
Thus, we can't appreciate life because of the lack.
We appreciate it for other reasons, that it affords us opportunities etc.

We, as thinking human beings, can understand that life is limited. We can understand the lack, even if we don't experience it.

What about this changes by eliminating the lack? (Or severely scaling it back.)

[Conserative Morality]

Increasing supply to meet demand is precisely what we are proposing.

Making the supply infinite is what you're proposing.

[Conserative Morality]

What about this changes by eliminating the lack? (Or severely scaling it back.)

Because then those people understand that life is not limited. There is no lack for them to understand.