Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: raynardine on January 26, 2013, 07:32 am
-
http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon2.htm#morality On the morality of Abolishing all Suffering
http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon1.htm#civilising On MDMA and the Civilization of the Soul
For those of you already familiar with The Hedonistic Imperative, and believe it nothing more than a link farm, I urge you to reconsider this position.
For those unfamiliar with HedWeb, please take the time to read it, as I believe it would help transform Silk Road into a Bastion of Reason and Harm Reduction.
Thank you.
-
I really wanted to read all of it, I really did. I quickly found myself skimming and scoffing. Sorry. I won't provide too much argumentation, just a quick opinionated take on what I did read.
We get lovely tidbits like "Against boredom even the gods struggle in vain", said Nietzsche; but he failed to anticipate biotechnology." Well damn it Nietzsche....
I just see so many problems, and this writer is amazing at sidestepping them! I must admit the writer is very intelligent. He has an answer for my objections but I do not feel they are sufficient.
He has ignored the spiritual side of humanity. This is alright though, we must make base assumptions to argue. Be you a theist, materialist, phenomenologist, etc you have made a base assumption. I, however, would not start the way he has.
I also have the same issue as objection 4.3. Everything has been reduced to chemicals and particles(though mainly chemicals in the writers case).
"In the tough-minded reductionist camp, a hard-nosed [atheistic] scientist may be loath to see the beautifully choreographed neurons of his temporal cortex reduced to a spiritual buzz of religiosity. This isn't a very fruitful perspective either." No, a scientist would hate to hear that the particles were made by a god, but that wouldn't change that a god had created them(I am not making a supportive religious claim) Of course, religion doesn't necessarily support technological advancement, yet is technology the end all? This person's view has some sort of wish to be a god, to control everything. Is that really what humans are working towards? Next, he will want to do away with death too. Immortality is the key!
This view is the death of consciousness, consequence, time and purpose in my opinion. All of this stems from the death of the human but this, of course, is accepted by our author.
Would people even want this 'life'? Does the dream/experience machine thought experiment fit in here(it will probably be explained away by the writre too)? People given the choice to live in an experience machine or the real world choose the real world. I am asking if a Human would wish to give up its humanness, and would it really be better to do so?
This whole argument rests on current knowledge of neuroscience, some physics and chemistry. It comes across as a very weak argument philosophically. It is like asking does free will exist? The answer, well according to current science everything is a part of a long causal chain which can be followed back all the way to the big bang. No free will then, sorry.
Does God exist? Well according to current science there is no evidence to support the existence of a deity? Is there anything after death? Well according to science death is the end of life, so no.
All my rambling probably has done nothing to convince a hardcore materialist/worshiper of science. I end with this final scenario. If the author can write fantasy so can I.
We are all post-humans running around in our ecstacy/stoned states. We have killed all the psychopathic cats so we have nothing to fear on earth. Oh shit, ever watch Predator? Well those things exist. They come down to earth and rip our heads off, but we are too happy to care! End of post-human life. Arnold Schwarzenegger comes out and kills the predators and all the remaining humans rejoice.
"transform Silk Road into a Bastion of Reason and Harm Reduction." This I can get behind and definitely support.
-
All my rambling probably has done nothing to convince a hardcore materialist/worshiper of science. I end with this final scenario. If the author can write fantasy so can I.
"transform Silk Road into a Bastion of Reason and Harm Reduction." This I can get behind and definitely support.
Fair enough.
I hope you will not think less of me if I seem completely burned-out on spiritualism. Maybe once I try LSD or Shrooms my perspective will change, but I may be slightly too old to change much in that aspect.
-
No, I would never think less of someone because of their beliefs. All humans believe in something. As long as a person can give some account to justify their beliefs that shows they have put some thought into them, then I am satisfied.
David Pearce has presented an extreme and odd view. I am inclined to believe we get to the point where we cannot reason about the view. Just like we cannot say what-it-is-like to be a Ostrich i.e. does it think? does it feel like we do? what are its experiences like?; It is beyond our (current) abilities. Of course, I am sure the scientist would hold that one day we can map the brain and be able to display the subjective experience of being an ostrich in a virtual setting. Would this be exactly the same as being an ostrich? Anyways, perhaps I digress...
My point is that we cannot fathom what-it-would-be-like to be a post-human. We just think by playing with neurotransmitters it will no longer suffer. This is a human reasoning about the subjective experience of a different creature.
Am I making any sense, or should I just stop?
-
David Pearce has presented an extreme and odd view. I am inclined to believe we get to the point where we cannot reason about the view. Just like we cannot say what-it-is-like to be a Ostrich i.e. does it think?
Happy chance has endowed (some of) us with Reason, so we can imagine, to some extent, what it would be like to exist as on Osterich, step-by-step proposing what differences and similarities there would be, and together disciplining our fertile minds to delve deeper into the imagination.
http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=111719.0
Am I making any sense, or should I just stop?
[/quote]
I think you do not give us enough credit.
I do not believe that our probably posthuman future would be soulless. If anything, I suspect that a future of genetic engineering, designer babies, designer drugs, psychedelia, and nanotech would probably be spiritually rich far beyond our current bounds.
Right now, we struggle to imagine how we're all connected, what we're supposed to do, and where we come from.
Right now, we struggle to imagine, even with the aid of powerful drugs, what we are meant to do, what our destinies are.
But 2000 years into the future, I think such things would be made trivial, because everyone would have minds like Einstein, Shulgin, and McKenna.
I say that not to mean that we'd emulate their ideas or approach, but that our minds would be capable of seeing where we are, and where we need to go.
A mind capable of imagination, innovation, and expression in ways those of us who do not possess doctorates can understand.
I like to believe I have a mind that will one day be capable of seeing glimpses of the future like H.G. Wells or Robert E. Heinlein.
I'm actually interested in writing, but I would rather publish under a pseudonym, and give the book away for free, than allow the so-called "book industry" and censors dictate to me what I can and can not place in my novel.
-
All my rambling probably has done nothing to convince a hardcore materialist/worshiper of science. I end with this final scenario. If the author can write fantasy so can I.
"transform Silk Road into a Bastion of Reason and Harm Reduction." This I can get behind and definitely support.
Fair enough.
I hope you will not think less of me if I seem completely burned-out on spiritualism. Maybe once I try LSD or Shrooms my perspective will change, but I may be slightly too old to change much in that aspect.
you're never too old! change is the only permanent thing in life, after all...