I think it's opposite of what Vondracos said. I feel that humanity can not unite as long as human are as we are. If we could, Communism would be thriving, but as you can see, it isn't. It won't until we alter human nature. If you remove human nature as it is now from the equation, science can finaly progress at its top potential speed. We wouldn't have to worry about politicians taking years to decide whether or not to allow a supposedly 'un-orthadox' expirement to take place, stem cell researchers wouldn't have to worry about their houses and workplaces being egged by the Pope's minions, new discoveries in medicine could be manufactured with out needing a patent to make sure that you get money and not some one else. The scientific community could work together and share all of their work with out worry of being at war with the country that they are sharing with. As long as we are unaltered humans, utopia is merely a wistful dream...   

<quote>
C.E.R.T. - I think it's opposite of what Vondracos said. I feel that humanity can not unite as long as human are as we are. If we could, Communism would be thriving, but as you can see, it isn't. It won't until we alter human nature. If you remove human nature as it is now from the equation, science can finaly progress at its top potential speed. We wouldn't have to worry about politicians taking years to decide whether or not to allow a supposedly 'un-orthadox' expirement to take place, stem cell researchers wouldn't have to worry about their houses and workplaces being egged by the Pope's minions, new discoveries in medicine could be manufactured with out needing a patent to make sure that you get money and not some one else. The scientific community could work together and share all of their work with out worry of being at war with the country that they are sharing with. As long as we are unaltered humans, utopia is merely a wistful dream...  
</quote>



I like to think that human nature would not actually have to be modified or a 'for the best of the race/society' type of modification be inserted into our brain DNA, but that  enhanced, developed, and shared wisdom would develop a pleasant overall altruism where freedom in every sense, including cognitive, would reach a permanent and unprecedented maximum.





b.t.w. , sometimes when I hit a " ' " or " / " mark, but not a " " " or " \ " in this post message box, Firefox pulls up the search for function (Ctrl+F). Does that happen to anyone else or is that just a unique Linux thing??

I agree that any utopia would require a change in human nature, but just look at the historical record of man's attempt to make that change himself.  That is what Communism was all about.  The reason Communism failed is not just that humans are incapable of uniting and living in peace: it failed because humans are incapable of changing human nature.  There is a spiritual component that we have no power to manipulate, even with technology and chemical interference.  Until we have that nature changed fundamentally, we will still be selfish and power will still be a corrupting force.  What you're talking about is increasing man's power without changing his nature.  Transhumanism simply invites a level of corruption that we have not yet experienced and for which we are woefully unprepared.  And what about this notion of human nature standing in the way of science progressing "at its top potential speed."  You might want to consider the lack of wisdom in such a statement.  I suppose it was human nature that inspired Albert Einstein to warn the president about the threat of nuclear destruction.  And it was human nature that drove that same president to join the race to the bomb regardless of the threat.  And now we live in constant fear of that threat.  It may very well be a nuclear holocaust that puts the brakes on your glorious Curve.  Unmitigated technological progress will destroy itself, with the net result of unmitigated human destruction.  It is interesting that you bring up the antagonistic nature of the relationship between "the scientific community" and the rest of us.  It is a war isn't it?  And the scientists are playing with weapons they don't even care to understand.  Don't forget that scientists are specialists and careerists.  They don't know everything, in fact they've got blinds on, a singular focus--and they are interested in self-promotion.  Someone has to think about consequences; I guess that's the enemy, right?  How stupid it is to say, "Get out of the way, logic and reason, restraint and wisdom, we're doing science here!" 

I thoroughly disagree that human nature cannot be changed. Humans are just biological machines. We don't even need genetic engineering or cybernetics to change human nature, psychologists have been doing it for years. Pavlovian behavior modification works just as well in humans as it does in dogs. We can be trained just as any other animal can be trained.

We can also be bred for aggressiveness or passivity just as domestic animals such as dogs and horses can be bred. Genetic Engineering would do the same thing, only quicker.

You are correct in pointing out possible catastrophies that can result from technology. However, there are also many ways to prevent those catastrophies using technology.

Besides, if humanity spreads through the cosmos, then the likelyhood of any one catastrophy killing us all off is drastically reduced. Also, if people stop turning into frenzied fundamentalists, nationalists, racists, etc... then the odds are further reduced. I understand that is part of human nature, but as I said before human nature can be overcome through science.... or even just through sheer willpower.

People should try to think about things in a calm, rational manner, and not impose religious doctrine on others. Religion is the main enemy of science. Once we overcome that enemy, then we will be much better off.

I hope you can see now all the many ways of changing human nature, whether it be science, psychology, or willpower. It is unwise to deny the possibilty of science achieving just about anything, science has almost always proved otherwise. "Man can never fly"... then come the wright brothers "The sound barrier will never be broken" ... in comes Chuck Yager "Man will never walk on the moon"... etc etc

If I may get arrogantly militant here, I need to remind the luddites of the irony about complaining about technology on, of all things, the Internet.

Some people forget how much freedom they really have to give it all up and go entirely off the grid. The Unabomer did it and so can others. If you rage against the Machine, fine, leave it entirely. But luddites shouldn't be surprised if most people in the world don't elect to do as they do.

Having said that, yes, there are many dangers in unbridled technological advance that we should be mindful of. Personally I think the last century has taught us enough caution to last us through these new challenges.

I also have confidence that there will always be freedom for people to avoid certain technological options they find distasteful. It may cost them a little more or, surprisingly, it might be cheaper, but as long as societies are properous and democratic, the techno-refusniks will be free to do as they please.

Personally, I think this argument is largely over. The best the luddites and religous conservatives can hope for is to slow things down slightly for the rest of us, but that's about it. They've lost. There may be a storm in a teacup over Intelligent Design, there may be minor concerns over persistent belief in astrology, there may be worries about atavistic regressions like Cambodia, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Germany, Bosnia and others but as long as the rest of us are healthily cautious and vigilent, science has won.

Wanting to be more is human.  Wanting science to give us now what evolution may give us in a millenia, is just one aspect of humanity.

Each and every day we strive to perfect ourselves and our reality.

Wheather we are trying to leap a 100-story building or live to see 120, man will not wait to become more than we are today.

Soon, if we are not truly able to do so, we will be able to 'program' our children while they still rest in the womb.  We will be able to think outside of the natural world and look into ourselves for the future.

That is human.

That's right. Improve people, improve the animals and plants we choose to. Absolutely right. So what whether those of us alive now will see more than the begining of it? Do it.

“Humans are just biological machines.”  Really?  Where’s your proof?  You talk a lot about science, but statements like this prove that science is not what you are interested in.  You are interested in promoting a particular worldview, a rational model that has no more empirical basis than does the belief that the universe sprang from a serpent’s egg.

This idea that religion is the enemy of science is utter bullshit.  Have you ever considered that in cultures throughout the world religion has actually fostered the development of science?  And more importantly, culture and religion (the supposed enemies of science) have been responsible for reigning in the more destructive tendencies of certain lines of technological development.  The author of “Radical Evolution” asked what kind of wisdom it would take to weather something like the Singularity.  The answer of course is culture (in which religion plays a central role).  The more technology is allowed to steamroll its handlers (by which I mean culture and religion) the more we will invite the kind of development that benefits a few elite at the cost of the further exploitation of the masses (not to mention other forms of injustice and destruction).  You can’t change human nature.  You can put more power at its disposal but you can’t fundamentally change what it will do with that power.  It is still a corrupting force, and always will be.  The more power you add to human nature, the more corrupting will be its influence, and the results will be that more destructive.  Religion plays a vital mitigating role, whether you like it or not. 

 

And let’s be a little less disingenuous, Farlops: I’m not a Luddite.  Nowhere have I suggested a wholesale rejection of technology (the plow was a technological development, after all).  What I am suggesting is that it is madness to throw off the reigns in a rush of golly-gee excitement over what kind of fucking “enhancements” one might get in the bargain.

 

“Science has won.”  Brilliant!  Hey, everybody, science has won!  Now we can sleep soundly with the knowledge that science has made it possible for us to die before we wake up, that we have no idea what is really in our food, that we still think life is an accident, and that we can’t get along with our neighbors.  Science has not won.  This thing that we are calling human nature has won.  And because of it, the thing we are calling science has been used as a weapon by every charlatan, zealot, and profiteer in this world with the net result being suffering, confusion, and destruction.  Every legitimate benefit from technological advancements has come with two or more problems that weren’t there before.  You have to be blind (or very fanatical—more on this later) to believe that “science has won.”  If you look at the broader picture (which seems to be very difficult for all of you), we are nowhere near solving our problems, and we are actually creating more problems with every ill-begotten step we take.

 

Do any of you know what the definition of the word “religion” is?  One definition I found reads, “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”  Have any of you ever considered that YOU are part of a religion?  Let me quote you so you can observe just how religious you sound…

 

Raken: “Each and every day we strive to perfect ourselves and our reality.”  How spiritual; how transcendent!  “We will be able to think outside of the natural world and look into ourselves for the future.”  How un-scientific!

 

CP: “That’s right.  Improve people…Absolutely right.  So what whether those of us alive now will see more than the beginning of it?  Do it.”  Wow!  What zeal!  What righteousness!

 

Aggressive…: “Humans are just biological machines.”  A belief system, based on nothing more than rational thought—just like the belief that humans were special creations.  “It is unwise to deny the possibility of science achieving just about anything…”  I am sorry to have offended your faith.  “Religion is the main enemy of science.  Once we overcome that enemy, then we will be much better off.”  Talk about fundamentalism!  But what confusion: you want to destroy religion in the name of a religion?  Don’t you mean to say that other religions are the enemy of your religion? 

 

Farlops: “Science has won.”  Hallelujah!

 

Science has not won.  Don’t you see?  If anything, religion has won, belief in general has won, human nature has won.  Science has not won or lost, since actual science doesn’t take sides.  The real conflict is among belief systems.  You aren’t scientists.  You are true believers of a particular belief system and you use science as your banner and battle cry.  But you aren’t fooling anyone (except yourselves, perhaps): you are nothing more than techno-saints marching as to (holy) war.   

Stayhuman is right, 'biological machines' is a terrible description of the Human race... Instead, all you would have to say is 'machine', the biological is redundant. As for my source: Webster's on-line dictionary defines 'machine as, "2 a : a living organism or one of its functional systems".

But siriously, I apologize for this use-less provacation. I disagree with Stayhuman. We, the basis for our actions (to some extent), and a number of others things are predetermined by our genes, or programing, if you will. And yes, Stayhuman, the afore-said 'rational model' (your quote I might add) has proof, or at least, more proof than the universe 'springing from a serpent’s egg' as you put it. While I'm being, well, the way I am, and, for all of our sake, why are you on the site 'Better Humans' if you think we should remain as we are?  I realize that this could will be considered a personal attack by many, but I would truly like to know how he justifies their being here.  

C.E.R.T.  

We are biological machines.  We are not divinely created spirits; our sentience comes from our brains, and our thoughts and actions can be programmed just like a machine. (behavior modification, brainwashing, etc) The only difference is that we are not made of metal.

If you accept even the most fundamental aspects of psychology and neurology then you must agree that we are just biological machines.  We have no souls or Free Will. We are made of atoms, just like the rest of the universe. Therefore, everything we do is just a product of a long chain of cause and effect.

You cannot choose your genes or your surroundings, you have no control over anything. Free will is just an illusion.

You cannot argue that we are not subject to cause and effect, because if we were not then we still would not have Free Will.  Without cause and effect, one cannot cause anything and there would be no Free Will if you cannot do anything.

We are biological machines without a spiritual component...Again, I ask, Where is your proof?  It is something you believe.  Period.  Go ahead, offer some actual empirical evidence in support of this belief.  I challenge you. 

The simple truth is that you cannot prove that something doesn't exist.

By the way, CERT, I used the term "rational model" very purposefully to distinguish a belief (arising from rational thought) from a conclusion deriving from application of the scientific method.  Empricism is different from rationalism.  When you say that humans are biolocial machines (and you mean to say there is no spiritual element) you are being rational and not empirical.  You are making a statement of belief.  If you were being empirical you would say, "We see no evidence of a spritual component, but there is no evidence to the contrary either: we can't rule it out."  I also am being rational in stating my belief that there is a spiritual component. 

Of course there is cause and effect.  But that says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a spiritual component.  Are you stupid or are you purposefully trying to derail the course of the argument?  "Free will is just an illusion?"  Where does this come from?  Are you following some biological imperative when you take this train of thought?  Am I when I choose to think the opposite?  Which is better for the survival of our species?  How absurd!  Of course there is free will!  For example, was it some gene that caused us to develop the possibilty of worldwide nuclear annihalation?  Why would "selfish" genes direct a species to destroy itself?  Your rational model doesn't make much sense.

And let's not get off my original point: you are all a bunch of zealots, not scientific in the slightest.  Why don't you respond to that?  CERT, I'm here to make you think, son.  That's all.   

The definition of rational has changed over the years. Descartes is the prime example of the classical form of rationalism you are speaking of. 

The definition changed around Spinoza's time. The people known as rationalists during Spinoza's time were Materialists, Determinists, Naturalists, etc.

As for my empirical proof... I just explained it twice, but I will spell it out for you a third time.

Most people do not believe a mouse has a soul. A mouse can be trained through reward and punishment. This is known as operant conditioning. It is a form of behavior modification.

Humans can also be trained with operant conditioning the same way a mouse can be trained.  Our thoughts and actions can both be programmed using operant conditioning, or a multitude of other techniques in the field of psychology.

We also know that we are comprised of atoms, that work in predictable ways. On a higher level, our brains are composed of neurons, which also act in predictable ways.... like clockwork.

Scientists are finding out more and more each day about what makes us tick

Knowing Free Will is an illusion should not affect your life in the slightest, other than helping you try to understand why we act as we do.

Why did I bring up the fact that there is no Free Will? Because it is a necessary belief if one accepts that the universe, including human beings, is made up of atoms and subject to cause and effect.

Our lack of Free Will also shows our similarity to machines.

The fact that Free Will is an illusion does not mean that we cannot think and make choices, it just means that every choice we make happened because of cause and effect and because of our genes and our environment.