Of course I don't believe the simplest answer is always right; I was only responding in kind to Aggressive's use of Ockham's Razor, which demands a preference for the simplest answer.  I believe in something far more complex than mere free will.  But I was attempting only to show that free will is a simpler belief than the nature/nurture god, and that it is therefore supported by Ockham's Razor.  Really I was attempting to get Aggressive to admit that his rational model is not empirical, that it is a belief and not an evidential fact.  You have admitted that you are a believer, and in an eloquent fashion.  I commend you, in case that means anything to you.  At least you are exhibiting a certain measure of intellectual honesty, and you aren't calling philosophy science, as if these ideas can be proved or observed.  That's all I want.  So, thanks.

And by the way, Aggressive: Can you not appreciate the rank absurdity of insisting, on the one hand, that humans ought to take control of their evolution and, on the other hand, that they do not have free will?  Free will is at the very heart of the Transhumanist belief system.  I mean, what is Transhumanism without free will?  It is kind of definitive, isn't it?

Also, I guess I should remind you that the comparison of organisms to machines has long been considered scientifically naive at best, and is actually one of the bases for the argument from design.

And I'd like to add that Sary is quite possibly the most beautiful girl in all existence.  Probably this rational assertion has no basis in empirical fact, but I am nonetheless convinced that it must be true, having seen no evidence to the contrary.  I also wonder what color shoes would be an appropriate addition to her wardrobe.  (Sorry mods, just having a little fun). 

Wow. Definitely provoked something with my last post.

The current dogma in biology now is that all organisms are machines--emergent, biochemical machines. Vitalism has been dead for a long time now. The machine metaphor has been the paradigm in biology for over a century, perhaps two.

And just to assuage the spiritually minded, the mechanist view really says nothing about god, ethics or the grand meaning of existence. Newton and Descartes were mechanists and also devout believers in god.

I don't see how dismissing the doctrine of vitalism in biology really threatens religion. But then, I still don't see why some people find evolution so threatening that they try to force changes in how science is taught in public schools.

Which brings me to my rather provocative statement, "science has won."

I will admit that's an article of faith.

But I think I base that assertion on some pretty good circumstancial evidence. High technology is everywhere these days. Once exposed to it, cultures rarely revert to an earlier more traditional state. Or if they do, the results are very, very bloody, for example, Pol Pot or the Taliban.

Societies that try isolate themselves from the world and from change often pay an enormous price for it--the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and so on.

The societies that embrace science, human rights and democracy invariably do better by almost every measure, including being able to contain or defeat the countries that don't embrace change and freedom of thought. Some might disagree but I think that is the chief lesson to be learned from World War II and the Cold War.

But here's the thing: reading the news, it looks to me like most of the developing world is doing their damnedest to embrace that culture. To put it trivially, they see all the cool toys we have in the post-industrial world and they are doing whatever it takes to get their own. I say more power to them.

I think the only way for science to lose is for us to destroy ourselves.

I realize it sounds like I espousing some sort of historical determinism. I think I am really. It's just that I see these immense social inertia behind the process. People can't willfully forget scientific knowledge once they've learned it. We can't uneat the apple or give the fire back to Promethius or burn out the curiosity in Pandora's brain.

She opened the box. We ate the apple and were cast out. We let the genie out time and again. Deal with it.

There was snippet of poetry I heard about 15 years ago that I can't attribute but, I recall it was Sumerian or perhaps Babylonian.

The story goes:

The gods had a gift to give to humanity but first they had to explain some cautions.

"If you take this gift, you must take all of it. Once you have it, you can not give it back."

The gift was civilization.

When I first heard this I thought this was a very, very sophisticated understanding.

It seemed like our ancestors knew just exactly what they were unleashing by building cities and developing agriculture and writing. They must have had some vague inkling all the pain and controversy that would arise but they did it anyway.

I wish I could cite where I heard that. Perhaps someone here fluent in ancient history can drop a little science for me.

Anyway, if I have a religion, that's it: we had to eat the apple. It's good that we ate the apple. Athena showed Arachne the folly of getting too presumptive but, when Arachne hanged herself, I think Athena was geniunely sad.

Actually is rather stunning how often ancient Greek mythology obssesses about hubris. The Greeks loved their geeks and mad scientists didn't they?

Back to the question:

Yes, we should engineer a better human, we have already started.

Are there risks?

Yes.

Should these stop us?

No.

Is there a soul?

I don't believe so. I am stil waiting for proof it exists.

You're right, you can't go back (at least not without some cataclysmic event that shuts down the whole system), not entirely (some technologies, knowledge, and know-how have been forgotten throughout history), but that is all the more reason to be cautious.  And that is all I'm saying.  Slow down and think about consequences.  Of course, that won't happen on a very broad scale.  The only institutions that are mitigating both positive and negative possibilities (but mostly negative, I submit) are culture and religion.  I propose that they have an important role to play and shouldn't be steamrolled.  The problem is that they are being steamrolled and it has a lot to do with globalization, as you hinted at.  It isn't necessarily the case, however, that these more traditional societies are hankering after our toys.  It has more to do with international investment and the Internet, and all of the other economic imperatives that globalization, by dint of its nature alone (not by any plan or device of men), levies against these nations, most of whom would otherwise wish to remain as they are.  So we have a situation that is really out of our control, and therefore is in fact inevitable.  But the fact that it is inevitable does not remove from us the responsibility to step back and see the broader picture--to consider the effects of our choices, the consequences of taking control of our evolution (if that is indeed what we are doing).  The question remains whether someone who is selfish enough to determine for himself which way he should evolve is also altruistic enough to care what that might do to others, or to society as a whole.  This isn't just a matter of choosing whether to break a law, this is a matter of choosing whether to be something that no one else is, to separate oneself so completely from the connections that make us consider one another human and therefore worthy of respect.  There is a price for the kind of "freedom" Transhumanists long for.

How many times do I have to explain this. This teaches me to never use layman's terms for this.

Ockham's Razor is about the least ASSUMPTIONS.

it can be spelled Ockham's Razor or Occam's Razor

The example given on wikipedia is:

"after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferable."

It also says:

"Creationists sometimes attempt to apply Occam's Razor in defence of geogenesis, claiming that theirs is the simpler theory as compared with evolution. This is actually a misunderstanding of Occam's razor, as a "simpler" (defined as being short in description) theory is not necessarily true. Occam's razor pertains to one not assuming more than what is needed."

 

To say that organisms are not machines one must not automatically invoke Vitalism.  I don't agree that biologists consider organisms machines.  Because of considerations of adaptation and development, the machine analogy fails.  Organisms are like machines in certain respects, but are utterly unlike machines in other respects.  For example, they exhibit a high degree of complexity (not to be confused with order) and require sufficient information content for their generation and development.  They are not literally machines.  This fact has nothing to do with Vitalism.  I don't believe that mice have "souls," nor do I believe that they have a "life spark."  I also don't believe there will be any empirical evidence found for a spirit in man; it is a matter of belief, one way or the other, and both beliefs are just as rational.  If you say, "I don't know," that's one thing.  But if you say, "I know there is no spirit," then you are being rational and not empirical.  It's that simple.  I also agree that religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools.  The creationist movement (intelligent design) has no friend in me, since it espouses certain beliefs and principles that I find abhorrent.  Foremost is that it preaches belief as science!  Which is exactly what I have been railing against here.  Also a rational belief is speciation--it should not be preached as science.  It falls under the wide umbrella of "evolution," but it and many of its fellows have not been and cannot be proved empirically, and this should be duly noted in our public schools, if we intend to keep them secular.  A belief should not be taught as fact in public schools.  It confuses people about what science is and soon you have folks like Aggressive telling us that it is an empirical fact that we don't have free will.

 

Aggressive, why are you trying to present yourself as some kind of authority on Achem's Razer (sorry, Ocham's Razor, however it is spelt)?  I don't understand what you mean by layman's terms.  Aren't we all laymen here?  I guess you are a member of the priesthood?  Well, that would make sense.  But just to keep you on target with the debate (and to avoid people getting distracted by your little attempt at elitism against our friend Raken), let me remind you that we all know the difference between an assumption and a word.  Your insistence on using Ockham's Razor to support your claim that environment and genes conspire to control our choices has proven unfruitful for you, since it requires you to assume more than what is needed.  The fact that you know it can be spelled two different ways does not change this.  Why don't you respond to the challenge that I raised concerning the fact that free will is central to Transhumanist ideology?

Well I could have said "uneducated man's terms" but I felt that would be offensive.

Also, I stated it was spelled two different ways to avoid confusion when I quoted Wikipedia, which spelled it differently.

I have responded to your statements regarding Free Will in detail. Free Will, if you define it as human actions not being controlled by deities, then I agree. In the true philosophical sense though, Free Will does not (or is extremely unlikely to) exist.

Aggressive, first let me state that one man's education may not be another's.

Then i will assure you that I have a little schooling, a little life experience and more than a few ideas in my head.  Some not to shabby.

You misunderstand where i am coming from if you think i don't understand our friend from Occam, let me paraphrase:

don't make complex that which can be simple

My issue is this; to think that the least complex of any two competing theories is usually better simply misses the mark when you are speaking of systems as complex as man.

That is all Aggressive, calm down, breathe deep and relax.  Besides, what ever happens has happened before, and will again.  What we call science will look like superstition in a few more decades.

And maybe the tree fell just before the storm came, maybe the tree was tired?

I wasn't calling you uneducated Raken, you have said nothing that I would consider uneducated.

I seriously couldn't think of any synonyms to layman's terms. The word 'colloquial' didn't come to mind at the time. That is what I would have used.

I love the word 'colloquial' - most of my friends call me an eletist...

I wonder how many forums on the net would find this many different types of people with this many different thoughts?

I love that.

Me too.

There are some very good forums on the net, but ones as good as this are few and far between.

Internet Infidels, the psuedo-official website of atheism, has very good forums. I posted about transhumanism in the science forums there and hopefully found a few members for us.