Mr. Farlops:

Ab wrote, "IMO, change is only useful if it leads to increased happiness. Why else should we change?"

What if we face something unexpected? Again, your opinion seems to suggest a reactionary stance to me--the apathetic bliss of the lotophagi. 

Ab wrote, "Humans can (in theory) still be motivated to change, learn, and adapt to their environment without suffering - but this will require a redesign of the motivational system."

Well, maybe so, I'll need to see it to believe it. Or maybe you can outline specifically what needs to be changed in the human motivational system to accomplish this.

Rather than waiting for the unexpected, I think that the Abolitionist directive would lead humanity to design ways of detecting changes in environment and responding to them appropriately - in order to pre-empt suffering. Also, we'll likely build ways to strengthen our support systems and protect them from harm. The prime directive itself is deliberately simple - however, the implications are far-reaching. For example : the Abolitionist directive may compel the human race to colonize other planets in order to ensure our continued survival.

It's too early to recommend specifically how the human brain should best be designed - the best that David Pearce and others can do at this point is to highlight promising technologies and research.

Computers respond to stimuli and perform functions appropriately. Not that we'll necessarily need to give up our organic processes in order to defeat suffering. Rather than the grind and monotony of modern everyday life - we can compassionately design humans that subjectively feel profoundly happy performing the roles needed by society to propel the human race to greater happiness. Today's humans routinely feel their "spirits" crushed by the demands of the world.

 

 

Ab wrote, "It's too early to recommend specifically how the human brain should best be designed"

I agree. Given the diversity of the universe and the challenges we may face, I think it's safest to assume there is no best design. There are only best solutions for specific cases. One size does not fit all circumstances.

I think the question to ask ourselves is, "What's healthiest for each particular circumstance as we push our brain hardware in new directions." What's healthy for a human in circumstance A, may not be healthy for a post-human creature in circumstance B. Whatever solutions we invent to ensure greater happiness for humans might not be relevant or might even be detrimental to post-human creatures.

As long as we keep asking ourselves in each case what's healthy, the abolitionist project might avoid some of the pitfalls I tried to describe earlier. 

Mr. Farlops:

Ab wrote, "It's too early to recommend specifically how the human brain should best be designed"

I agree. Given the diversity of the universe and the challenges we may face, I think it's safest to assume there is no best design. There are only best solutions for specific cases. One size does not fit all circumstances.

I think the question to ask ourselves is, "What's healthiest for each particular circumstance as we push our brain hardware in new directions." What's healthy for a human in circumstance A, may not be healthy for a post-human creature in circumstance B. Whatever solutions we invent to ensure greater happiness for humans might not be relevant or might even be detrimental to post-human creatures.

As long as we keep asking ourselves in each case what's healthy, the abolitionist project might avoid some of the pitfalls I tried to describe earlier.

Care to elab on what you mean by healthy? Is this different from determining what would lead to the greatest increase in happiness for all?

Ab,

What's mentally healthy? What's socially healthy? What's culturally healthy? Ay, yi, yi! If only I could answer these questions. That's the reason why I said that we need to keep continually asking ourselves those questions. They serve as a reality check.

I'll make a very flawed and vague try at defining health:

Health seems to involve homeostasis; the biological principle of dynamic, flexible temperance and equilibrium.

It is a kind of continually changing, robust balance. The ability to deal with change, to respond to change, to survive change. It's sort of like the dao. It's sort of confusing and contradictory. On the one hand the organism is free to respond to all kinds of internal and environmental changes, yet at the same time there seems to be a stability and durability.

Anything that interferes with an organism's ability to respond to change can become unhealthy. Interference isn't unhealthy in itself. In fact in many cases it's necessary to restore health. But if it persists, if it limits freedom, then it can become so.

Anything that doesn't have a satiation mechanism, anything that doesn't have restorative feedback that allows an organism to shift to different states of dynamic stability, might be unhealthy if it persists.

Sadness isn't inherently bad. Pain isn't inherently bad. They are defense mechanisms. They are mechanisms that reinforce memory. If something makes you feel bad, your brain has to remember it to learn to avoid it in the future.

It's only when sadness or pain persist and limit freedom to respond that they become unhealthy. Depression is unrelenting sadness that destroys judgement; that's why it's a disease. Unrelenting pain can drive a creature into shock and paralysis. In these cases, the persistence and limitation is what's bad, not the sadness or pain itself.

Anyway, I'm not entirely happy with this definition of health. Writing it, I could spot flaws in it but, it will have to serve.

Some of the positions you take, Ab, make me suspicious that you're not thinking about these problems deeply enough.

One of the problems I have with your project is that I think your views are too reductionist and Skinnerian. Your project has arrived at a set of ideological assumptions that, while useful in some situations and containing significant portions of truth, pretty much treats every human problem with the same rote response. That worries me. It's not wise to treat every problem like a nail, no matter how formidable your hammer is.

Or at least I've been given that impression by many of your responses in other threads. It seems like you frequently attempt to steer weakly related subject threads into debates about your projects goal's. Not everything is about capitalism, not everything is about god, not everything is about transhumanism and not everything is about the Abolitionist Project. I often get suspicious when someone starts frequently steering unrelated conversations towards their own agendas. If I sense that they think they've got an answer for everything, I get suspicious.

Anyway, that's it for now.

Mr. Farlops:

Ab,

What's mentally healthy? What's socially healthy? What's culturally healthy? Ay, yi, yi! If only I could answer these questions. That's the reason why I said that we need to keep continually asking ourselves those questions. They serve as a reality check.

I'll make a very flawed and vague try at defining health:

Health seems to involve homeostasis; the biological principle of dynamic, flexible temperance and equilibrium.

It is a kind of continually changing, robust balance. The ability to deal with change, to respond to change, to survive change. It's sort of like the dao. It's sort of confusing and contradictory. On the one hand the organism is free to respond to all kinds of internal and environmental changes, yet at the same time there seems to be a stability and durability.

Anything that interferes with an organism's ability to respond to change can become unhealthy. Interference isn't unhealthy in itself. In fact in many cases it's necessary to restore health. But if it persists, if it limits freedom, then it can become so.

Anything that doesn't have a satiation mechanism, anything that doesn't have restorative feedback that allows an organism to shift to different states of dynamic stability, might be unhealthy if it persists.

Sadness isn't inherently bad. Pain isn't inherently bad. They are defense mechanisms. They are mechanisms that reinforce memory. If something makes you feel bad, your brain has to remember it to learn to avoid it in the future.

It's only when sadness or pain persist and limit freedom to respond that they become unhealthy. Depression is unrelenting sadness that destroys judgement; that's why it's a disease. Unrelenting pain can drive a creature into shock and paralysis. In these cases, the persistence and limitation is what's bad, not the sadness or pain itself.

Anyway, I'm not entirely happy with this definition of health. Writing it, I could spot flaws in it but, it will have to serve.

Some of the positions you take, Ab, make me suspicious that you're not thinking about these problems deeply enough.

One of the problems I have with your project is that I think your views are too reductionist and Skinnerian. Your project has arrived at a set of ideological assumptions that, while useful in some situations and containing significant portions of truth, pretty much treats every human problem with the same rote response. That worries me. It's not wise to treat every problem like a nail, no matter how formidable your hammer is.

It seems like you frequently attempt to steer weakly related subject threads into debates about your projects goal's. Not everything is about capitalism, not everything is about god, not everything is about transhumanism and not everything is about the Abolitionist Project. I often get suspicious when someone starts frequently steering unrelated conversations towards their own agendas. If I sense that they think they've got an answer for everything, I get suspicious.

Anyway, that's it for now.

I think all problems are related to suffering and the desire to be as happy as possible - and see this statement as a useful clarification and value statement. The core value of Abolitionism needs to be emphasized. Which threads have you considered weakly related?

IMO, the human race needs a unifying ethical directive.

Mr. Farlops:

One of the problems I have with your project is that I think your views are too reductionist and Skinnerian. Your project has arrived at a set of ideological assumptions that, while useful in some situations and containing significant portions of truth, pretty much treats every human problem with the same rote response. That worries me. It's not wise to treat every problem like a nail, no matter how formidable your hammer is.

Do you have an example of something I've posted that you'd consider 'counter-productive?' What ideological assumptions are you referring to? Why do you think that the Abolitionist directive advocates treating every human problem with the same solution?

Thanks,

Sean

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste, Mr. Farlops.

Chironian:

Namaste, Mr. Farlops.

Are you giving a reverential salutation? If so, why?

Abolitionist wrote, "The core value of Abolitionism needs to be emphasized. Which threads have you considered weakly related?"

Well, I'm mostly objecting to your delievery methods. You have to reduce the promotion a bit--subtlety. Otherwise it will come off as advertising.

(Actually now that I think about it, I'm guilty of highjacking threads too. I guess everyone has pet issues that eventually come up during the drift of conversation. Oh well, sort of ignore the forgoing. At least I haven't bored everyone to death with rants about the metric system.) 

Abolitionist wrote, "IMO, the human race needs a unifying ethical directive."

Ah, but you see, that's where I disagree. Why does there have to be some grand unifying ethical ideology? Why can't there be a bunch of ethical principles, each applicable for different situations? Maybe a majority of people (post-human or not.) can favor some course of action or decision but rarely do you achive universal consensus. Personally I think this is good. People need to realize that no one has the entire truth. This is why the great controversies of the day never seem to settle. Each side has enough truths to make justifiable arguments for their positions.

And the disagreement itself can be good. As each side continues to refine it's arguement, they understand themselves and the world a little better.

Abolitionist wrote, "Do you have an example of something I've posted that you'd consider 'counter-productive?' What ideological assumptions are you referring to? Why do you think that the Abolitionist directive advocates treating every human problem with the same solution?"

Well, it's a general trend rather then a specific instance. It seems like you keep saying, "You know, this problem could be solved if everyone accepts the goals of the Abolitionist Project." It gets old for me.

But actually now that I look over your posts here on this site, I see that my memory is selective. Most of your posts have been confined to threads that you started and that are about subjects that actually do relate to the Abolitionist Project.

Alright. Ignore this complaint. I stand corrected.

Chironian wrote, "Namaste, Mr. Farlops"

I thank you but, please note that I don't entirely agree with your agenda either. For example, you can't simply trance your way out of aging. 

Mr. Farlops:

People need to realize that no one has the entire truth.

It is also worth noting that absolute true is not posible. 

Mr. Farlops:

Well, I'm mostly objecting to your delievery methods. You have to reduce the promotion a bit--subtlety. Otherwise it will come off as advertising.

Why does there have to be some grand unifying ethical ideology? Why can't there be a bunch of ethical principles, each applicable for different situations? Maybe a majority of people (post-human or not.) can favor some course of action or decision but rarely do you achive universal consensus. Personally I think this is good. People need to realize that no one has the entire truth. This is why the great controversies of the day never seem to settle. Each side has enough truths to make justifiable arguments for their positions.

And the disagreement itself can be good. As each side continues to refine it's arguement, they understand themselves and the world a little better.

Thanks Mr. F, it's good feedback. In a sense we are advertising our memes and naturally I hope for some sort of recognition but I'm not holding my breath. Still, I'd like to see the Abolitionist directive adopted regardless of any mention of my name.

I think that unification would provide many benefits. IMO, adopting the prime directive would not necessarily negate other ethical priniciples, policies, and systems of government. Some of the potential benefits of unification;

A common ground for resolving disputes, strengthened global identity, more effective collaboration between global entities and individuals, etc. We need to work collaboratively instead of competitively - though humans will have to be redesigned before they will stop competing with each other for the means to attain happiness in a world of finite resources. Nanotechnology looks to be a vital part of the movement towards plentiful resources for all.

I agree that human problems are complex and determining which actions are best will require ongoing debate and collaboration. Weaving a unifying ethical principle into our global consciousness is an imperative in my mind.

Mr. Farlops:

Chironian wrote, "Namaste, Mr. Farlops"

I thank you but, please note that I don't entirely agree with your agenda either. For example, you can't simply trance your way out of aging. 

But I operate knowing I'm only a personal opinion to others, my "agenda" is not another paradigm shift, but a meta-paradigmatic viewpoint. In a sense I have no agenda because I do not embrace a static set of rules, or agreements about "how people should be". For example, I could've espoused  the idea that one should suck the marrow out of life, live life like there's no tomorrow (remember the evernow concept from my other post on the singularity thread?). These and my suggestions about achieving longevity are not contradictory statements in my meta-philosophy. Do you see?

In considering my statements about longevity, what you point to in yourself is disbelief, not disagreement. It's concensual unreality that is informed from a popular trance state, as is your consideration about longevity; I speak as someone fully awake, which is a rare thing. A thoughtful person is the opposite of an entranced state.

"Your society is mostly composed of sleepwalkers" -CWG, Nealle Walsch

Mr. Farlops:

I'll make a very flawed and vague try at defining health:

Health seems to involve homeostasis; the biological principle of dynamic, flexible temperance and equilibrium.

Sadness isn't inherently bad. Pain isn't inherently bad.

Thanks for attempting to put a label on a difficult concept to define. Homeostasis is always moving in a direction so there is the potential here for compatibility between the concept of health and the Abolitionist directive : Abolitionism advocates moving in the direction of greater happiness and less suffering but always maintaining the ability to move forward in that direction. Moving forward can involve taking a temporary step backwards on the hedonic scale.

IMO : pain and suffering are still useful to the Abolitionist project in the present, though the goal is to eliminate them eventually. I think this implies learning how to develope and increase happiness without additional suffering. Of course this is impossibly lofty a goal for our time, the best we can do is to try to move towards greater happiness. It is an inspiring ideal we can all work towards.

Does anyone want more suffering?

Jesus does not want suffering but he takes on more suffering than the "am harets", "people of the ground/dirt".

Homeostatic systems, organisms, when they are healthy and in good working order tend to be ultrastable. You can bash on them with a lot of stresses and surprises and they respond with resilience and flexibility. They heal, they adapt, they move on, they learn. In a few rare cases the organisms are even tougher than before because their immune systems have "learned something," their brains have learned something or their entire species "learns" something through natural selection.

I used to have a job where I raised and tended mice and rats for medical research, a boring and unpleasent job but, I did learn something from it. These mice and rats were raised in highly sterile environments for the express purpose of giving them compromised and weakened immune systems. If let out into the wild most of these mice and rats would probably die very quickly once pathogens and parasites started to infect them.

This is what I'm trying get at. Sometimes a little stress and pain are necessary. They teach your brain things. They teach your body things. Maybe they even teach society things. Maybe it's sort of like a thermodynamics of learning. Work generates waste heat. Learning generates a little unavoidable pain. We can make various refinements to the processes but we never attain perfection, just like we can never attain a perfect heat engine. 

Obviously fear, pain, stress and suffering should be temporary and we should work hard to reduce destructive and unnecessary suffering wherever we can. But we should remember the highly artificial situation of those rats and mice. A little stress is constructive. Stress prepares us all for surprises. It makes us more resiliant and clever in the face of the unknown.

It's all a fine balancing point. Too much is destructive. Too little is destructive. And each situation is different and surprising so it's hard to guess where to set the balance point.