...Indeed, the instinctual mechanisms that govern human motivation may be even more primitive than Freud imagined. We appear to share basic emotion systems that determine our core values not only with our nearest primate relatives, but also with allmammals, and to a lesser extent even with more 'primitive' species.
I am well aware of this fact, but you haven't demonstrated how all of these primitive instincts are particularly useful at this stage in our development.
Personally, I find that the more a person appears to be governed by his limbic system, the less useful he is, and the less able he is to make good decisions, generally speaking.
And I'm not saying the emotional faculty should be abandoned entirely; it just needs to be retooled.
This is really scary stuff. This is one step away from eugenics.
All neural modifications should be elective surgeries with informed consent.
How is this "one step away from eugenics"?
Well ... I can see some ways that accelerating developments in technology could threaten ordinary humans. Out of all the possibilities discussed by people like Hugo de Garis and Nick Bostrom, two come to mind most strongly:
- Posthumans exist in small enough numbers to feel a potential threat from humans, yet large enough to threaten humans. Armed conflict could break out.
- Posthumans go all Robespierre on humans and just wipe them out in disgust.
The first, I think is more likely than the second, but both can be preempted very easily if everyone is on the same boat.
I'm uncertain what degree of brain tampering the OP is promoting here. On the one hand, s/he is advocating the advancement of neuroscience to aid people with disabilities, (paraplegia, cerebral palsy, etc...) but on the other s/he seems to be leaving the door open for using it as a matter of reformation, to correct the deranged mind, so to speak. Well, I think most of us would agree that there's a wide range between the two. Using any science or medicine to help a willing patient is one thing, but using it against someone's will, even a criminal's, is walking a whole different path altogether. I'm just curious; to what extent does the OP advocate using this technology and these methods?
I don't recall advocating forced surgery on people.
Even so, anyone's brain could potentially benefit from modification. None of us are what we could be, not by a long shot.
and i am curious as to who gets to decide which brains need to be fixed and which are superior...this is a plan to make a superior race, right?
Anyone who opts into neural modification should receive it. The difficulty is that one would expect them to be expensive, at least initially, and so these procedures should be subsidized so that those with little to no money can afford them.
actually there is the possibility that more good can come out of nature's 'mistakes' than its successes. in my own life are many examples, but i will share one.
This is called 'turd-polishing'.
The less vulgar term would be 'Leibnizian optimism', and there's a novella you can read that shows you why it's bunk.
It's called Candide
Wasn't it you Salima who quoted someone once, "we should thank God for our misfortunes too."
I find it strange that you would want to thank an imaginary person. Are you OK?
i probably made a reference to the sufi attitude that everything is a gift from god, therefore they thank him for everything without judging it bad or good.
Is dioxin a gift from God?
Regardless, you can't even receive gifts from an imaginary person. It just doesn't happen.
Yes im the same Salima, when something goes wrong im always looking to get the positive out of the negative. I always learn something too.
Please don't advocate masochism.