Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Sir; do get off... Leibniz, the original Pangloss did suggest that in the light of God, that this was the best possible situation, because why would God do otherwise than his best if, given the power of God, that every alternative were passible...
This was attempted through the twenties and thirties in this country and others with violence... The Germans feared the Jews, not only because they conceived of them as parasites and criminals, but because they are a highly intelligent people who put a premium on intelligence and ability... Rather than raise their own ability which they could not do culturally, they attacked those whose history has been one long intelligence test... The Chinese are intelligent, and very like the Jews...They leave China with perhaps a ten IQ point advantage on the average American...Because they cooperate, and because they are intelligent, and because they are ambitious and hard working they have a tendency to take over the societies they join as minorities, in some senses, like the Jews...
If people have intelligence they find, if they are moral, that it is an obligation, and many endure intelligence as a burden...They do not feel there is a game to win or humanity to master and employ, but feel that they must bring humanity along with them to a new paradigm..
if you believe i made a claim that everything is a gift from god you are mistaken. i made a reference to the fact that certain people look at life that way in another thread and it was brought here by someone else. my own personal statement was that i am grateful (not TO anyone or anything) for my misfortunes since i was able to reap a great deal of benefit.
my point is that you are challenging certain things you believe can be improved in human life by brain surgery and i am telling you not everyone will agree with you. even if you want it to be elective surgery, do you really think people are going to line up outside an office saying 'i am greedy, i am violent, i am stupid-i need an operation to fix me'.???
and i am not your opponent. this is not a debate, you have posted in the general discussion area.
It cannot be demonstrated to be overly optimistic if taken literally because its premises (God exists and can give gifts) are not really verifiable. Bearing this in mind, a less literal interpretation might be called for. If you take 'God' to mean 'everything' and 'giving gifts' to be a metaphor for ' causes sh** to happen', what is being said in the overall scheme of things (and I really do think this is what the quote is supposed to be getting at) is really 'sh** happens; if its bad, take what you can from it (polish your turds, there might be some good corn left); if its good, have a nice day'.
More on topic, what specific goals would you hope to achieve; what ways would you change human behavior and what consequences do you think might arise from such changes?
Sir; do get off... Leibniz, the original Pangloss did suggest that in the light of God, that this was the best possible situation, because why would God do otherwise than his best if, given the power of God, that every alternative were passible...
Now; from what perspective do you judge human development??? We are a pebble on a plane... We cannot say what nature alone can judge worthwhile, or worthless... Clearly our intelligence has allowed us to escape nature to an extent... We may not need to evolve to reality because our forms allow us to master our reality; but upon what authority, or even need would we change our nature...
This was attempted through the twenties and thirties in this country and others with violence... The Germans feared the Jews, not only because they conceived of them as parasites and criminals, but because they are a highly intelligent people who put a premium on intelligence and ability...
Rather than raise their own ability which they could not do culturally, they attacked those whose history has been one long intelligence test... The Chinese are intelligent, and very like the Jews...They leave China with perhaps a ten IQ point advantage on the average American...Because they cooperate, and because they are intelligent, and because they are ambitious and hard working they have a tendency to take over the societies they join as minorities, in some senses, like the Jews... They too have had a long history as an intelligence test that would bless a good score with life... Could we as simple humans judge these people... We may have to protect ourselves from them, but that does not mean we should punish them...Intelligence is not a crime, and united culture is not a crime... We should see what they do right and imitate them...But consider, that just as we tend to end up working for Jews or Chinese and following their lead in government, that if we could with a simple opperation end up twenty IQ points above average, or our previous score that we would all be working for them...Is this any different from the rich being able to afford a first class education??? Generally people are educated based upon intelligence... Some say virtually all highly intellligent people are being educated in this country... But, some are getting their education without labor, and some must sell their souls for it... Why then, does anyone who can afford intelligence by the hour need it himself??? If people have intelligence they find, if they are moral, that it is an obligation, and many endure intelligence as a burden...They do not feel there is a game to win or humanity to master and employ, but feel that they must bring humanity along with them to a new paradigm...
I'm not going to eat corn I find in poop, ewwww
If carried out with adequate legal protection ensuring that everyone goes under the knife willingly, I can see nothing but good things coming out of transhumanism in the long run. Some experiments with the new technology I am talking about will, and indeed have had negative side effects, but they're no different from any new medical innovation whose bugs have to be worked out.
Of course ... there could eventually be conflicts between humans and posthumans but, like I said, just getting with the program already would head off these issues.
I think you're missing the point. What is being suggested is a modification of behavior not necessarily intelligence, by rewiring a section of the human brain. We could make it so that when people engage in a more appropriate behavior, they are rewarded by dopamine or something along those lines. Or we could curb aggression ect.
What if you had nothing else to eat?
It seems to me to be likely that conflicts might arise due to the humans rather than post humans (unless something goes terribly wrong). It would be hard to build public trust of such advancements (hopefully this will become less and less true), and so mistrust of those who undergo the mistrusted procedures would follow.
You do know, perhaps, that science can judge a baby in the womb and tell which ones are likely to be risk takers and end up in prison... Shall they nip them in the bud???
Make the form work or trash it...Leave humanity alone...
Zetetic11235;77316 wrote:Three points:
1) Paragraph form is good
2)Bullet points work
3) three run on sentences are hard to read
Do you realize that you are repeating his argument? He was not supporting Libnitzian optimization. God was mentioned, that is why the reference holds. You really should read the posts being replied to before commenting.
Do you realize that I am restating his argument to try to point out that it is fallacious...Leibniz' agurment was gigo...So is his... It presumes that in playing God we know what is best...The difference between him and Leibniz is nil -whether we are playing at knowing God, or playing we are God...
Quote:It is all subjective...The good we think necessary for humanity we can accomplish with forms...Unlike Leibniz with God, we can presume that up until near modern times, that nature has done its worst and best with us...Okay, our nature, and external nature should be left alone as much as possible... We can control our condition through forms, like of forms of transportation, shelter, economies, government, communication, and education, for example...Rather than change what we are, which we have no objective ability to judge, change our forms which all can judge...Oh wow, never had that line of though before :sarcastic:. Seriously though, a couple of moments of critical thinking and recognition of the context here might help you out. I think that it is pretty clear that what is being sought after is an increase in our natural ability to manipulate our environment and prosper (increase comfort, safety, whatever you might call it). Of course it is very subjective.
Quote:There is no such thing as the sort of authority you seem to allude to, its all social games backed up by physical strength. Any trans-physical/social authority is beyond our access.
What you call social games I would call forms because they are not really supposed to result in ruin or loss of life for one side or the other..Yet;often they do just that....
Quote:
Questionable... maybe I'm too ignorant of the subject, but it seems more reasonable to say that Hitler recognized the fact that he could play on the anti semitism already present in Western Europe in order to gain power. He did indeed implement several types of eugenics; promoting breeding among people percieved as 'strong', killing the handicapped, the list goes on.
All in all, however, this does not address the topic at hand.
Social engineering by operation, by pharmochology, by ideology, or theology is nonsense... If you feel a certain way one should first presume a natural reaction that may have once served humanity well...If people are injured and insulted, and because of some happy pill they accept the abuse; then what is next??? Will slavery and the grave follow... The damned society does not work, and it does not work for many people...instead of considering that it may be at fault, they are taught to blame themselves, and try to change their perspective through chemistry... What if they are right and the situation is wrong...Is better living through chemistry the answer???Are you not already a victim???
Quote:I think you are missing the point...If you could do one, why not the other??? But perhaps people do not always behave as they should, but out of intelligence are very constrained in their behavior...The point is, that we have nothing objective upon which to draw a conclusion of what is proper behavior... We can tell, even from liturature that what people once thought, they did... They were not conscious as we almost all are today... As their consciousness grew, their ability to live in larger societies grew...Is this always desirable??I think you're missing the point. What is being suggested is a modification of behavior not necessarily intelligence, by rewiring a section of the human brain. We could make it so that when people engage in a more appropriate behavior, they are rewarded by dopamine or something along those lines. Or we could curb aggression ect.
Quote:
As for I.Q.:
I.Q. is relatively useless beyond a certain level (definately at 130+), it is too subjective and too unreliable. As far as highly intelligent people being highly educated goes; there are most certainly mensa members (not that that really means much) that work blue collar jobs.
People are usually eduacted based on the ammount of money they have combined with how curious they are, how much their parents push them and a whole host of other factors.
I am not educated; but I cannot say if that fact has hurt me or helped since I cannot be one both sides of that street... Just going off one book, now dated, the Bell Curve; -they suggest that almost all highly intelligent people are ending up with formal institutions...But; at what price to them...Perhaps I was more free to think as I found naturally, as a construction worker...I will agree that there are may very bright and even gifted people everywhere...Perhaps many, like myself, resisted the form, and suffered, and suffer yet the results...Freedom of speech has much made of it; but feedom of thought iis where it is at, if one can afford it...
---------- Post added 07-14-2009 at 10:10 PM ----------
What if you had nothing else to eat?
It seems to me to be likely that conflicts might arise due to the humans rather than post humans (unless something goes terribly wrong). It would be hard to build public trust of such advancements (hopefully this will become less and less true), and so mistrust of those who undergo the mistrusted procedures would follow.
Im not, I have no idea what you're talking about, please explain, masochism? please dont be ridiculas.
I find it strange that you dont believe in God. And thanks for your concern I think, are you a Dr?
Deliberately inflicting suffering on yourself for no good reason looks like masochism well enough.
Of course I don't believe in God. God is for heathens. I believe in the one true author of the Universe:
