It would help if the scientists new more about the brain first before they start improving on it, there isn't enough knowledge about the brain before you start tampering with it.

Trying to find the good in everything is silly

But since that's way off topic, I'd like to return to it

Originally Posted by William

"Pyrrhus inherited the throne of Epirus in Northern Greece around 306 B.C., and as a young man proved himself on the battlefield again and again. Pyrrhus apparently had great strategic skills, but he also had the reputation of not knowing when to stop. In 281 he went to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum, but suffered bitterly heavy losses. The devastation led to his famous statement, "One more such victory and I am lost" -- hence the term "Pyrrhic victory" for any victory so costly as to be ruinous".

How is this tidbit even relevant?

Nice try Oden. If you don't mind attach it to the rest of the post. Your selective and rather immature parsing of others' posts is a bit juvenile, at best. If you are going to "quote" me, do not take what I say out of context or refrain from from quoting me at all.

Thank you,
William

I didn't say in "everything".
You noticed then.

(protip: maybe curing blindness isn't such a bad idea)

Well I mean it's a possible scenario, not one I'm advocating

Let the record show that the only people advocating violence thus far are radical green anarchists.

When did I ever say that curing blindness was bad? You're building straw men. What I've spoken out against is using this technology for behavioural modification, particularly enforcing or coercing such. You've denied that you've done or would do such, yet your posts have been full of insinuated threat to anyone who doesn't agree.

Actually I hadn't read Zetetic's post before I posted the one you're referring to. He posted before that post, but after I began it. So I was being hopelessly optimistic that someone in the government would have enough sense to say, "Might elective brain surgery be an unnecessary health risk?"

So because I don't want my brain tampered with I'm afraid of technology?

The OP made allusions to using this technology to make it so that people no longer commit evil acts. Let's cut through the bs, we're not talking about simply curing genetic defects or enhancing lifespans, we're talking about behaviour modification here. You might trust someone enough to allow them to determine how you behave, but I sure don't. My problem isn't that I'm afraid of technology; my problem is that I'm afraid of those people who would use technology to turn me into their idea of a more perfect human.

The government shouldn't have any say about the health risks its constituents engage in as long as everyone is willing.

No I'm going to keep quoting you I think
I'm not sure how I took you out of context
How is Pyrrhus even relevant here?
You took him out of context I think

Fine with me. And let's take away licensing while we are at it, so MDs don't have the sole monopoly on scaring people into using their services. I'd be happy with the torte system taking care of a runaway medical system, especially if the medical system doesn't have a government licensing system to hide behind.

Rich

Oden, here is the complete post in it's entirety. If you wish for me to explain it's relevance, it would be my pleasure.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/lounge/general-discussion/5202-can-we-improve-society-through-improving-brain-8.html#post77620

Fine with me. And let's take away licensing while we are at it, so MDs don't have the sole monopoly on scaring people into using their services. I'd be happy with the torte system taking care of a runaway medical system, especially if the medical system doesn't have a government licensing system to hide behind.

Rich

Md's don't scare people, big pharma does. I have never been 'scared' into using a treatment by my physician. I have, on the other hand, known people who try to force their doctors to prescribe them medicine they saw on TV.

You do realize the torte system is the reason that health care is so expensive right? With torte reform, to block superfluous lawsuits the price of a standard doctor visit or hospital visit would be reduced dramatically. Lack of torte reform has resulted in runaway lawsuits, which result in private practices needing a legal team which the patients pay for.

No I'm just saying "if x amount of people insist on being party poopers, y might happen"

That's simply a hypothetical statement, not a threat

Although I don't know why you'd want to be such a party pooper

The government shouldn't have any say about the health risks its constituents engage in as long as everyone is willing. Prostitution, drugs, assisted suicide et al. should be legalized, IMO and I am very willing to delve pretty deeply into why laws of the type that restrict an individual's freedom 'for their own good' are totally unjust. However, that is not really on topic. It seems like we should stick to why we might think it is a bad idea, which so far has only amounted to bullocks about 'mother nature wants this' and other wierd supertitious sounding platitudes.

If this were to happen, it would definitely be incremental. People on average probably would say that neurological enhancment for severe autistics and people with Down's is a good thing. Why would you disagree? Because you mistrust the possible bad outcomes? In order to maintain some logical consistency with that viewpoint, you probably need to jump on board with the Primitivists, which I doubt you will do.

That depends upon the ultimate reason you have for refusing something that might make you a super genius or maybe give you perfect pitch or any number of other benefits. You could have existential qualms, I can understand that, but if others were soon to join you that problem seems to dissolve.

What about you allowing someone to turn you into your idea of a perfect human (which is more along the lines of what we are talking about)?

Not wanting my brain tampered with makes me a party pooper? I said from the beginning that if someone wants to get this done that's fine. But you come back with the threat that I could be killed if I don't get it done. This makes me a party pooper only if your idea of a party is forcing brain surgery on people who don't want it.

Show me where I mentioned anything about mother nature or any other superstitious thing zetetic. You oppose the government limiting our freedoms, and so you should. Meanwhile your fellow proponent of brain modification is telling us that if we don't do this too there could be war and we might get wiped out. Well I oppose anyone who tells me that I have to get my brain modified. But maybe you suppose it's a weird superstition for me to want to decide for myself, free of any manner of coercion, whether or not I get brain surgery.

Again with the straw men. Is this really all that you and oden have left? Where did I say I disagree with using technology to cure ailments?

Oden, I would be happy to explain it already....

It's about ego out of control, in that once we form an opinion, we tend to foster only that which reinforces that opinion at all costs, regardless of the outcomes. It is the height of egotism. It stems from an inferiority complex that overcompensates that inferiority and becomes deaf and blind to alternate reasoning in an obsessive desire to be right. Such as Pyrrhus as he was lauded by his peers as to his strategic skills in battle to the point of obsession which compelled him to do battle regardless of the consequences resulting in horrific loses in his victories as his only desire was to reinforce his "status" and defend it.

If you will pardon me, IMO, I see this "selfish" obsession here in your threads, as you omit salient counter arguments by not addressing them. Some of them being just common sense. What makes it worse in this respect is the tenacity you maintain at this early stage of this technology which is illustrated by your lack of knowledge, only the greed you have for life, most don't share.

I am of the opinion, those who are funding this technology, have an enormous fear of death and what lies beyond leaving them obsessed with extending their lives at all cost and are using "alturistic appeals" to garner support and are also the ones who have profited the most at others expense which is where the innate fear comes from and the "karma" that might entail if there is such a thing and they don't want to take any chances in the matter. History is rift with such antics.

This is not new. This EGO has existed for centuries such as can be related to the vanity of the Pharoahs as they would be recongnize in the "next life" as they took all there Earthly possessions with them to insure their status in the next one for fear of have a lesser existence their egos could not tolerate.

I hope this cleared it up a little and as always, that is my opinion and why I brought Pyrrhus into the picture. The ego exists at all levels and can get out of control at all levels as it defends it's claim to fame.

Science above all, has the most dogmatic ego in that it "cannot" be wrong and has established a reputation that is hard to repute for most people in that they cannot communicate in their "language" which serves as a right of passage and shield that guards them from ever admitting a mistake in their conclusions as they are incessantly trying to find cures for the mistakes they have made and call it "new technology" and the lauding continues, when in truth it is just another bandaid to keep us living a little bit longer or them, for that matter, and those who fund them. A selfish fulfilling "profit-cy" so to speak.

No more of a comic book fantasy than a sever blow to the head. Nice shot, not cigar though.

William

Well then, I guess they should drop it from the oath instead of pretending they (physicians) will do something that they will not do.

Wait, didn't you say that they might just wipe us out in disgust? Didn't you, multiple times, warn that not getting on the boat of brain modification might mean war? Don't throw this back on us humans. We never even so much as mentioned the idea of killing posthumans. It was entirely your idea and you know it.

Could the agnostic please explain what he means by "godlike cognition"? :rolleyes: But don't worry, I don't envy others their bigger brains, nor do I lose any sleep at the thought that someday I'm gonna die. So no, I probably won't "come around". I'll be content to let you superhumans whipe me out, because that's something that is so much better than what we mere humans would ever do to those who disgust us. :sarcastic: Yes, superior race indeed Adolf.

Since we've already established firmly that neural modifications are not comic book fantasies, how about their use? Where are we going with them?

Wait a minute, I need to give you a reason for why I don't want my brain modified? So the fact that I simply don't want it isn't good enough for you? And you had the audacity to complain that the government limits our freedoms! Then I'm sure as heck glad enough that you aren't in charge of the government.

Science above all, has the most dogmatic ego in that it "cannot" be wrong and has established a reputation that is hard to repute for most people in that they cannot communicate in their "language" which serves as a right of passage and shield that guards them from ever admitting a mistake in their conclusions as they are incessantly trying to find cures for the mistakes they have made and call it "new technology" and the lauding continues, when in truth it is just another bandaid to keep us living a little bit longer or them, for that matter, and those who fund them. A selfish fulfilling "profit-cy" so to speak.

William

Please stop advocating alt medicine quackery in this thread

Do I detect bias? Don't tell me you need evidence that diet, exercise, and relaxation (lifestyle) are the most important factors in good health?

So, in your view, improving on our innate neural functionality is like a "[severe] blow to the head".

At this point I have to ask you if you know anything about how the brain works.