Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] OP t1_j4f6uq7 wrote

Reply to comment by turnip_burrito in What void are people trying to fill with transhumanism? by [deleted]

> experience more of existence.

Sometimes I think that experiencing more of existence at the top level is actually the opposite of experiencing existence more fully.

IDK. I'm hitting this weird phase in life where I feel like I'm ready to live for real. It's very hard to describe, and transhumanism just feels deep in my gut like some attempt to avoid both life and death, and live in a fantasy.

I just hope that this process is reversible for the transhumans' sake, because I suspect many of them (assuming this is a kind AI that honors peoples' free choices) will opt to live back in the real world without such connections.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j4f81nj wrote

People don't like the status quo. It's in our nature to want more of the things we like, and less of the things we dislike, and the status quo still has things many people don't like.

You can only see the genuine beauty of life and complexity of existence, and be in awe of it so long, before your cancer comes knocking and rips it away from you. Or your dementia makes you forget who you or your loved ones are. Your chronic fatigue and pain colors every day. Many people live their lives dissatisfied anyway, for many reasons, and die that way. I feel that transhumanism would be a net plus for these people.

People that chase money and things do it out of greed. Maybe anxiety of the future, and also social status. More, more, more. Is that meaningful? I would say it is to them, but maybe they may say they are never satisfied and I would believe them. It does hurt other people around them, so I oppose it on those grounds.

What is the real world? Hunter gatherer life? Caveman life? Primitive farmer? BC -2000? Medieval? Rennaisance? 1990s? People employ technology that solves many of their grievances very differently in each era, which could be seen as "cheating and avoiding reality" by people who live in earlier times.

10

[deleted] OP t1_j4fbmoa wrote

> I would believe them

I wouldn't.

> People employ technology that solves many of their grievances very differently in each era, which could be seen as "cheating and avoiding reality" by people who live in earlier times.

So, since drugs are a form of technology, would you then say that spending weeks on end strung out on heroin is living?

1

rixtil41 t1_j4ff0hq wrote

Would you rather be living now or be sent back to 1923?

4

[deleted] OP t1_j4ffbfa wrote

Maybe you'd like to live in 1982 if we had gone to nuclear war?

Not sure what your point is? People who are cautious about AI are Luddites, is that your point? So, Stephen Hawking was a Luddite?

1

rixtil41 t1_j4fgbuo wrote

My point is life was worse in the past. Things, in general, are better now than 100 years ago. There will always be risks when it comes to advancements but making things stay the same forever is not the solution.

5

[deleted] OP t1_j4g3xmp wrote

> Things, in general, are better now than 100 years ago.

There is no guarantee of this. It must be earned.

1

rixtil41 t1_j4hgli0 wrote

Not guaranteed but likely. Nothing in life in general is guaranteed things in general will likely be better in 2123. If your looking at "likely" in a negative view and it has to be perfect that's on you. You should be looking at the bigger picture and not have imperfection be the enemie of good. If you mean by earned that people should be going out of there own way for helping them selfs than yes. But if an opportunity arises so that they can help them selfs easier than it should not be invalid because it was made easier. If you still disagree that's fine but let's see if you still disagree in the year 2043. If it comes true, you will be in a world where everything in general is free, living in a simulation of your choice. If you still disagree if it comes ture then I'll be impressed but until then wait.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j4fhm2j wrote

Okay.

> I wouldn't.

You wouldn't believe if a person who constantly accrues wealth says they aren't satisfied, isn't satisfied? Odd.

> So, since drugs are a form of technology, would you then say that spending weeks on end strung out on heroin is living?

A very narrow form of living which also has extremely adverse, painful effects on the individual and others.

But I am sure you understand heroin is not the only form of technology, and not the way most people use it, and not what my focus is on. Are you here to have an honest discussion, or to be a bad faith contrarian?

3

[deleted] OP t1_j4g5h5f wrote

> You wouldn't believe if a person who constantly accrues wealth says they aren't satisfied, isn't satisfied? Odd.

Not by the constant wealth accumulation alone. These people usually have other people in their lives.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j4g5tpb wrote

> But I am sure you understand heroin is not the only form of technology, and not the way most people use it, and not what my focus is on. Are you here to have an honest discussion, or to be a bad faith contrarian?

The former.

My most common method of calling someone's idea into question is to simply create an idea that creates a contradiction with their own idea or logical form. This is actually an extremely effective reasoning method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's one of my favorites, but it is a pain in the ass to people I am discussing with, so sorry in advance!

I would point out that the contradiction doesn't make the idea instantly wholly wrong, but it usually just illustrates a sort of incompleteness and need for refinement. :)

1

[deleted] OP t1_j4g7hy8 wrote

I want to add in addition... my real goal is to get people to think more complexly and get out of their boxes, as boxes just damage reason in the first place.

1